Moberly Area Chamber of Commerce Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
430417365
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Moberly, MO, USA
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$333,434
Expenses
$322,786
Assets
$236,206
Liabilities
$143,591

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TIM SEIDEL (PRESIDENT)
  • SARAH GRAFF (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MEGAN SCHMITT (FORMER EX DIRSECRETARY): $56,941 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote, sustain, and grow the long-term viability of randolph county and the surrounding area.

What it reported doing in 2023

To promote, sustain, and grow the long-term viability of randolph county and the surrounding area. By 1) event promation 2) support and recongition of member sfrom a broad spectrum of commerce, industry and agricultural 3) providing business assistance and resource 4) carrying out public awareness campaigns to promote tourism 5) provide opportunities for member to member networking. The moberly area chamber of commerce shall promote planning, consensus building and action plans that instill community pride, offer an improved quality of life and seek enhancements that add to the desirability of living in the area. We will assume a leadership role when necessary or work as a partner with others in the role of catalyst, consensus building and actions to achieve the goals established by the membership.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.4%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 59.2%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.2%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.73; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.61; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.6%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.4% of revenue deployed · 59.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $191K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $57K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.