Operating Engineers Labor Mgmt Co Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
550777238
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Charleston, WV, USA
Phone
3043437731
Rating
55
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Labor Unions

Reported finances

Revenue
$523,284
Expenses
$159,950
Assets
$3,441,674
Liabilities
$712

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Charles Parker (Co-Chairman): $225,103 total reported compensation
  • John Dean (Trustee): $193,944 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 trust is a joint effort between International Union of Operating Engineers Local #132 and the Contractors/Employers of the West Virginia Heavy/Highway Construction industry. The purpose of the trust is to improve economic competitiveness and management-labor relations.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Trust accomplishes its mission in a variety of ways: provides subsidies to participating contractors on identified projects; enhances communication among the parties representing both contractors and employees through meetings and conferences; and provides information on safety, training, and compliance with current regulations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 80% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. 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: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 47
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 24.8%; rating input score 25
  • Program expense ratio: 98.9%; rating input score 99
  • 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: 50%; rating input score 50; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 69.4%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 21.52; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 74.7%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 24.8% of revenue deployed · 98.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $158K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $225K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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 25/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.