Internatl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1205
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 590543498
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Gainesville, FL, USA
- Phone
- 3523767701
- Rating
- 32
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,414,666
- Expenses
- $1,366,390
- Assets
- $908,344
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JAMES INGLE (PRESIDENT /)
Highest reported compensation
- NELSON MATHIS JR (FI'L SECY /): $148,179 total reported compensation
- JAMES INGLE (PRESIDENT /): $136,362 total reported compensation
- RICHARD STARLING (EXECUTIVE BO): $136,362 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
International brotherhood of electrical workers local union 1205 seeks to organize all workers in the entire electrical industry in north central Florida. In doing so, local union 1205 hopes to promote reasonable methods of work, cultivate feelings of friendship among those in the industries, settle disputes between employers and employees, assist each other in sickness and distress, secure employment, reduce the hours of daily labor, secure adequate pay, seek a higher standard of living, seek security for our members, and, by legal and proper means, elevate the moral, intellectual and social conditions of our members.
What it reported doing in 2025
The organization facilitates electrical workers union involvement with employers in Florida. This program service benefits ibew as a whole, but it particularly benefits local ibew members by increasing the number of union employers available.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 72
- Accountability: 28
- Sustainability: 39
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 49%; rating input score 49; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 3.4%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.66; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 32.6%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $148K · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 12 of 14 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and related organizations
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
- People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 49/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.