Missouri Society of Professional Surveyors
Legal name: Missouri Society of Profession Surveyors
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 237097436
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Jefferson City, MO, USA
- Phone
- (573) 635-9446
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $319,304
- Expenses
- $299,643
- Assets
- $113,516
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Mark Wiley (President)
- Chris Ferguson (President Elec)
- Scott Faenger (Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- Sandra Boecman (Exec Director): $51,700 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The purpose of the Society is to represent the interests of and be a primary spokesman for the surveying profession in Missouri; to elevate the standards of the surveying profession in Missouri, thereby benefiting the general public; to insure that the general public and offices of records receive superior land surveying that brings about an upgrading of land records; to sponsor legislation and educational programs beneficial to the public and Surveyors; and to improve the professional recognition of the surveying profession by the public and by other related professions.
What it reported doing in 2025
LEGISLATIVE CONSULTANT is held on retainer to monitor and report back
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 68% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and some filed totals do not add up.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 68
- Transparency & Controls: 89
- Accountability: 74
- Sustainability: 40
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 74.7%; rating input score 75
- Program expense ratio: 79.6%; rating input score 80
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.2%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.38; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 17.3%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 74.7% of revenue deployed · 79.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $52K · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.