Tomah Area Historical Society Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391917878
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2018, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Tomah, WI, USA
Phone
6083721880
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts, Culture, and Humanities N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$290,735
Expenses
$85,633
Assets
$898,579
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KENNETH KUHN (PRESIDENT)
  • MICHAEL BERGUM (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • LEAH WATSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JIM WEINZATL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - PART YEAR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LEAH WATSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $19,169 total reported compensation
  • JIM WEINZATL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - PART YEAR): $8,335 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the tomah area historical society, inc. Is to collect and preserve the records of the tomah area's early years through objects, records of agriculture, early residents, military history, railroading, and the history of monroe county, Wisconsin. This includes the surrounding areas of tunnel city, mather, kirby, warrens, oakdale and other small townships nearby. It also may include a small part of juneau county to include camp douglas and the early years of volk field.

What it reported doing in 2025

To collect and preserve the records of tomah's early years through objects, records of agriculture, early residents, military history, railroading, and the history of monroe county, Wisconsin

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 36.5%; rating input score 37
  • Program expense ratio: 94.5%; rating input score 94
  • 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 70.5%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.49; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 32.1%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 36.5% of revenue deployed · 94.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $81K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $19K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 37/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.