Municipal Information Technology Association of California Dba Misac
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 261583867
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Sacramento, CA, USA
- Phone
- 9169322208
- Rating
- 50
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,225,068
- Expenses
- $2,033,451
- Assets
- $1,515,306
- Liabilities
- $43,630
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CHRIS SKELLY (President)
People named in this filing
- KATHLEEN BOUTTE FOSTER (VP CONF CHAIR)
- SCOTT SAWIN (Director)
- CHRIS SKELLY (President)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The municipal information systems association of California (misac) was founded in 1980 out of a need for collaboration and data sharing. The organization consists of three chapters: central, northern and southern, while also offering informational and formal sub-regional specialization. The chapters are managed by regional boards which gives them greater influence in their respective regions. Our membership includes IT professionals from cities, towns, public safety, special districts, and other local governmental agencies/districts. the misac state board of Directors manages the direction of the association as a whole via our state bylaws and four pillars. Our purposes are to:*further the understanding of beneficial impact of management information systems in municipal and special district organizations.*serve as an advisory body to the league of California cities and the government technology conference.*strive for increased utilization of management information systems.*seek the pe
What it reported doing in 2025
Conference - This annual event provides education information and networking opportunities to MISAC members throughout California. Our numerous workshops and seminars center on the education of Municipal IT professionals.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 91% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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 - 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: 90
- Accountability: 88
- Sustainability: 50
- 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- 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: 8.6%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.75; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 15.5% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $291K reported
- Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.