Sammamish Uniserv Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
910922134
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Bellevue, WA, USA
Phone
4254406161
Rating
43
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,964,287
Expenses
$1,622,805
Assets
$1,851,336
Liabilities
$626,969

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

Leadership & pay

28 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TANI LINDQUIST (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL RUIZ (UNISERV REPR): $301,032 total reported compensation
  • KATHLEEN BISHOP (UNISERV REPR): $287,926 total reported compensation
  • ELIZABETH PREMO (UNISERV REPR): $287,180 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Wea-sammamish uniserv council, a Washington nonprofit organization, was established to advance the interests of the profession of public education and to promote the cause of public education on behalf of its members. The national education association (nea) has, in cooperation with the state associations, established the uniserv program in order to provide improved services for its members. Its purpose is to represent members in bargaining for wages, hours, working conditions, maintaining contracts, and representing individuals in the grievance process. The uniserv program represents an additional, jointly funded organizational structure placed between the Washington education association (wea) and its affiliated local associations. Sammamish uniserv council maintains financial and operating autonomy from wea, except for transactions involving payroll, which are handled by wea.

What it reported doing in 2024

Advance the interests of the profession of public teaching and to promote the cause of public teaching on behalf of its members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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 - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 60
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 51
  • 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: 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 17.4%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.14; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.34; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 82.2%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.5% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $301K · 28 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.