Massachusetts High Technology Council Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042626050
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Burlington, MA, USA
Phone
7817862662
Rating
38
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,729,675
Expenses
$1,973,552
Assets
$1,062,961
Liabilities
$665,166

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

35 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Christopher R Anderson (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Christopher R Anderson (President): $945,274 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Massachusetts High Technology Council, Inc. is an organization of CEOs andsenior executives representing technology companies, professional services firms, and research institutions who are dedicated to creating and sustaining conditionsthat support investment, job growth and improved quality of life in Massachusetts.Our members are growth-oriented, knowledge-intensive employers and institutionsthat develop, deliver, and depend on technology products, services, and innovationsto advance their organizational objectivesa definition which covers just about allbusiness enterprises in Massachusetts today.The Council advocates for the high technology economy in Massachusetts byproviding members with opportunities to connect with peers, and by facilitatingcooperative relationships and results-focused strategies among senior leaders fromindustry, finance, academia, and government.Our mission is simple: to help make Massachusetts the worlds most attractiveplace in which to live and work, and

What it reported doing in 2024

Since 1977, the Massachusetts High Technology Council, Inc. has developed an unmatched record of success by unifying CEO and senior executive decision makers to advance strategies that impact the most critical public policy decisions facing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, its job creators and its citizens. In June 2018, we celebrated another notableand historicleadership accomplishment which ranks in importance with several prior Council achievements, including: Enabling the passage of Proposition 2 (1980); drafting and securing the enactment of the states first R&D tax credit (1992); successfully leading a New England-wide collaboration to support the increasingly technology-oriented mission at Hanscom Air Force Base and the US Army Soldier Systems Center in Natick during the federal Base Realignment and Closure review at the request of Sen. Kennedy and Gov. Romney (2005); and engineering the repeal of the Legislatures expansion of the state sales tax to custom computer servicesthe so-called Tech Taxin 2013. On June 18, 2018 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) declared the proposed amendment to the State Constitution to establish a permanent $2 billion per year personal income surtax invalid and unconstitutional. Ours was the first challenge to a proposed citizens initiative to amend the Constitution since 1937.In 2020 - 2022 we created the Massachusetts COVID-19 Recovery and Return to the Workplace Framework, guiding policymakers and businesses through the pandemic.In 2023 we launched MassVision2050 , a multi-year collaboration among public, private, and academic leaders to Massachusetts global economic leadership.In 2024 we established the Mass Opportunity Alliance (MOA) , the states first crossorganizational, not-for-profit business entity to highlight the link between a strong business climate and quality of life for families.In 2025 we launched the MassVision Foundation , a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization established to support and amplify MassVision2050.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 most voting board members are independent. 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: 71
  • Accountability: 71
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 40

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -14.1%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.54; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.63; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 47.9%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.4% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 30 of 35 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $945K · 35 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.