Oldtown Country Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042028288
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Newbury, MA, USA
Phone
9785186541
Rating
33
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Recreational l Clubs

Reported finances

Revenue
$361,231
Expenses
$328,110
Assets
$185,675
Liabilities
$-498

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL COLLINS (CO PRESIDENT)
  • MARK QUARENTIELLO (CO PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • MICHAEL COLLINS (CO PRESIDENT)
  • MARK QUARENTIELLO (CO PRESIDENT)
  • LISA PROCTOR (SECRETARY)

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

Oldtown country club was founded in 1903 by members of the dalton club of newburyport for the purposes of creating a summer recreational area on the banks of the parker river. Throughout the years, members have gathered together for social and recreational purposes including boating, swimming, dining, and tennis. Members serve on committees to work together for planning and implementation of social events for adults, families, and children. In addition, members serve on committees to maintain the physical structure of the club making it a working club as well as social. A dock is maintained on the parker river for members who are recreational boaters giving them access to their boats on moorings and at the town dock. Members and their guests then enjoy the parker river and plum island sound and surrounding areas. Recreational fishing is also popular among the members. A restaurant is maintained in the main clubhouse for members and their guests. Lunchs and dinners are served in an info

What it reported doing in 2025

All club programs and events are offered for the convenience, entertainment and recreation of the club members

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 revenue has grown recently. 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: 6
  • Sustainability: 42
  • 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; 64th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 9.2%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.57; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 14 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $328K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 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.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.