Written by 
This report presents a comprehensive and politically neutral financial analysis of Marion CAN DO, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization established in 1993 with the mission of fostering economic vitality in Marion City and County, Ohio.[1] The examination of publicly available IRS Form 990 data for the period spanning 2018 to 2023 reveals a pattern of fluctuating revenues but consistent growth in net assets, indicating a degree of financial stewardship and the accumulation of reserves crucial for long-term stability.[1] Personnel costs, encompassing executive compensation and other salaries, represent a significant portion of both total revenue (17.55% to 31.18%) and total expenses (24.87% to 33.72%) over the period analyzed, which is characteristic of a service-based organization reliant on human capital.[1] The organization’s financial model heavily relies on revenue generated from its “Program Services,” reflecting its direct engagement in economic development initiatives.[1]
Marion City Council is set to vote on the continued funding of Marion CAN DO today, July 14, 2025, at 6:30 PM.
Despite the positive trend in net asset growth, several areas of concern regarding financial transparency and accountability have been identified. A notable discrepancy exists in executive compensation reporting, where the named Director’s compensation is significantly higher than the aggregated executive compensation figure reported in Form 990 summaries.[1, 2] Furthermore, the consistent negative “Net Rental Income” warrants scrutiny, as it indicates that expenses associated with rental properties outweigh the income generated from them.[1, 2] The heavy reliance on “Program Services” for revenue, ranging from 65.2% to 88.2% of total income, presents a potential vulnerability if funding for these specific programs becomes inconsistent.[1, 2]
Significant concerns have been voiced by citizens and officials regarding a pervasive lack of historical financial documents prior to 2018, and the unreceived data promised by former Executive Director Gus Comstock.[1, 2] Specific messages from Marion Ohio City Councilors highlight a perceived absence of transparency, financial figures that “didn’t add up,” and a lack of accountability, leading to a strong desire for economic development functions to be brought directly under city or county control. Frustration also stems from the lack of itemized expense details in publicly available tax returns.
From a compliance perspective, while general itemization of every expense is not typically mandated on the core IRS Form 990, specific schedules (e.g., Schedule G for fundraising, Schedule L for interested person transactions, Schedule J for compensation) require detailed breakdowns if certain thresholds or conditions are met.[3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] The identified discrepancy in executive compensation is a key area where transparency concerns may intersect with reporting policy requirements.[1] The applicability of the Ohio Public Records Act to Marion CAN DO depends on its functional relationship with public offices, which, if established, could mandate greater disclosure.[11, 12]
Key recommendations for Marion CAN DO include proactively addressing historical data gaps, enhancing the detail and clarity of financial disclosures, particularly for executive compensation and asset utilization, and strategically diversifying revenue streams. For city officials and stakeholders, recommendations involve formalizing funding agreements with clear performance metrics and exploring the applicability of public records laws to foster greater accountability and public trust.
Introduction: Marion CAN DO’s Role and Context
Marion CAN DO’s Establishment, Mission, and 501(c)(3) Status
Marion CAN DO, officially known as the Greater Marion Community Area New Development-Can Do, was established in 1993 by a collective of local citizens with the explicit goal of rejuvenating the area’s economy.[1] Operating as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, its core mission is centered on “promoting the growth and expansion of jobs and and delivering community benefits through various economic development programs” within Marion City and County, Ohio.[1] This designation as a 501(c)(3) carries significant implications for its operational framework, mandating a focus on transparency and accountability to its stakeholders rather than on generating profit in a conventional business sense. The organization’s financial success, therefore, should be evaluated not merely by revenue growth or net asset accumulation, but by its capacity to effectively fund and implement programs that achieve these community-centric objectives.[1]
Its Stated Impact on Marion City and County Economic Development
According to an external investigative report, Marion CAN DO has been a central force in Marion’s economic revitalization. The organization is credited with attracting over $500 million in business investments and facilitating the creation of more than 700 higher-paying jobs since 2015.[2] These efforts have reportedly earned Marion national recognition as a Top 100 Micropolitan for Project Development, with significant investments spanning manufacturing, healthcare (e.g., OhioHealth expansion), and logistics, including the Marion Industrial Rail Park, which is noted as the largest independent intermodal rail facility in the country.[2]
Beyond direct investment attraction, Marion CAN DO’s strategy includes branding Marion as “America’s Workforce Development Capital™,” supported by an “education corridor” involving local colleges and career centers that collaborate to provide tailored training.[2] The organization and its partners are also cited for improving community life through downtown revitalization, securing grants for housing rehabilitation and infrastructure improvements, and contributing to expansions in addiction and mental health services.[2] Other social impacts include millions in grants and scholarships from the Marion Community Foundation and programs addressing food insecurity and homelessness funded by United Way.[2]
Purpose and Scope of This Investigative Report
The purpose of this investigative report is to provide an in-depth, politically neutral analysis of Marion CAN DO’s financial trajectory, specifically addressing concerns about transparency, accountability, and compliance with non-profit regulations. It integrates financial data, findings from an external investigative report, and direct statements from citizens and officials to offer a comprehensive view of the organization’s standing. The report aims to offer actionable recommendations for improved governance and public trust.
A notable observation arising from the analysis is the significant disparity between Marion CAN DO’s reported achievements and the public and official dissatisfaction expressed. The external report details substantial economic achievements attributed to CAN DO, such as hundreds of millions in investments and jobs created.[2] However, city councilors and citizens convey deep disappointment, stating that CAN DO “did not yield the result Marion needed and hoped for” and that the “last 15 years have been disheartening.” This suggests that while the organization may be achieving quantitative metrics, these accomplishments are either not translating into tangible, widely perceived community benefits, or there is a failure in effectively communicating these successes to the public. This gap between reported outputs and perceived outcomes could be a fundamental cause of the funding disputes and calls for direct city or county control over economic development, as stakeholders may not perceive a sufficient return on investment or alignment with their vision for the community’s economic future.
Public and Official Concerns: A Crisis of Confidence
Lack of Historical Financial Documents
Elaboration on the Documented Data Gap Prior to 2018
The provided financial analysis explicitly states a significant limitation: a “detailed year-by-year quantitative financial analysis, based on publicly available IRS Form 990 data, is primarily feasible for the period spanning 2018 to 2023”.[1] It further clarifies that “earlier financial records for the organization were not accessible within the provided research materials,” which restricts the depth of a quantitative historical review prior to 2018.[1] This data gap means that a full historical financial breakdown from Marion CAN DO’s founding in 1993 to the present day cannot be achieved with the current research materials.[1] Many officials also stated that they have repeatedly asked for this data, but it was not supplied.
Integration of Strong Opinions Voiced by Citizens and Officials
The absence of comprehensive historical financial data is a major point of contention among stakeholders. Councilor Twila Laing articulated this frustration, stating, “I had these concerns last year after my investigation before voting. I could not get any satisfactory answers. Why I voted NO to fund them. I told them they had a year to change my mind. My gut instincts were correct. In my opinion, there was and still is no transparency. Financials didn’t add up for me. The fact that there seemed to be no accountability and no one was holding anyone responsible.” Her powerful statement, “The last 15 years have been disheartening,” strongly implies a long-standing issue with transparency and accountability, dating back well before 2018 and the available financial data. An anonymous source further expressed frustration, noting, “That is so frustrating! These look like their tax returns mostly and do not show the details of their expenses.”
The pervasive concern about the lack of historical financial documents (pre-2018) and the long-standing “disheartening” sentiment indicates a deep-seated, generational erosion of public trust. This suggests that the current financial transparency issues are not isolated but rather symptoms of a systemic, historical problem within Marion CAN DO’s governance and reporting. This historical opacity makes it impossible for current stakeholders to fully understand past performance, financial decisions, and the long-term impact of the organization, thereby deepening the crisis of confidence and making it significantly harder to rebuild trust in the present.
Unfulfilled Promises from Former Executive Director
Specific Instances of Unreceived Financial Data Promised by Gus Comstock
Several Marion City Councilors have indicated that they were promised specific financial data from former Executive Director Gus Comstock but never received it. This failure to deliver information became a critical point of contention. The external report corroborates this, stating that Gus Comstock resigned amidst a “prolonged funding dispute with the Marion City Council,” with the council explicitly citing “questions regarding the organization’s transparency and efforts towards concrete economic development”.
Context of His Resignation and its Link to Transparency Issues
Comstock’s departure was not a mere change in leadership; it was a prerequisite for the City Council to even reconsider funding Marion CAN DO. This indicates the severity of the council’s concerns regarding the organization’s transparency under his leadership. Councilor Aaron Rollins specifically highlighted CAN DO’s “historical lack of self sufficiency” and, critically, its “failure to disclose expiring leases that would jeopardize funding”.[2] An anonymous financial professional further underscored this, calling “the leases… who knew when they expire… this is the scandal” and raising concerns about “approving a contract to Bodine.”
The unfulfilled promises and specific non-disclosures (e.g., expiring leases, the Bodine contract) under Gus Comstock’s leadership point to a failure of fiduciary duty and potentially a deliberate withholding of critical financial information. Expiring leases represent significant financial liabilities or operational risks, such as the potential loss of facilities or unexpected costs. Withholding such vital information from a funding body, especially one providing public funds, directly indicates a breakdown in trust and potentially a breach of the transparency expected of a non-profit receiving public support. This situation directly contributed to the loss of council confidence and his eventual resignation, suggesting a deliberate act rather than mere oversight.
Unethical Contracting and Conflicts of Interest
A significant concern raised by Councilor Jason Schaber pertains to a contract awarded “through CANDO” to Service Director Mike Bodine, which he cited as a “perfect example of what happens when oversight is lacking.” Councilor Schaber stated that he personally sent CAN DO a formal opinion from the Ohio Ethics Commission, which “clearly states these types of dual-role arrangements raise serious ethical concerns.” He emphasized that allowing such a contract to proceed despite being flagged as unethical “undermines public confidence in both the organization and the officials involved.”
The Ohio Ethics Law addresses such dual-role arrangements and potential conflicts of interest extensively. While merely having a conflict of interest is not illegal, the law strictly prohibits public officials from participating in any way in actions or decisions that “definitely and directly involve their own interests, or those of their family members or business associates”. This includes abstaining from voting, discussing, reviewing, recommending, inspecting, or investigating such matters. Furthermore, a person cannot serve two agencies if there is a public contract between them and the person would have a financial or fiduciary interest in that contract. The Ohio Ethics Commission provides advisory opinions on these matters to guide public officials.
Specifically, the Ohio Ethics Law prohibits a public official from being hired by an agency they lead while serving on its governing board, or even seeking employment with that agency until they resign from their public position. While Mike Bodine serves as the Director of Public Service for Marion City , if Marion CAN DO, a recipient of city funding, awarded a contract to him directly or to an entity in which he had a direct interest, this would constitute a dual-role arrangement that raises significant ethical concerns under Ohio law. The core principle is to prevent public officials from using their position or influence to secure personal benefits or engage in transactions that create a conflict between their public duty and private interests. The fact that an ethics opinion was reportedly provided and the contract still proceeded indicates a potential disregard for ethical guidelines, further eroding public trust in the integrity of both Marion CAN DO’s operations and the oversight mechanisms in place.
Marion Ohio City Councilors’ Perspectives
The concerns voiced by Marion Ohio City Councilors are central to understanding the current crisis of confidence surrounding Marion CAN DO. Their direct messages highlight specific areas of dissatisfaction:
Councilor Twila Laing:
- “I had these concerns last year after my investigation before voting. I could not get any satisfactory answers. Why I voted NO to fund them. I told them they had a year to change my mind. My gut instincts were correct.”
- “In my opinion, there was and still is no transparency. Financials didn’t add up for me. The fact that there seemed to be no accountability and no one was holding anyone responsible.”
- “Marion needs to see economic growth. I would rather invest the money in a city-county funded employee held accountable by the Mayor and Commissioners with Council oversight. Developing a 2, 5, and 10-year plan.”
- “The last 15 years have been disheartening,” underscores a deep and prolonged dissatisfaction with the organization’s performance and transparency.
Councilor Ayers Ratliff: - “I think you can do! was a good conception but did not yield the result Marion needed and hoped for. I think it is time to try a different strategy. I have attempted to do my best to make this pitch throughout this year, both to counsel and administration. So far, council has not funded Can do! So I have to believe that there are council members that agree with my position. I also believe there is a strong chance that the administration agrees with the position and is open to making changes and bringing in economic development umbrella under the city and county control. The city and county government is responsible to the people and economic development should be as well. I hope Monday’s meeting yields vision and action that is much needed in Marion.”
Councilor Thaddaeus Smith [2]: - Expressed concerns about a non-profit spending “80% of their budget on payroll” as “wasteful.”
Councilor Aaron Rollins [2]: - Highlighted Marion CAN DO’s “historical lack of self sufficiency” and, critically, its “failure to disclose expiring leases that would jeopardize funding.”
Councilor Jason Schaber: - Emphasized that Marion CAN DO was originally created to “keep elected officials from ‘selling the farm’ to politically connected interests and to serve as a safeguard against government corruption.” He asserted that it was “never intended to be a government entity—it exists outside of government for good reason,” and is funded by the city and county to operate “independently, free from political manipulation, and focused on long-term economic development for the benefit of the whole community.”
- Despite this independence, he stressed that “transparency and accountability are non-negotiable” when public dollars are involved. He criticized a “disturbing lack of engagement” from city representatives on the CAN DO board over his 15 years on City Council, noting that they have “rarely, if ever, questioned leadership or performance,” which he views as a “disservice to the people we’re elected to represent.”
- Regarding the Mike Bodine contract, he cited it as a “perfect example of what happens when oversight is lacking,” and confirmed sending CAN DO a formal opinion from the Ohio Ethics Commission stating that “these types of dual-role arrangements raise serious ethical concerns.” He concluded that allowing such a flagged arrangement to proceed “undermines public confidence in both the organization and the officials involved.”
- Councilor Schaber explicitly stated his opposition to creating a “government-held job that mimics CANDO’s role,” arguing that “embedding economic development directly into city/county government, where a political appointee holds the same responsibilities, opens the door to full-blown corruption and conflicts of interest—the very things CANDO was created to prevent. That would be a step backward, not forward.”
- He called for a return to CAN DO’s original mission, operating “independently but responsibly, free from political influence, with real public accountability,” starting with “engaged board members, transparent reporting, ethical practices, and a commitment to results—not just process.”
The consistent call from multiple councilors for economic development to be brought “under the city and county control” signifies a fundamental shift in political will and a loss of faith in the independent non-profit model for economic development in Marion. This is driven by the perceived lack of transparency and accountability. This desire for structural change suggests that the issues of transparency and accountability are so severe that they have led to a conclusion that the current model is unsustainable or untrustworthy, regardless of Marion CAN DO’s stated achievements. This push for direct control is a direct consequence of the “crisis of confidence” and the unfulfilled promises. Councilor Schaber’s perspective, while agreeing on the need for accountability, offers a counter-argument to direct government control, emphasizing CAN DO’s original purpose as a safeguard against political corruption, highlighting the complexity of the debate.
Broader Context of Challenges
The challenges facing Marion CAN DO are exacerbated by broader socio-economic and governance issues within Marion City and County. An external report indicates a significant “public awareness disconnect,” with over 100 citizens surveyed unaware of Marion CAN DO!’s purpose, suggesting a gap between the organization’s efforts and public understanding.[2]
Furthermore, Marion continues to grapple with persistent socio-economic challenges, including a slight population decline (from 65,366 in 2022 to 64,976 in 2024) and persistent poverty rates (over 15% since 2019).[2] The opioid crisis remains an ongoing issue, with overdose rates exceeding state averages and a significant spike in fentanyl-related deaths.[2] More than 70 percent of recent statistical data monitored by the investigative team has shown negative trends for the city.[2]
These broader socio-economic challenges and existing municipal governance issues, such as controversies involving the Marion City Auditor’s office (including IRS fines and alleged misfeasance potentially costing taxpayers over $500,000) [2], create a fertile ground for public distrust and heightened scrutiny of any entity receiving public funds. In such an environment, public patience for perceived inefficiencies or lack of transparency from publicly-supported entities like Marion CAN DO is exceptionally low. The public awareness disconnect regarding Marion CAN DO’s purpose, despite its reported achievements, further exacerbates this. Consequently, even minor transparency issues can be magnified into a “crisis of confidence,” as citizens and officials are already predisposed to skepticism regarding the effective use of resources. Councilor Schaber’s call for Marion’s future to be guided by “integrity—not politics” underscores the deep-seated desire among officials to restore public trust amidst these complex challenges.
Financial Trajectory Analysis (2018-2023)
Overall Financial Performance
An examination of Marion CAN DO’s financial performance from 2018 to 2023, based on publicly available IRS Form 990 data, reveals distinct trends in its revenue, expenditures, and net assets. This period provides the most consistent and detailed public financial data for the organization.[1]
Revenue Trends (2018-2023)
Total revenues for Marion CAN DO have exhibited notable fluctuations over the analyzed period. The organization recorded its highest revenue in 2021, reaching $427,000, before experiencing a decline to $329,000 in 2023.[1] A significant dip in revenue was observed in 2020, falling to $203,859.[1] This variability in total revenue, particularly the sharp decline in 2020 and subsequent rebound, suggests that Marion CAN DO’s financial health can be sensitive to external factors, such as the broader economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic which affected city government operations and likely extended to the organization’s funding streams.[1] This revenue volatility highlights a potential need for strategic planning to diversify funding or stabilize program-specific income.[1]
The primary source of revenue for Marion CAN DO consistently stems from “Program Services,” accounting for the vast majority of the organization’s income, ranging from 65.2% in 2022 to 88.2% in 2021.[1] This strong reliance indicates that Marion CAN DO primarily generates income directly through its core economic development activities and programs.[1] Contributions represent another revenue stream, but they vary significantly year-to-year, ranging from a low of 4.4% in 2021 to a high of 30.6% in 2022, suggesting that donations are a less predictable funding source compared to program services.[1] Investment income remains minimal and fluctuating.[1]
Furthermore, “Net Rental Income” has been consistently negative, indicating that expenses associated with any rental properties outweigh the income generated from them. For example, this figure was -$15,722 in 2023 and -$7,195 in 2022.[1] This consistent negative return on rental properties is an operational detail that warrants attention.[1]
Expenditure Patterns (2018-2023)
Total expenses for Marion CAN DO generally follow the trends observed in its revenues. Expenditures were lowest in 2020 at $213,853 and peaked in 2022 at $359,648.[1] This co-movement suggests that the organization adjusts its spending in response to its income levels, which is a common practice for non-profits aiming to maintain financial stability.[1]
Net Asset Evolution (2018-2023)
Despite the fluctuations in annual revenue and expenses, Marion CAN DO has demonstrated consistent growth in its net assets over the period, increasing from $385,904 in 2018 to $613,000 in 2023.[1, 2] This upward trajectory indicates that the organization has generally operated with a surplus, successfully accumulating resources over time.[1] This accumulation of reserves is a positive indicator of financial health, providing a buffer against future uncertainties and supporting long-term strategic initiatives.[1]
The consistent growth in net assets despite revenue volatility suggests a conservative financial management approach focused on accumulating reserves. While building and maintaining reserves is vital for a non-profit’s long-term sustainability, particularly when facing unexpected challenges, significant growth in reserves alongside public dissatisfaction about the perceived lack of impact or transparency could indicate a misalignment between the organization’s financial strategy and broader community expectations. If funds are being accumulated rather than being fully deployed into programs that directly address community needs, it could contribute to the perception that the organization is not “yielding the result Marion needed” or that “financials didn’t add up” in terms of tangible community benefit. This situation could also explain the “disheartening” sentiment expressed by a city councilor if resources are not visibly translating into desired economic growth.
Table 1: Marion CAN DO Annual Financial Summary (2018-2023)
| Fiscal Year End (Dec) | Total Revenue | Total Expenses | Net Assets (End of Year) |
| 2023 | $329,000 | $321,000 | $613,000 |
| 2022 | $413,027 | $359,648 | $604,292 |
| 2021 | $427,000 | $301,363 | $551,191 |
| 2020 | $203,859 | $213,853 | $426,024 |
| 2019 | $264,335 | $211,367 | $439,119 |
| 2018 | $222,177 | $222,058 | $385,904 |
| Source: IRS |
Detailed Expense Analysis: Personnel Costs
A closer examination of Marion CAN DO’s expenditures reveals how resources are allocated, with particular attention to personnel costs, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of overall financial activity.[1]
Breakdown of Executive Compensation and Other Salaries and Wages
Combined, “Executive Compensation” and “Other Salaries and Wages” represent a substantial portion of Marion CAN DO’s total expenses, typically ranging from 24.87% to 33.72% annually over the analyzed period.[1] This allocation is characteristic of service-based organizations that rely heavily on human capital to deliver their programs, such as economic development, community outreach, and administrative functions.[1] “Executive Compensation,” as summarized in the Form 990 data, has shown fluctuations, peaking at $4,747 in 2018 and declining to $1,725 in 2020 before rising to $4,155 in 2023.[1] In contrast, “Other Salaries and Wages” demonstrate a general upward trend, increasing from $61,144 in 2020 to $85,530 in 2023.[1] This upward movement suggests either an increase in general staff payroll or an rise in average wages over time, indicating an investment in the organization’s workforce capacity.[1]
Personnel Costs as a Percentage of Total Revenue and Expenses
When viewed as a percentage of total revenue, personnel compensation has fluctuated, ranging from a low of 17.55% in 2021 to a high of 31.18% in 2018.[1] The highest percentage of revenue allocated to personnel occurred in 2020 (30.84%), a year when total revenue saw a significant dip, indicating that personnel costs remained relatively stable even as income decreased, thus consuming a larger share of the reduced revenue.[1]
Analysis of Concerns Regarding Payroll Percentage
Councilor Thaddaeus Smith expressed concern about a non-profit spending “80% of their budget on payroll” as “wasteful”.[2] However, the financial data presented in Table 2 directly contradicts this statement. The actual range of personnel costs as a percentage of total expenses for Marion CAN DO from 2018 to 2023 was between 24.87% and 33.72%.[1] This significant discrepancy between the stated concern and the reported financial figures suggests a potential misunderstanding or misinformation among some officials regarding CAN DO’s financial structure. Such a factual divergence can contribute to a broader crisis of confidence, as it indicates a disconnect between public perception, official statements, and the organization’s actual financial reporting. Addressing such factual inaccuracies is crucial for fostering informed public discourse and rebuilding trust.
Table 2: Marion CAN DO Annual Personnel Compensation and Proportions (2018-2023)
| Fiscal Year End (Dec) | Executive Compensation | Other Salaries and Wages | Total Personnel Compensation | % of Total Revenue | % of Total Expenses |
| 2023 | $4,155 | $85,530 | $89,685 | 27.26% | 27.94% |
| 2022 | $3,255 | $87,533 | $90,788 | 21.98% | 25.24% |
| 2021 | $2,235 | $72,713 | $74,948 | 17.55% | 24.87% |
| 2020 | $1,725 | $61,144 | $62,869 | 30.84% | 29.40% |
| 2019 | $3,667 | $67,613 | $71,280 | 26.97% | 33.72% |
| 2018 | $4,747 | $64,520 | $69,267 | 31.18% | 31.20% |
| Source: IRS |
Other Key Financial Observations
Persistent Negative Net Rental Income
The consistently negative “Net Rental Income” figures, such as -$15,722 in 2023 and -$7,195 in 2022 [1], are a notable aspect of Marion CAN DO’s financial operations. This indicates that the expenses associated with any real estate assets held by the organization consistently outweigh the income generated from them.[1] The external report also identifies this as a “Financial Sustainability Concern”.[2]
This persistent negative net rental income points to either underperforming assets or a strategic non-financial use of these properties. For a non-profit, a negative return on an asset like rental property is not inherently problematic if the property serves a mission-aligned purpose, such as providing affordable housing, supporting business incubators, or housing administrative offices where the cost is absorbed for a greater community benefit.[1] However, without further itemization or explanation of the purpose of these properties, this appears as a financial drain. This lack of clarity contributes to the overall transparency concerns, as stakeholders cannot discern if this is an intentional, mission-driven subsidy or an operational inefficiency. The anonymous financial professional’s concern about “the leases… who knew when they expire… this is the scandal” and “approving a contract to Bodine” directly links to this, implying undisclosed liabilities or poor management of these assets.
Revenue Concentration
Marion CAN DO exhibits a significant reliance on “Program Services” as its primary revenue source, accounting for 65.2% to 88.2% of its total revenue.[1] While this concentration signifies strong alignment with its mission and the successful execution of its primary activities, it also presents a potential vulnerability.[1, 2]
The high reliance on “Program Services” revenue suggests that Marion CAN DO’s financial health is highly susceptible to external grant cycles or project-specific funding. This concentration could limit the organization’s long-term strategic planning and contribute to the observed revenue volatility.[1] Unlike more diverse funding streams (e.g., broad public donations, endowments, varied grants), a heavy reliance on a single category, even if broad, means that if one or two major “program service” funders or projects cease, the organization faces significant financial instability. This makes it more challenging to plan for long-term initiatives and could lead to perceived interruptions or funding crises, impacting the ability to consistently deliver on its mission.
Financial Transparency and Compliance: Legal and Policy Review
Missing Itemized Expenses
Analysis of the Concern
Citizens and officials have expressed frustration that publicly available financial documents, likely IRS Form 990s, “do not show the details of their expenses.” An anonymous financial professional noted that “the staff are doing with their time, the performance and the amount of time spent on programs (vs administrative costs) could be issues” and that the board’s lack of attention to performance metrics is a concern. This indicates a desire for more granular financial data than currently provided.
IRS Form 990 Requirements
IRS Form 990, the annual information return for most federally tax-exempt organizations, requires organizations to report expenses by functional categories: Program Services, Management and General, and Fundraising, in Part IX.[8, 9] While Part IX lists various expense types such as grants, employee benefits, payroll taxes, travel, and occupancy, it does not typically require a full, line-by-line itemization of every single transaction or vendor payment in the main form.[9, 10, 13]
However, specific schedules accompanying Form 990 demand more detailed information for certain activities:
- Schedule G (Fundraising and Gaming): This schedule requires detailed reporting of revenue, expenses, and net income for fundraising events with gross receipts over $5,000. This includes direct expenses such as prizes, rent, entertainment, food, and other direct costs.
- Schedule L (Transactions with Interested Persons): This schedule discloses loans, grants, and business transactions with “disqualified persons” or “interested persons,” which can include officers, directors, key employees, substantial contributors, or their family members or controlled entities. Itemization is required if payments exceed certain thresholds, specifically $10,000 or 1% of revenue for a single transaction, or $100,000 total for all payments. The anonymous financial professional’s concern about “the leases… who knew when they expire… this is the scandal” and “approving a contract to Bodine” suggests potential transactions that would fall under Schedule L’s reporting requirements.
- Schedule J (Compensation Information): This schedule provides a detailed breakdown of compensation, including base compensation, deferred compensation, and non-taxable benefits, for officers, directors, key employees, and highly compensated staff.[7, 1] This information is publicly accessible.[8, 13]
Ohio State Non-Profit Reporting Requirements
Charities operating in Ohio are required to register and submit annual reports with the Ohio Attorney General’s Office. These filings are public and contribute to accountability and transparency within the charitable sector. Annual reports are due on the 15th day of the fifth month following the close of a fiscal year, aligning with IRS deadlines. Organizations must provide foundational documents such as articles of incorporation, bylaws, and their IRS determination letter of exempt status. Any amendments to these creating documents, changes in address, officers, or amendments to IRS Form 990s must also be shared with the Attorney General’s office.
Additionally, Ohio law mandates post-employment disclosure (PED) for certain state officials and employees, which includes itemized expenditure reporting if they receive income from “Qualifying Sources,” such as lobbyists.[16, 19] While this may not directly apply to Marion CAN DO’s general expenses, it could be relevant if Marion CAN DO engages in activities that would classify it as a “Qualifying Source” or if former state officials are involved in specific transactions with the organization.
Conclusion on Whether the Reported Level of Itemization Constitutes a Breach of Law or Policy
Based on general IRS Form 990 requirements, the absence of a fully itemized ledger for all expenses is not inherently a breach of federal law or policy, as the form primarily focuses on functional expense categories. However, if Marion CAN DO engaged in activities that trigger the detailed reporting requirements of Schedule G (fundraising events), Schedule L (transactions with interested persons, such as the “leases” or “Bodine” contract mentioned), or Schedule J (executive compensation), and failed to file these schedules or provide the required itemization within them, this would constitute a breach of IRS reporting policy.
The perception of “missing itemized expenses” is not necessarily a legal breach for all expenses, but rather a transparency deficit that could indicate a failure to adequately complete specific required schedules (G, L, J) or a general lack of internal detailed record-keeping that would allow for such disclosures if requested. The frustration expressed by officials suggests a desire for transparency that extends beyond the minimum requirements of the summary Form 990, highlighting a gap between public expectation and current disclosure practices. This situation underscores that while the organization might meet the basic requirements of the main Form 990, it may not be providing the specific transactional details that stakeholders, particularly those with a financial background, deem necessary for full accountability.
Executive Compensation Disclosure
Examination of the Discrepancy
The provided financial document highlights a significant discrepancy in executive compensation.[1] “Executive Compensation” reported in the Form 990 summaries for Marion CAN DO ranges from $1,725 to $4,747 between 2018 and 2023.[1] In stark contrast, the specific compensation reported for Gus Comstock, the former Executive Director, was $91,789 as of October 3, 2023.[1, 2] This means the named individual’s compensation is over 20 times higher than the aggregated executive compensation figure presented in the summary tables. This difference indicates a potential nuance in how compensation is categorized and reported on publicly available Form 990 summaries, or it could signal a more significant issue with disclosure.[1]
Review of IRS (Schedule J) and Ohio Regulations on Executive Compensation Transparency and Reasonableness
IRS Form 990, specifically Schedule J, requires detailed compensation information for officers, directors, key employees, and highly compensated staff. This includes a breakdown of base compensation, retirement and other deferred compensation, and non-taxable benefits.[7, 1] This information, once filed, becomes publicly accessible.[8, 13, 24]
Non-profit organizations are mandated to ensure that executive compensation is “reasonable” for the services performed, a standard assessed through the “rebuttable presumption test”. To establish this reasonableness, a Compensation Committee, typically appointed by the board and free from close relationships with the compensated individual, should conduct market surveys of comparable positions in similar organizations, considering factors such as programs, location, employee numbers, and gross revenue. Crucially, this committee must document its data, analysis, and recommendations, and the full board must vote to approve the compensation package with transparency, with the process recorded in meeting minutes. Ohio law also requires employers to provide itemized deductions on pay stubs , which applies to all employees, including executives, ensuring transparency in their individual pay.
Implications for Accountability and Public Trust
The significant discrepancy in executive compensation figures is a major red flag for financial transparency and accountability. It suggests either miscategorization, incomplete reporting on the summary Form 990, or a lack of clarity in how total compensation is calculated and disclosed.[1] Such a large difference can severely erode public trust and lead to accusations of “excess benefit transactions” , where a disqualified person receives an economic benefit exceeding the value of services provided. The anonymous financial professional’s general concern about “continuing to give raises often in a deficit” and the board’s role in “evaluating the director” directly relates to this, highlighting potential governance failures in compensation oversight.
This executive compensation discrepancy is not merely a reporting error; it represents a fundamental breakdown in financial transparency and potentially a violation of IRS “reasonableness” standards. The magnitude of the difference (over 20 times) is too large to be a simple oversight. It suggests either that the Form 990 summary data provided is highly incomplete, or that the full compensation was not appropriately categorized or disclosed on the detailed schedules, such as Schedule J. This directly undermines the “rebuttable presumption” of reasonableness, as the process for determining and documenting reasonable compensation appears to be either absent or not transparently reported. This issue is a direct cause of public and official distrust and fuels the narrative of a lack of accountability.
Public Access to Records
Applicability of the Ohio Public Records Act (ORC 149.43) to Marion CAN DO
The Ohio Public Records Act (Revised Code 149.43) grants “any person” access to government records. A “public record” is defined as any record “kept by” a “public office” that “document[s] the activities of the office”. The question “Have you done a public records request for their finances yet?” suggests this is a perceived pathway to obtain more detailed financial information.
Discussion of “Quasi-Agent” or “Functional Equivalent” Status
The Act may apply if a public office hires a private entity to perform a function that the public office would normally undertake, deeming the private entity a “quasi-agent”. Alternatively, a private entity can be considered the “functional equivalent” of a public office if its sole function is to perform a traditionally governmental function.
Marion CAN DO’s core mission involves “promoting economic growth and expansion of jobs and community benefits” [1] through “public-private partnerships”.[2] Economic development is frequently a function undertaken by municipal or county governments. If Marion CAN DO receives significant public funding (e.g., from the city or county) or performs functions that are traditionally governmental, such as land acquisition for public use or infrastructure development using public funds, it could potentially fall under the “quasi-agent” or “functional equivalent” doctrines. The external report notes that funding for Marion CAN DO was “on hold for months as the Marion City Council has had questions regarding the organization’s transparency and efforts towards concrete economic development”. This indicates a direct relationship and reliance on public funds, strengthening the argument for its records potentially being subject to public records requests.
The potential applicability of the Ohio Public Records Act to Marion CAN DO represents a legal leverage point for citizens and officials to demand greater financial transparency. This could potentially force the disclosure of more itemized financial details beyond standard Form 990 summaries. Given the public and councilors’ frustration with the lack of detailed financial information, and the direct suggestion of a public records request, this legal avenue could be key to unlocking the “missing itemized expenses” that are causing public concern. If CAN DO is deemed subject to the Act, it would compel a level of financial disclosure beyond what is typically provided on Form 990 summaries, potentially setting a precedent for other public-private partnerships in Marion and fostering a broader culture of accountability.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Summary of Key Findings Regarding Financial Health, Transparency, and Public Trust
Marion CAN DO demonstrates a stable financial position over the 2018-2023 period, characterized by consistent growth in net assets, indicating a strong financial foundation.[1] However, this stability is accompanied by a heavy reliance on “Program Services” revenue, which creates a potential vulnerability to fluctuations in funding for specific initiatives.[1, 2]
Significant transparency concerns persist, particularly regarding the pervasive lack of historical financial data prior to 2018 [1], a substantial discrepancy in executive compensation reporting [1], and the general absence of detailed itemized expenses in publicly available documents. The unfulfilled promises of financial data from former Executive Director Gus Comstock and specific undisclosed liabilities, such as expiring leases, have severely eroded public and official trust.[2] This erosion of confidence is evident in the Marion City Councilors’ advocacy for a shift towards direct city or county control of economic development, reflecting a fundamental loss of faith in Marion CAN DO’s current operating model. Councilor Jason Schaber’s perspective adds nuance, highlighting CAN DO’s original purpose as a bulwark against political corruption and emphasizing the need for independent, yet accountable, operation.
While general itemization of all expenses is not mandated on the primary IRS Form 990, the failure to adequately complete specific schedules (G, J, L) where detailed reporting is required could constitute a breach of IRS reporting policy. Furthermore, the Ohio Public Records Act may apply to Marion CAN DO’s records, potentially providing a legal avenue for greater disclosure.[11, 12] The ethical concerns raised by Councilor Schaber regarding the Mike Bodine contract, supported by an Ohio Ethics Commission opinion, underscore the critical importance of strict adherence to conflict of interest policies for public officials and entities receiving public funds.[20, 21]
Recommendations for Marion CAN DO
To address the identified concerns and enhance its long-term stability and impact, Marion CAN DO should consider the following strategic areas:
Strategies for Addressing Historical Data Gaps and Improving Record-Keeping
Marion CAN DO should proactively seek out and digitize all available historical financial records, including older IRS Form 990s, internal ledgers, and audit reports, dating back to its founding in 1993. These records should be made publicly accessible where legally permissible. Concurrently, the organization must implement robust, modern record-keeping systems to ensure comprehensive and easily retrievable financial data for all future periods. Proactive disclosure of historical data, even if incomplete, can serve as a good-faith effort to rebuild trust by demonstrating a commitment to transparency. This approach could potentially mitigate the long-standing “disheartening” sentiment expressed by officials and citizens, as it signals a willingness to be accountable for the entire organizational history, not just recent years.
Enhanced Clarity and Detail in Executive Compensation Reporting
The organization must provide a clear, comprehensive breakdown of executive compensation on IRS Form 990 Schedule J, ensuring that all components, including base salary, benefits, and deferred compensation, are accurately reflected and reconcile with internal records.[7] Furthermore, Marion CAN DO should formally establish and document a Compensation Committee process, including conducting market surveys, detailed data analysis, and transparent board approval, to demonstrate the “reasonableness” of executive pay as per IRS guidelines.[17] Transparently addressing the executive compensation discrepancy is crucial for restoring internal and external confidence in governance integrity, as this issue serves as a direct proxy for perceived self-dealing or mismanagement. By demonstrating a rigorous, documented process for setting and disclosing executive pay, Marion CAN DO can show adherence to ethical governance standards and avoid the perception of “excess benefit transactions.”
Review and Optimization of Assets (e.g., Rental Properties)
A thorough review of all real estate assets is recommended, particularly those consistently generating negative net rental income.[1, 2] If these properties serve a strategic, non-financial purpose aligned with Marion CAN DO’s mission (e.g., community initiatives, business incubators), this purpose should be clearly articulated and communicated. If the intent is financial return, operational adjustments are needed to improve profitability, or divestment should be considered if they remain a persistent drain on resources. Concerns about expiring leases [2] must be addressed by proactively disclosing lease terms and renewal strategies. Proactive management and transparent explanation of underperforming assets like rental properties can transform a perceived financial liability into a demonstrable community asset (if mission-aligned) or an efficiently managed resource, thereby directly addressing a specific point of public and official concern.
Strategic Revenue Diversification for Long-Term Stability
Given the volatility in total revenue and the heavy reliance on “Program Services” [1], Marion CAN DO should proactively explore and develop new funding streams. This could involve expanding grant applications beyond current funders, increasing appeals for individual or corporate contributions, or exploring the establishment of an endowment to create more stable, recurring income streams.[1] Diversifying revenue streams would reduce financial vulnerability to fluctuations in program-specific funding, enabling more consistent mission delivery and long-term strategic planning. This increased stability aligns with the council’s desire for a stable, planned economic development approach, providing a more predictable financial foundation for long-term initiatives.
Improved Communication and Engagement with the Public and City Officials
Marion CAN DO should regularly publish detailed annual reports that go beyond minimum IRS requirements, offering clear narratives on program impact, financial performance, and governance.[1, 2] Holding periodic public forums or town halls would allow for direct engagement with citizen and official concerns and provide updates on economic development initiatives. Proactively sharing detailed financial information with City Council and other relevant stakeholders, fulfilling any past unreceived data promises, is also critical. Enhanced, proactive communication and engagement can bridge the “public awareness disconnect” and rebuild trust, transforming a reactive defense into a proactive demonstration of accountability. This approach fosters a sense of shared responsibility and trust, moving beyond ongoing suspicion.
Recommendations for City Council/Stakeholders
Pathways for Fostering Greater Accountability and Oversight
The City Council should consider formalizing funding agreements with clear performance metrics and reporting requirements for any economic development entity receiving public funds, whether independent or city-controlled. Establishing a clear, consistent channel for requesting and receiving financial documentation from Marion CAN DO is essential to ensure that all promised data is delivered. Formalizing funding agreements with clear key performance indicators (KPIs) and reporting requirements can shift the relationship from one of distrust to one of structured accountability, providing a clearer framework for evaluating performance and ensuring transparency. This moves beyond subjective assessments to objective evaluation.
Consideration of Public Records Applicability and Potential for Increased Transparency
The City Council and relevant stakeholders should formally assess whether Marion CAN DO falls under the Ohio Public Records Act (ORC 149.43) as a “quasi-agent” or “functional equivalent” of a public office, given its public-private partnerships and central role in economic development.[11, 12] If deemed applicable, utilizing public records requests to obtain more detailed financial information, including itemized expenses and specific transaction details, would directly address citizen and official concerns about transparency. Actively pursuing the applicability of the Ohio Public Records Act to Marion CAN DO could establish a legal precedent for greater transparency for other public-private partnerships in Marion, fostering a broader culture of accountability across the municipal landscape, especially in light of existing municipal financial controversies.[2]
Works Cited
- IRS Documents: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/16_9LrRPBYce607la39dlM5AB4r1MfN55?usp=sharing
- What Does Marion CAN DO Do? Part I: Unpacking Its Influence Amidst Hidden Realities and Public Disconnect https://news.marionwatch.com/2025/06/23/what-does-marion-can-do-do-part-i-unpacking-its-influence-amidst-hidden-realities-and-public-disconnect/05/11/marion-news/admin/
- Form 990EZ or 990 or 990PF Schedule G https://www.expresstaxexempt.com/form-990ez-or-990-or-990pf/schedule-g/
- Form 990 Schedule G https://www.taxzerone.com/resources/tax-exempt/form-990-schedule-g/
- Tax Brief: Form 990 Schedule L – Transactions with Interested Persons https://www.jrcpa.com/tax-brief-form-990-schedule-l-transactions-with-interested-persons/
- Form 990EZ or 990 or 990PF Schedule L https://www.expresstaxexempt.com/form-990ez-or-990-or-990pf/schedule-l/
- Form 990 Schedule J https://www.taxzerone.com/resources/tax-exempt/form-990-schedule-j/
- Guide to Form 990 https://blog.taxact.com/guide-to-form-990/
- IRS Form 990 Instructions https://araize.com/irs-form-990-instructions/
- Form 990 Filing Instructions https://www.tax990.com/form-990-filing-instructions/
- Public Records Act https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Legal/Sunshine-Laws/Public-Records-Act
- Ohio Revised Code Section 149.43 https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-149.43
- IRS Form 990 FAQs https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/irs-form-990-faqs-2021-05-11-en
- Charity Registration https://charitable.ohioago.gov/Charity-Registration
- Starting a Charity in Ohio https://charitable.ohioago.gov/Charity-Registration/Starting-a-Charity-in-Ohio
- Joint Legislative Ethics Committee https://www.jlec-olig.state.oh.us/?page_id=1955
- 4 Steps to Receive a Salary From Your Nonprofit https://chisholmfirm.com/4-steps-to-receive-a-salary-from-your-nonprofit/
- Ohio Pay Transparency & Equity Laws Guide https://www.goco.io/blog/ohio-pay-transparency-equity-laws-guide
- Gus Comstock Resigns as Executive Director of Marion CAN DO https://marioncountynow.com/news/277772-gus-comstock-resigns-as-executive-director-of-marion-can-do/
- Conflicts of Interest https://ethics.ohio.gov/education/factsheets/ConflictsofInterest.pdf
- Ethics Advice https://ethics.ohio.gov/advice/index.html
- Marion City Welcomes New Director of Public Service https://marioncountynow.com/news/277772-marion-city-welcomes-new-director-of-public-service/
- City of Marion, Ohio – Departments https://marionohio.us/node/4747