Minnesota Society of Certified Public Accountants

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
410783480
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Bloomington, MN, USA
Phone
9528312707
Rating
43
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,935,019
Expenses
$5,665,252
Assets
$10,731,870
Liabilities
$3,640,019

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LINDA WEDUL (PRESIDENT AN)

Highest reported compensation

  • LINDA WEDUL (PRESIDENT AN): $281,560 total reported compensation
  • FAYE HAYHURST (DIR. OF FINA): $180,540 total reported compensation
  • GENO FRAGNITO (DIR. OF GOVE): $172,378 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 purpose of the society is to elevate members' impact by fostering integrity, professional growth, and connection, while advocating for the profession.

What it reported doing in 2024

Communication activities included the publication of the footnote, the mncpa's magazine for members, publication of electronic newsletters, development and maintenance of the mncpa's website, which delivers information to the general public as well as additional content and resources for members, training for members speaking on behalf of the cpa profession, and the distribution of profession-related press releases to various media outlets. Government relations activities promoted cpa involvement in and influence on the political process in the state of Minnesota and with Minnesota's congressional delegation in Washington. Professional standards activities included administration of a peer review program, and coordination of an ethics program to address complaints against members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 93% 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

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 65
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 20

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: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 4.5%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.89; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.34; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.6%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $282K · 23 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $576K reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 14 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.