Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Karen Coyle]

 the current system, we get no conference. This is exactly what
>> happened after last year's conference until DLF stepped up for us for the
>> 1-year contract, which they initially did not want to do. If they didn't
>> change their position, there would have been no DC hosting proposal,
>> period.)
>>
>> --- As many of you know, conference planning is complicated, such as
>> negotiating hotel contracts, finding a reception venue, catering cost, etc.
>> These are definitely not our expertise and shouldn't be although LPC will
>> inevitably deal with a good deal of them. My experience so far working with
>> DLF (Bethany) and Concentra (Jen) has been terrific, and I believe our
>> conference tremendously benefit from their expertise in conference
>> planning, budget management, negotiating etc. Their expertise in logistics
>> saves us money. If our goal is to create the best conference experience
>> (including conference planning experience for LPC and other committee
>> volunteers) and if we can afford to pay a small fee for fiscal agency and
>> professional conference planning, then I say that's money well-spent and
>> worthwhile investment for the long-term sustainability of C4L and C4L
>> conference.
>>
>> --- Regarding the need to create C4L as a legal entity, that is NOT
>> required to enter a fiscal sponsorship agreement AFAIK. Note that this
>> year, the current LPC is ALREADY working with DLF as a fiscal sponsor for
>> the 2018 DC conference. Fiscal sponsor is there to make things easier in
>> terms of fund transfer and fiscal liability on behalf of the Code4Lib
>> community. I highly doubt any org we discussed as potential future sponsor
>> would be remotely interested in taking away our autonomy. The fiscal
>> sponsor has no saying in programming or anything else. Its involvement is
>> limited to the conference logistics only, and all decisions are mediated
>> and finalized by the C4L LPC.
>>
>> Personally I would be more worried about C4L autonomy if we start setting
>> up bylaws and the formal board and electing people to. I am not saying that
>> that is necessarily bad. But as a community, we have been operating
>> successfully so far based upon group consensus (from discussion +
>> occasional heated arguments) and I like it that way. Making C4L a legal
>> entity with the board that formally governs with bylaws is a far far
>> greater change to C4L as it currently is than getting a fiscal sponsor with
>> a 3 or 5 year term limit for a fee in order to get us more stability in
>> annual conference logistics.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bohyun
>>
>> --
>> Bohyun Kim, MA, MSLIS
>> Associate Director, University of Maryland Baltimore
>> Health Sciences and Human Services Library: http://www.hshsl.umaryland.
>> edu/
>> Vice President/President-Elect, Library & Information Technology
>> Association: http://www.lita.org
>>
>> <http://www.hshsl.umaryland.edu/>
>> 
>> From: Code for Libraries > CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG>> on behalf of Kyle Banerjee <
>> kyle.baner...@gmail.com<mailto:kyle.baner...@gmail.com>>
>> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 3:25:04 PM
>> To: CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG<mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG>
>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has
>> been deafening]
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2017 11:28, "Tod Olson" mailto:tod@
>> uchicago.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> If we go the fiscal sponsor route, the fiscal sponsor would be able to
>> receive such payments, assuming the Journal is part of Code4Lib for these
>> purposes.
>>
>>
>> Of the things issues surrounding governance and finances, I wouldn't invest
>> much energy in  journal royalties --  it's a simple issue and the distance
>> between best and worst case scenarios is narrow.
>>
>> C4l's strength and weakness is the same exact thing -- things happen
>> because people do things. The domain name, systems, and  everything we rely
>> on are controlled be the individuals and entities that stepped up --meaning
>> that management of these things is dispersed. I would think it would be
>> desirable to consolidate management of all core assets as part of the
>> process of finding a fiscal home.
>>
>> Kyle
>>
>>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Jonathan Rochkind]

 that someone or some group of
>> people without such affiliation still want to host a conference while no
>> one or no group with such affiliation want to host a conference in the same
>> year. In the current system, we get no conference. This is exactly what
>> happened after last year's conference until DLF stepped up for us for the
>> 1-year contract, which they initially did not want to do. If they didn't
>> change their position, there would have been no DC hosting proposal,
>> period.)
>>
>> --- As many of you know, conference planning is complicated, such as
>> negotiating hotel contracts, finding a reception venue, catering cost, etc.
>> These are definitely not our expertise and shouldn't be although LPC will
>> inevitably deal with a good deal of them. My experience so far working with
>> DLF (Bethany) and Concentra (Jen) has been terrific, and I believe our
>> conference tremendously benefit from their expertise in conference
>> planning, budget management, negotiating etc. Their expertise in logistics
>> saves us money. If our goal is to create the best conference experience
>> (including conference planning experience for LPC and other committee
>> volunteers) and if we can afford to pay a small fee for fiscal agency and
>> professional conference planning, then I say that's money well-spent and
>> worthwhile investment for the long-term sustainability of C4L and C4L
>> conference.
>>
>> --- Regarding the need to create C4L as a legal entity, that is NOT
>> required to enter a fiscal sponsorship agreement AFAIK. Note that this
>> year, the current LPC is ALREADY working with DLF as a fiscal sponsor for
>> the 2018 DC conference. Fiscal sponsor is there to make things easier in
>> terms of fund transfer and fiscal liability on behalf of the Code4Lib
>> community. I highly doubt any org we discussed as potential future sponsor
>> would be remotely interested in taking away our autonomy. The fiscal
>> sponsor has no saying in programming or anything else. Its involvement is
>> limited to the conference logistics only, and all decisions are mediated
>> and finalized by the C4L LPC.
>>
>> Personally I would be more worried about C4L autonomy if we start setting
>> up bylaws and the formal board and electing people to. I am not saying that
>> that is necessarily bad. But as a community, we have been operating
>> successfully so far based upon group consensus (from discussion +
>> occasional heated arguments) and I like it that way. Making C4L a legal
>> entity with the board that formally governs with bylaws is a far far
>> greater change to C4L as it currently is than getting a fiscal sponsor with
>> a 3 or 5 year term limit for a fee in order to get us more stability in
>> annual conference logistics.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bohyun
>>
>> --
>> Bohyun Kim, MA, MSLIS
>> Associate Director, University of Maryland Baltimore
>> Health Sciences and Human Services Library:
>> http://www.hshsl.umaryland.edu/
>> Vice President/President-Elect, Library & Information Technology
>> Association: http://www.lita.org
>>
>> <http://www.hshsl.umaryland.edu/>
>> 
>> From: Code for Libraries > CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG>> on behalf of Kyle Banerjee <
>> kyle.baner...@gmail.com<mailto:kyle.baner...@gmail.com>>
>> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 3:25:04 PM
>> To: CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG<mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG>
>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has
>> been deafening]
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2017 11:28, "Tod Olson" mailto:tod@u
>> chicago.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> If we go the fiscal sponsor route, the fiscal sponsor would be able to
>> receive such payments, assuming the Journal is part of Code4Lib for these
>> purposes.
>>
>>
>> Of the things issues surrounding governance and finances, I wouldn't
>> invest
>> much energy in  journal royalties --  it's a simple issue and the distance
>> between best and worst case scenarios is narrow.
>>
>> C4l's strength and weakness is the same exact thing -- things happen
>> because people do things. The domain name, systems, and  everything we
>> rely
>> on are controlled be the individuals and entities that stepped up
>> --meaning
>> that management of these things is dispersed. I would think it would be
>> desirable to consolidate management of all core assets as part of the
>> process of finding a fiscal home.
>>
>> Kyle
>>
>>
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Jonathan Rochkind]

nitely not our expertise and shouldn't be although LPC will
> inevitably deal with a good deal of them. My experience so far working with
> DLF (Bethany) and Concentra (Jen) has been terrific, and I believe our
> conference tremendously benefit from their expertise in conference
> planning, budget management, negotiating etc. Their expertise in logistics
> saves us money. If our goal is to create the best conference experience
> (including conference planning experience for LPC and other committee
> volunteers) and if we can afford to pay a small fee for fiscal agency and
> professional conference planning, then I say that's money well-spent and
> worthwhile investment for the long-term sustainability of C4L and C4L
> conference.
>
> --- Regarding the need to create C4L as a legal entity, that is NOT
> required to enter a fiscal sponsorship agreement AFAIK. Note that this
> year, the current LPC is ALREADY working with DLF as a fiscal sponsor for
> the 2018 DC conference. Fiscal sponsor is there to make things easier in
> terms of fund transfer and fiscal liability on behalf of the Code4Lib
> community. I highly doubt any org we discussed as potential future sponsor
> would be remotely interested in taking away our autonomy. The fiscal
> sponsor has no saying in programming or anything else. Its involvement is
> limited to the conference logistics only, and all decisions are mediated
> and finalized by the C4L LPC.
>
> Personally I would be more worried about C4L autonomy if we start setting
> up bylaws and the formal board and electing people to. I am not saying that
> that is necessarily bad. But as a community, we have been operating
> successfully so far based upon group consensus (from discussion +
> occasional heated arguments) and I like it that way. Making C4L a legal
> entity with the board that formally governs with bylaws is a far far
> greater change to C4L as it currently is than getting a fiscal sponsor with
> a 3 or 5 year term limit for a fee in order to get us more stability in
> annual conference logistics.
>
> Cheers,
> Bohyun
>
> --
> Bohyun Kim, MA, MSLIS
> Associate Director, University of Maryland Baltimore
> Health Sciences and Human Services Library: http://www.hshsl.umaryland.
> edu/
> Vice President/President-Elect, Library & Information Technology
> Association: http://www.lita.org
>
> <http://www.hshsl.umaryland.edu/>
> 
> From: Code for Libraries  CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG>> on behalf of Kyle Banerjee <
> kyle.baner...@gmail.com<mailto:kyle.baner...@gmail.com>>
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 3:25:04 PM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG<mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has
> been deafening]
>
> On Jul 24, 2017 11:28, "Tod Olson" mailto:tod@
> uchicago.edu>> wrote:
>
> If we go the fiscal sponsor route, the fiscal sponsor would be able to
> receive such payments, assuming the Journal is part of Code4Lib for these
> purposes.
>
>
> Of the things issues surrounding governance and finances, I wouldn't invest
> much energy in  journal royalties --  it's a simple issue and the distance
> between best and worst case scenarios is narrow.
>
> C4l's strength and weakness is the same exact thing -- things happen
> because people do things. The domain name, systems, and  everything we rely
> on are controlled be the individuals and entities that stepped up --meaning
> that management of these things is dispersed. I would think it would be
> desirable to consolidate management of all core assets as part of the
> process of finding a fiscal home.
>
> Kyle
>
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Tom Cramer]

Association: 
http://www.lita.org

<http://www.hshsl.umaryland.edu/>

From: Code for Libraries 
mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG>> on behalf of Kyle 
Banerjee mailto:kyle.baner...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 3:25:04 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG<mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG>
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been 
deafening]

On Jul 24, 2017 11:28, "Tod Olson" 
mailto:t...@uchicago.edu>> wrote:

If we go the fiscal sponsor route, the fiscal sponsor would be able to
receive such payments, assuming the Journal is part of Code4Lib for these
purposes.


Of the things issues surrounding governance and finances, I wouldn't invest
much energy in  journal royalties --  it's a simple issue and the distance
between best and worst case scenarios is narrow.

C4l's strength and weakness is the same exact thing -- things happen
because people do things. The domain name, systems, and  everything we rely
on are controlled be the individuals and entities that stepped up --meaning
that management of these things is dispersed. I would think it would be
desirable to consolidate management of all core assets as part of the
process of finding a fiscal home.

Kyle

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Kim, Bohyun]

Hi all,

Great discussion so far. I want to add a few things as I do not see them 
mentioned in the email thread so far.

As a current Local Planning Committee (LPC) member for the C4L18 DC Conference, 
here are some things that I would like to share.

--- Having a separate fiscal sponsor allows a more diverse group of C4L people 
to propose and host a conference in their area. Previously, only those 
affiliated with large higher ed institutions ('and' those who were in an 
empowered position such as dean, AD, AUL etc., to persuade their library to 
take up on the fiscal sponsorship responsibility) were able to propose and host 
a conference. But with a fiscal sponsor, that limit will be lifted. My hope is 
that with a fiscal sponsor already determined, more diverse and grassroots 
groups of C4L members will be able to volunteer and participate in C4L 
conference planning and hosting in terms of affiliation and location.

(Also note that it is entirely possible that someone or some group of people 
without such affiliation still want to host a conference while no one or no 
group with such affiliation want to host a conference in the same year. In the 
current system, we get no conference. This is exactly what happened after last 
year's conference until DLF stepped up for us for the 1-year contract, which 
they initially did not want to do. If they didn't change their position, there 
would have been no DC hosting proposal, period.)

--- As many of you know, conference planning is complicated, such as 
negotiating hotel contracts, finding a reception venue, catering cost, etc. 
These are definitely not our expertise and shouldn't be although LPC will 
inevitably deal with a good deal of them. My experience so far working with DLF 
(Bethany) and Concentra (Jen) has been terrific, and I believe our conference 
tremendously benefit from their expertise in conference planning, budget 
management, negotiating etc. Their expertise in logistics saves us money. If 
our goal is to create the best conference experience (including conference 
planning experience for LPC and other committee volunteers) and if we can 
afford to pay a small fee for fiscal agency and professional conference 
planning, then I say that's money well-spent and worthwhile investment for the 
long-term sustainability of C4L and C4L conference.

--- Regarding the need to create C4L as a legal entity, that is NOT required to 
enter a fiscal sponsorship agreement AFAIK. Note that this year, the current 
LPC is ALREADY working with DLF as a fiscal sponsor for the 2018 DC conference. 
Fiscal sponsor is there to make things easier in terms of fund transfer and 
fiscal liability on behalf of the Code4Lib community. I highly doubt any org we 
discussed as potential future sponsor would be remotely interested in taking 
away our autonomy. The fiscal sponsor has no saying in programming or anything 
else. Its involvement is limited to the conference logistics only, and all 
decisions are mediated and finalized by the C4L LPC.

Personally I would be more worried about C4L autonomy if we start setting up 
bylaws and the formal board and electing people to. I am not saying that that 
is necessarily bad. But as a community, we have been operating successfully so 
far based upon group consensus (from discussion + occasional heated arguments) 
and I like it that way. Making C4L a legal entity with the board that formally 
governs with bylaws is a far far greater change to C4L as it currently is than 
getting a fiscal sponsor with a 3 or 5 year term limit for a fee in order to 
get us more stability in annual conference logistics.

Cheers,
Bohyun

--
Bohyun Kim, MA, MSLIS
Associate Director, University of Maryland Baltimore
Health Sciences and Human Services Library: http://www.hshsl.umaryland.edu/
Vice President/President-Elect, Library & Information Technology Association: 
http://www.lita.org

<http://www.hshsl.umaryland.edu/>

From: Code for Libraries  on behalf of Kyle Banerjee 

Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 3:25:04 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been 
deafening]

On Jul 24, 2017 11:28, "Tod Olson"  wrote:

If we go the fiscal sponsor route, the fiscal sponsor would be able to
receive such payments, assuming the Journal is part of Code4Lib for these
purposes.


Of the things issues surrounding governance and finances, I wouldn't invest
much energy in  journal royalties --  it's a simple issue and the distance
between best and worst case scenarios is narrow.

C4l's strength and weakness is the same exact thing -- things happen
because people do things. The domain name, systems, and  everything we rely
on are controlled be the individuals and entities that stepped up --meaning
that management of these things is dispersed. I would think it would be
desirable to consolidate management of all core assets as part of the
process of finding a fiscal home.

Kyle

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Kyle Banerjee]

On Jul 24, 2017 11:28, "Tod Olson"  wrote:

If we go the fiscal sponsor route, the fiscal sponsor would be able to
receive such payments, assuming the Journal is part of Code4Lib for these
purposes.


Of the things issues surrounding governance and finances, I wouldn't invest
much energy in  journal royalties --  it's a simple issue and the distance
between best and worst case scenarios is narrow.

C4l's strength and weakness is the same exact thing -- things happen
because people do things. The domain name, systems, and  everything we rely
on are controlled be the individuals and entities that stepped up --meaning
that management of these things is dispersed. I would think it would be
desirable to consolidate management of all core assets as part of the
process of finding a fiscal home.

Kyle

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Tod Olson]

If we go the fiscal sponsor route, the fiscal sponsor would be able to receive 
such payments, assuming the Journal is part of Code4Lib for these purposes. 
That would be part of the sponsor being able to "hold funds on behalf of 
Code4Lib." (FCIG report, p. 6.)

The particulars of how the Journal would sit in any fiscal sponsor would be up 
for discussion with that sponsor. Off the cuff, I see no reason for the Journal 
to change it's policies in any way, and that could be made explicit in whatever 
arrangement we might come to.

And I suppose I'm assuming that we would want the Journal to be included in the 
fiscal sponsor arrangement. How and whether the Journal fits into all of this 
could be taken up during a discussion of governance.

-Tod


> On Jul 24, 2017, at 8:49 AM, Carol Bean  wrote:
> 
> I realize the C4L Journal is only a tiny part of this whole issue, but as
> we look at going with ALA/LITA, (and the others, for that matter, for
> comparison's sake), I am wondering how and whether the Journal would have a
> place (since to process royalty payments there would have to be some kind
> of formal connection).  I'm kind of wary of the Journal being sucked into
> ALA, but I dunno...
> 
> I guess it would need to be written into whatever documentation is created,
> if the group wanted to include the Journal in the formalized structure.
> 
> I have spoken to an EBSCO rep, and they are pretty flexible about how and
> where to make past and future payments (there's a growing balance waiting
> to be disbursed), but there does have to be, at the very least, an entity
> with a Tax ID.
> 
> Carol
> 
> Carol Bean
> beanwo...@gmail.com
> 
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Jonathan Rochkind 
> wrote:
> 
>> I think CLIR's fiscal sponsorship fee is amazingly generous to us.
>> 
>> And ALA's 26.4% of gross revenue is very high when considered as a fiscal
>> sponsorship fee. Fiscal sponsorship fees in general 501c3 world are
>> typically 9-15%[1], often on the low end of that.
>> 
>> Of course, ALA probably doesn't consider it a fiscal sponsorship fee
>> exactly is part of why it seems high when looked at like that. They
>> consider it as "you an ALA interest group, you are part of ALA, and you get
>> benefits including non-tangible ones from just being part of ALA, and
>> identify with ALA, and ALA takes 26.4% of ALA sub-project/"interest group"
>> revenue to support the parent organization." That may in fact be most of
>> what ALA's revenue comes from, revenue from sub-parts like this.  It's more
>> 'becoming part of ALA' than a fiscal sponsorship.
>> 
>> I think the CLIR fiscal sponsorship offer, in both monetary and other
>> aspects, is really quite generous. They are making it for mission-driven
>> reasons, charging the least they can get away with, and being transparent
>> about that -- I like that the insurance is just a pass-through, they need
>> it, whatever it is they pass through.  ALA's offer is less generous, and I
>> don't think we have community interest in becoming part of ALA.
>> 
>> [1]
>> http://www.fiscalsponsors.org/pages/10-questions-potential-
>> projects-should-ask-fiscal-sponsor
>> 
>> Jonathan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Jonathan Rochkind 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess <
>>> co...@sheldon-hess.org> wrote:
>>> 
 Sorry, I meant "the least we could do for the people who are compelled
>> to
 be members," NOT "the least we could do for ALA/LITA." (As the person
>> who
 pulled together the LITA part of the report, obviously I am aware that
>> we
 owe LITA significantly more than that if they are our fiscal sponsor.)
 
 I see no reason to be coy about the math, though. Quotes below come from
 the report:
 
 If we went with ALA/LITA, we would gain "ALA’s tax-exempt status and
 liability insurance," and we would pay "ALA’s overhead rate for fiscal
 years 2017 and 2018 [which] will be 26.4% of gross revenue."
 
 If we went with DLF/CLIR, "CLIR would strongly recommend/request that
 Code4Lib obtain event insurance for future conferences. CLIR has
 experience
 with purchasing event insurance for other conferences such as the DLF
 Forum, and can provide recommendations to Code4Lib about options."
 "CLIR/DLF
 would request payment of an annual fee of $5,000 as compensation for
>> staff
 time and auditor fees required for fiscal sponsor services," and "CLIR
 would request that conference budgets be established to allow for a
>> second
 annual payment of at least $5,000 be deposited by Code4Lib into the
>> "nest
 egg" account."
 
 So, it's 26.4% of gross revenue versus $5k + event insurance (+ another
 $5k
 that goes into savings for us). It's been a while since I've looked at
 conference budget numbers. I believe Jonathan is correct that CLIR/DLF
 comes out to a smaller annual fee, given the current size of 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Carol Bean]

I realize the C4L Journal is only a tiny part of this whole issue, but as
we look at going with ALA/LITA, (and the others, for that matter, for
comparison's sake), I am wondering how and whether the Journal would have a
place (since to process royalty payments there would have to be some kind
of formal connection).  I'm kind of wary of the Journal being sucked into
ALA, but I dunno...

I guess it would need to be written into whatever documentation is created,
if the group wanted to include the Journal in the formalized structure.

I have spoken to an EBSCO rep, and they are pretty flexible about how and
where to make past and future payments (there's a growing balance waiting
to be disbursed), but there does have to be, at the very least, an entity
with a Tax ID.

Carol

Carol Bean
beanwo...@gmail.com

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Jonathan Rochkind 
wrote:

> I think CLIR's fiscal sponsorship fee is amazingly generous to us.
>
> And ALA's 26.4% of gross revenue is very high when considered as a fiscal
> sponsorship fee. Fiscal sponsorship fees in general 501c3 world are
> typically 9-15%[1], often on the low end of that.
>
> Of course, ALA probably doesn't consider it a fiscal sponsorship fee
> exactly is part of why it seems high when looked at like that. They
> consider it as "you an ALA interest group, you are part of ALA, and you get
> benefits including non-tangible ones from just being part of ALA, and
> identify with ALA, and ALA takes 26.4% of ALA sub-project/"interest group"
> revenue to support the parent organization." That may in fact be most of
> what ALA's revenue comes from, revenue from sub-parts like this.  It's more
> 'becoming part of ALA' than a fiscal sponsorship.
>
> I think the CLIR fiscal sponsorship offer, in both monetary and other
> aspects, is really quite generous. They are making it for mission-driven
> reasons, charging the least they can get away with, and being transparent
> about that -- I like that the insurance is just a pass-through, they need
> it, whatever it is they pass through.  ALA's offer is less generous, and I
> don't think we have community interest in becoming part of ALA.
>
> [1]
> http://www.fiscalsponsors.org/pages/10-questions-potential-
> projects-should-ask-fiscal-sponsor
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Jonathan Rochkind 
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks!
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess <
> > co...@sheldon-hess.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry, I meant "the least we could do for the people who are compelled
> to
> >> be members," NOT "the least we could do for ALA/LITA." (As the person
> who
> >> pulled together the LITA part of the report, obviously I am aware that
> we
> >> owe LITA significantly more than that if they are our fiscal sponsor.)
> >>
> >> I see no reason to be coy about the math, though. Quotes below come from
> >> the report:
> >>
> >> If we went with ALA/LITA, we would gain "ALA’s tax-exempt status and
> >> liability insurance," and we would pay "ALA’s overhead rate for fiscal
> >> years 2017 and 2018 [which] will be 26.4% of gross revenue."
> >>
> >> If we went with DLF/CLIR, "CLIR would strongly recommend/request that
> >> Code4Lib obtain event insurance for future conferences. CLIR has
> >> experience
> >> with purchasing event insurance for other conferences such as the DLF
> >> Forum, and can provide recommendations to Code4Lib about options."
> >> "CLIR/DLF
> >> would request payment of an annual fee of $5,000 as compensation for
> staff
> >> time and auditor fees required for fiscal sponsor services," and "CLIR
> >> would request that conference budgets be established to allow for a
> second
> >> annual payment of at least $5,000 be deposited by Code4Lib into the
> "nest
> >> egg" account."
> >>
> >> So, it's 26.4% of gross revenue versus $5k + event insurance (+ another
> >> $5k
> >> that goes into savings for us). It's been a while since I've looked at
> >> conference budget numbers. I believe Jonathan is correct that CLIR/DLF
> >> comes out to a smaller annual fee, given the current size of our budget,
> >> but someone who has access to those numbers might want to confirm.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Coral
> >>
> >
> >
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Jonathan Rochkind]

I think CLIR's fiscal sponsorship fee is amazingly generous to us.

And ALA's 26.4% of gross revenue is very high when considered as a fiscal
sponsorship fee. Fiscal sponsorship fees in general 501c3 world are
typically 9-15%[1], often on the low end of that.

Of course, ALA probably doesn't consider it a fiscal sponsorship fee
exactly is part of why it seems high when looked at like that. They
consider it as "you an ALA interest group, you are part of ALA, and you get
benefits including non-tangible ones from just being part of ALA, and
identify with ALA, and ALA takes 26.4% of ALA sub-project/"interest group"
revenue to support the parent organization." That may in fact be most of
what ALA's revenue comes from, revenue from sub-parts like this.  It's more
'becoming part of ALA' than a fiscal sponsorship.

I think the CLIR fiscal sponsorship offer, in both monetary and other
aspects, is really quite generous. They are making it for mission-driven
reasons, charging the least they can get away with, and being transparent
about that -- I like that the insurance is just a pass-through, they need
it, whatever it is they pass through.  ALA's offer is less generous, and I
don't think we have community interest in becoming part of ALA.

[1]
http://www.fiscalsponsors.org/pages/10-questions-potential-projects-should-ask-fiscal-sponsor

Jonathan



On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Jonathan Rochkind 
wrote:

> Thanks!
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess <
> co...@sheldon-hess.org> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I meant "the least we could do for the people who are compelled to
>> be members," NOT "the least we could do for ALA/LITA." (As the person who
>> pulled together the LITA part of the report, obviously I am aware that we
>> owe LITA significantly more than that if they are our fiscal sponsor.)
>>
>> I see no reason to be coy about the math, though. Quotes below come from
>> the report:
>>
>> If we went with ALA/LITA, we would gain "ALA’s tax-exempt status and
>> liability insurance," and we would pay "ALA’s overhead rate for fiscal
>> years 2017 and 2018 [which] will be 26.4% of gross revenue."
>>
>> If we went with DLF/CLIR, "CLIR would strongly recommend/request that
>> Code4Lib obtain event insurance for future conferences. CLIR has
>> experience
>> with purchasing event insurance for other conferences such as the DLF
>> Forum, and can provide recommendations to Code4Lib about options."
>> "CLIR/DLF
>> would request payment of an annual fee of $5,000 as compensation for staff
>> time and auditor fees required for fiscal sponsor services," and "CLIR
>> would request that conference budgets be established to allow for a second
>> annual payment of at least $5,000 be deposited by Code4Lib into the "nest
>> egg" account."
>>
>> So, it's 26.4% of gross revenue versus $5k + event insurance (+ another
>> $5k
>> that goes into savings for us). It's been a while since I've looked at
>> conference budget numbers. I believe Jonathan is correct that CLIR/DLF
>> comes out to a smaller annual fee, given the current size of our budget,
>> but someone who has access to those numbers might want to confirm.
>>
>> Best,
>> Coral
>>
>
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Jonathan Rochkind]

Thanks!

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess  wrote:

> Sorry, I meant "the least we could do for the people who are compelled to
> be members," NOT "the least we could do for ALA/LITA." (As the person who
> pulled together the LITA part of the report, obviously I am aware that we
> owe LITA significantly more than that if they are our fiscal sponsor.)
>
> I see no reason to be coy about the math, though. Quotes below come from
> the report:
>
> If we went with ALA/LITA, we would gain "ALA’s tax-exempt status and
> liability insurance," and we would pay "ALA’s overhead rate for fiscal
> years 2017 and 2018 [which] will be 26.4% of gross revenue."
>
> If we went with DLF/CLIR, "CLIR would strongly recommend/request that
> Code4Lib obtain event insurance for future conferences. CLIR has experience
> with purchasing event insurance for other conferences such as the DLF
> Forum, and can provide recommendations to Code4Lib about options."
> "CLIR/DLF
> would request payment of an annual fee of $5,000 as compensation for staff
> time and auditor fees required for fiscal sponsor services," and "CLIR
> would request that conference budgets be established to allow for a second
> annual payment of at least $5,000 be deposited by Code4Lib into the "nest
> egg" account."
>
> So, it's 26.4% of gross revenue versus $5k + event insurance (+ another $5k
> that goes into savings for us). It's been a while since I've looked at
> conference budget numbers. I believe Jonathan is correct that CLIR/DLF
> comes out to a smaller annual fee, given the current size of our budget,
> but someone who has access to those numbers might want to confirm.
>
> Best,
> Coral
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Coral Sheldon-Hess]

Sorry, I meant "the least we could do for the people who are compelled to
be members," NOT "the least we could do for ALA/LITA." (As the person who
pulled together the LITA part of the report, obviously I am aware that we
owe LITA significantly more than that if they are our fiscal sponsor.)

I see no reason to be coy about the math, though. Quotes below come from
the report:

If we went with ALA/LITA, we would gain "ALA’s tax-exempt status and
liability insurance," and we would pay "ALA’s overhead rate for fiscal
years 2017 and 2018 [which] will be 26.4% of gross revenue."

If we went with DLF/CLIR, "CLIR would strongly recommend/request that
Code4Lib obtain event insurance for future conferences. CLIR has experience
with purchasing event insurance for other conferences such as the DLF
Forum, and can provide recommendations to Code4Lib about options." "CLIR/DLF
would request payment of an annual fee of $5,000 as compensation for staff
time and auditor fees required for fiscal sponsor services," and "CLIR
would request that conference budgets be established to allow for a second
annual payment of at least $5,000 be deposited by Code4Lib into the "nest
egg" account."

So, it's 26.4% of gross revenue versus $5k + event insurance (+ another $5k
that goes into savings for us). It's been a while since I've looked at
conference budget numbers. I believe Jonathan is correct that CLIR/DLF
comes out to a smaller annual fee, given the current size of our budget,
but someone who has access to those numbers might want to confirm.

Best,
Coral

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Jonathan Rochkind]

> Assuming we went with ALA/LITA as a fiscal sponsor, I feel like paying for
our conference chair's and vice-chair's membership to ALA/LITA is the least
we, as an organization, could do, given how much of their time we ask for.

To be clear, I believe we would be paying them substantially more than this
for fiscal sponsorship, presumably a % of revenue similar to all fiscal
sponsors.  So it's not in fact the least we could do, the literal least we
can per their fiscal sponsorship agreement is substantially more than that.

We'd have to go back and check the original report, which had these
details. I can't recall where to find it. But in my memory, they both had a
% and CLIR's was cheaper.

This conversation is becoming increasingly unmoored from facts. I point the
finger at myself there too, since I'm like "I don't remember what the
report actually said and I'm too lazy to go look for it, but here's what I
remember."

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Coral Sheldon-Hess  wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification, Andromeda.
>
> I didn't mean to derail the larger discussion by mentioning that
> requirement, sorry.
>
> Assuming we went with ALA/LITA as a fiscal sponsor, I feel like paying for
> our conference chair's and vice-chair's membership to ALA/LITA is the least
> we, as an organization, could do, given how much of their time we ask for.
> (And, sure, it's a little bit of incentive to run a conference, which is
> nice; but nobody is going to sign up for that much work *just* to get the
> free ALA membership.) As Andromeda said, that's such a small amount,
> compared to the conference's budget. I wouldn't want that to be the
> determining factor for choosing between ALA/LITA and DLF/CLIR.
>
> (I'm not trying to push us in either direction--I think both are strong
> contenders, and I'm sure OLF will be, too, once we've had a chance to ask
> them our questions--but I don't want us to make a decision based on a
> couple hundred dollars in a 5 or 6 figure budget.)
>
> Best,
> Coral
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Andromeda Yelton <
> andromeda.yel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Point of order with respect to LITA interest groups: the *chairs and vice
> > chairs* of the groups must be ALA/LITA members, but the *members* need
> not
> > be. So LITA would require two LITA-member contact people for interest
> group
> > formation, but other C4L attendees/participants would not be required to
> be
> > LITA members. (Although, of course, we are always delighted to have you.
> :)
> >
> > In re the question of what additional costs it would add if the
> conference
> > sponsored membership for these contact people, it depends on what
> > categories of membership they are eligible for, but it is $60 to join
> LITA,
> > plus $68-137 for ALA (discounts available for students and unemployed
> > members), so covering this for two people would be a tiny fraction of the
> > conference budget.
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Jenn C  wrote:
> >
> > > Agreed, my support for working with CLIR is even stronger given this
> > info.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Kyle Breneman <
> tomeconque...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am involved in Code4Lib precisely because I cannot afford an
> ALA/LITA
> > > > membership.
> > > >
> > > > Kyle Breneman
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andromeda Yelton
> > Senior Software Engineer, MIT Libraries: https://libraries.mit.edu/
> > President, Library & Information Technology Association:
> > http://www.lita.org
> > http://andromedayelton.com
> > @ThatAndromeda 
> >
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Tim McGeary]

My personal objection to the requirement for the conference leadership to
be a member of ALA / LITA is less financial and more philosophical.  As
someone else had written, I became part of Code4Lib because I didn't really
believe (and still don't) that ALA and LITA does enough to represent what
Code4Lib is as a community or what C4L has and hopes to accomplish.

And while I appreciate the idea of the conference budget covering that
cost, as someone who managed the conference budget and did the bulk of the
fundraising for the 2014 conference, I can say emphatically that every
dollar counts.  For example, as a conference chair, I would rather fund 1-3
registration scholarships )depending on the cost of that year's
registration) instead of having to pay for ALA and LITA memberships that is
nothing but a formality.

Tim

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:26 AM Coral Sheldon-Hess 
wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification, Andromeda.
>
> I didn't mean to derail the larger discussion by mentioning that
> requirement, sorry.
>
> Assuming we went with ALA/LITA as a fiscal sponsor, I feel like paying for
> our conference chair's and vice-chair's membership to ALA/LITA is the least
> we, as an organization, could do, given how much of their time we ask for.
> (And, sure, it's a little bit of incentive to run a conference, which is
> nice; but nobody is going to sign up for that much work *just* to get the
> free ALA membership.) As Andromeda said, that's such a small amount,
> compared to the conference's budget. I wouldn't want that to be the
> determining factor for choosing between ALA/LITA and DLF/CLIR.
>
> (I'm not trying to push us in either direction--I think both are strong
> contenders, and I'm sure OLF will be, too, once we've had a chance to ask
> them our questions--but I don't want us to make a decision based on a
> couple hundred dollars in a 5 or 6 figure budget.)
>
> Best,
> Coral
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Andromeda Yelton <
> andromeda.yel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Point of order with respect to LITA interest groups: the *chairs and vice
> > chairs* of the groups must be ALA/LITA members, but the *members* need
> not
> > be. So LITA would require two LITA-member contact people for interest
> group
> > formation, but other C4L attendees/participants would not be required to
> be
> > LITA members. (Although, of course, we are always delighted to have you.
> :)
> >
> > In re the question of what additional costs it would add if the
> conference
> > sponsored membership for these contact people, it depends on what
> > categories of membership they are eligible for, but it is $60 to join
> LITA,
> > plus $68-137 for ALA (discounts available for students and unemployed
> > members), so covering this for two people would be a tiny fraction of the
> > conference budget.
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Jenn C  wrote:
> >
> > > Agreed, my support for working with CLIR is even stronger given this
> > info.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Kyle Breneman <
> tomeconque...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am involved in Code4Lib precisely because I cannot afford an
> ALA/LITA
> > > > membership.
> > > >
> > > > Kyle Breneman
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andromeda Yelton
> > Senior Software Engineer, MIT Libraries: https://libraries.mit.edu/
> > President, Library & Information Technology Association:
> > http://www.lita.org
> > http://andromedayelton.com
> > @ThatAndromeda 
> >
>
-- 
Tim McGeary
timmcge...@gmail.com
GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
484-294-7660 (Google Voice)

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Erin Tripp]

Hi all,

DuraSpace has a long history of stewarding open source software communities
as well as sharing infrastructure and resources for groups that need it. We
act as fiscal sponsor to groups within our community. If the Code4Lib
community thinks it could be a good fit, we can discuss what a potential
fiscal sponsorship could look like. We don't have a published list of
parameters for the process. It's discussed on a case by case basis. Let me
know how I can help.

Erin

-- 
Erin Tripp
Business Development Manager
Duraspace
etr...@duraspace.org

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Andromeda Yelton <
andromeda.yel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Point of order with respect to LITA interest groups: the *chairs and vice
> chairs* of the groups must be ALA/LITA members, but the *members* need not
> be. So LITA would require two LITA-member contact people for interest group
> formation, but other C4L attendees/participants would not be required to be
> LITA members. (Although, of course, we are always delighted to have you. :)
>
> In re the question of what additional costs it would add if the conference
> sponsored membership for these contact people, it depends on what
> categories of membership they are eligible for, but it is $60 to join LITA,
> plus $68-137 for ALA (discounts available for students and unemployed
> members), so covering this for two people would be a tiny fraction of the
> conference budget.
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Jenn C  wrote:
>
> > Agreed, my support for working with CLIR is even stronger given this
> info.
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Kyle Breneman  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I am involved in Code4Lib precisely because I cannot afford an ALA/LITA
> > > membership.
> > >
> > > Kyle Breneman
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Andromeda Yelton
> Senior Software Engineer, MIT Libraries: https://libraries.mit.edu/
> President, Library & Information Technology Association:
> http://www.lita.org
> http://andromedayelton.com
> @ThatAndromeda 
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Coral Sheldon-Hess]

Thanks for the clarification, Andromeda.

I didn't mean to derail the larger discussion by mentioning that
requirement, sorry.

Assuming we went with ALA/LITA as a fiscal sponsor, I feel like paying for
our conference chair's and vice-chair's membership to ALA/LITA is the least
we, as an organization, could do, given how much of their time we ask for.
(And, sure, it's a little bit of incentive to run a conference, which is
nice; but nobody is going to sign up for that much work *just* to get the
free ALA membership.) As Andromeda said, that's such a small amount,
compared to the conference's budget. I wouldn't want that to be the
determining factor for choosing between ALA/LITA and DLF/CLIR.

(I'm not trying to push us in either direction--I think both are strong
contenders, and I'm sure OLF will be, too, once we've had a chance to ask
them our questions--but I don't want us to make a decision based on a
couple hundred dollars in a 5 or 6 figure budget.)

Best,
Coral


On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Andromeda Yelton <
andromeda.yel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Point of order with respect to LITA interest groups: the *chairs and vice
> chairs* of the groups must be ALA/LITA members, but the *members* need not
> be. So LITA would require two LITA-member contact people for interest group
> formation, but other C4L attendees/participants would not be required to be
> LITA members. (Although, of course, we are always delighted to have you. :)
>
> In re the question of what additional costs it would add if the conference
> sponsored membership for these contact people, it depends on what
> categories of membership they are eligible for, but it is $60 to join LITA,
> plus $68-137 for ALA (discounts available for students and unemployed
> members), so covering this for two people would be a tiny fraction of the
> conference budget.
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Jenn C  wrote:
>
> > Agreed, my support for working with CLIR is even stronger given this
> info.
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Kyle Breneman  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I am involved in Code4Lib precisely because I cannot afford an ALA/LITA
> > > membership.
> > >
> > > Kyle Breneman
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Andromeda Yelton
> Senior Software Engineer, MIT Libraries: https://libraries.mit.edu/
> President, Library & Information Technology Association:
> http://www.lita.org
> http://andromedayelton.com
> @ThatAndromeda 
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Andromeda Yelton]

Point of order with respect to LITA interest groups: the *chairs and vice
chairs* of the groups must be ALA/LITA members, but the *members* need not
be. So LITA would require two LITA-member contact people for interest group
formation, but other C4L attendees/participants would not be required to be
LITA members. (Although, of course, we are always delighted to have you. :)

In re the question of what additional costs it would add if the conference
sponsored membership for these contact people, it depends on what
categories of membership they are eligible for, but it is $60 to join LITA,
plus $68-137 for ALA (discounts available for students and unemployed
members), so covering this for two people would be a tiny fraction of the
conference budget.

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Jenn C  wrote:

> Agreed, my support for working with CLIR is even stronger given this info.
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Kyle Breneman 
> wrote:
>
> > I am involved in Code4Lib precisely because I cannot afford an ALA/LITA
> > membership.
> >
> > Kyle Breneman
> >
>



-- 
Andromeda Yelton
Senior Software Engineer, MIT Libraries: https://libraries.mit.edu/
President, Library & Information Technology Association: http://www.lita.org
http://andromedayelton.com
@ThatAndromeda 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Jenn C]

Agreed, my support for working with CLIR is even stronger given this info.

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Kyle Breneman 
wrote:

> I am involved in Code4Lib precisely because I cannot afford an ALA/LITA
> membership.
>
> Kyle Breneman
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Kyle Breneman]

I am involved in Code4Lib precisely because I cannot afford an ALA/LITA
membership.

Kyle Breneman


On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Jason Bengtson 
wrote:

> Personally I agree that incorporation presents enough tangible advantages
> that we should seriously consider making that move, and Carol makes an
> excellent point vis-a-vis the journal royalties, no matter how modest they
> may be. I think a sponsor is also a workable model, and I agree with folks
> that have had reservations about ALA/LITA. I have nothing against ALA (far
> from it), but it seems like, from some of the posted comments, ALA/LITA
> sponsorship would come with strings that are potentially limiting or at
> least off putting to some members of the community. When I first became a
> part of Code4Lib I was working in medical libraries, and hadn't even joined
> ALA (I was in the MLA at the time). Along with ASIS&T, one library
> professional organization at a time is all that I'm interested in footing
> the bill for. While I'm currently a member of ALA/LITA, I wouldn't want us
> to create a situation where folks who were solely involved in MLA, SLA, or
> no professional organization at all found it difficult or uncomfortable to
> participate in any of the formal activities of the group.
>
> Best regards,
>
> *Jason Bengtson*
>
>
> *http://www.jasonbengtson.com/ <http://www.jasonbengtson.com/>*
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Joseph Montibello <
> joseph.montibe...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > I wonder if C4L could just decide to pay for ALA/LITA memberships for the
> > conference organizers? That way it wouldn't be a burden on them. I don't
> > know how much extra that would add to the cost of the conference but I
> > wouldn't think it would be much, relative to the other costs.
> >
> > I don't really have a favorite between ALA / CLIR / OLF / whoever else
> > might be in the mix. Just thought that this might be a way to keep the
> > burdens off of the people and on the broader community, which is gaining
> > the most benefit from the arrangement.
> >
> > Joe Montibello, MLIS
> > Library Systems Manager
> > Dartmouth College
> > 603.646.9394
> > joseph.montibe...@dartmouth.edu
> >
> >
> > On 7/21/17, 8:39 AM, "Code for Libraries on behalf of Elizabeth Leonard"
> <
> > CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG on behalf of elizabeth.leon...@shu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > I concur with Tim's assessment. If folks have limited funds for
> > professional development, they are less likely to become a member of an
> > association that requires them to join another organization as a
> > prerequisite to membership.
> >
> >     Elizabeth Leonard
> >     973-761-9445
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG] On Behalf
> > Of Tim McGeary
> > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 8:21 PM
> > To: CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence
> has
> > been deafening]
> >
> > I would strongly oppose any requirement that forces membership to ALA
> > / LITA.  This is unnecessary and an expense that is a personal choice and
> > often not reimbursed by libraries. I also think it would servely limit
> who
> > is willing to host / lead conferences.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:53 PM Coral Sheldon-Hess <
> > co...@sheldon-hess.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Point of order: *we do not have to incorporate, to have a fiscal
> > sponsor*.
> > > That is a large part of the benefit of fiscal sponsorship. While we
> > > probably *should* have bylaws, none of the potential fiscal
> sponsors
> > > have called that out as a requirement. The requirements they've
> given
> > > us, that come closest to incorporation, are listed below (but I
> > > encourage everyone to read the report in its entirety, because you
> > > might see things in it that I do not):
> > >
> > > From the report section about fiscal sponsorship <
> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> > https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.
> > > code4lib.org%2FFCIG_Report%23Option_2%3A_Obtain_Ongoing_
> > Fiscal_Sponsor
> > > ship_from_an_External_Organization&data=01%7C01%
> > 7Celizabeth.leonard%40
> > > SHU.EDU%7C03c74e330eba49a9c63408d4cfce900d%
> > 7C51f07c2253b744dfb97ca1326
> > > 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Jason Bengtson]

Personally I agree that incorporation presents enough tangible advantages
that we should seriously consider making that move, and Carol makes an
excellent point vis-a-vis the journal royalties, no matter how modest they
may be. I think a sponsor is also a workable model, and I agree with folks
that have had reservations about ALA/LITA. I have nothing against ALA (far
from it), but it seems like, from some of the posted comments, ALA/LITA
sponsorship would come with strings that are potentially limiting or at
least off putting to some members of the community. When I first became a
part of Code4Lib I was working in medical libraries, and hadn't even joined
ALA (I was in the MLA at the time). Along with ASIS&T, one library
professional organization at a time is all that I'm interested in footing
the bill for. While I'm currently a member of ALA/LITA, I wouldn't want us
to create a situation where folks who were solely involved in MLA, SLA, or
no professional organization at all found it difficult or uncomfortable to
participate in any of the formal activities of the group.

Best regards,

*Jason Bengtson*


*http://www.jasonbengtson.com/ <http://www.jasonbengtson.com/>*

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Joseph Montibello <
joseph.montibe...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:

> I wonder if C4L could just decide to pay for ALA/LITA memberships for the
> conference organizers? That way it wouldn't be a burden on them. I don't
> know how much extra that would add to the cost of the conference but I
> wouldn't think it would be much, relative to the other costs.
>
> I don't really have a favorite between ALA / CLIR / OLF / whoever else
> might be in the mix. Just thought that this might be a way to keep the
> burdens off of the people and on the broader community, which is gaining
> the most benefit from the arrangement.
>
> Joe Montibello, MLIS
> Library Systems Manager
> Dartmouth College
> 603.646.9394
> joseph.montibe...@dartmouth.edu
>
>
> On 7/21/17, 8:39 AM, "Code for Libraries on behalf of Elizabeth Leonard" <
> CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG on behalf of elizabeth.leon...@shu.edu> wrote:
>
> I concur with Tim's assessment. If folks have limited funds for
> professional development, they are less likely to become a member of an
> association that requires them to join another organization as a
> prerequisite to membership.
>
> Elizabeth Leonard
> 973-761-9445
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG] On Behalf
> Of Tim McGeary
> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 8:21 PM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has
> been deafening]
>
> I would strongly oppose any requirement that forces membership to ALA
> / LITA.  This is unnecessary and an expense that is a personal choice and
> often not reimbursed by libraries. I also think it would servely limit who
> is willing to host / lead conferences.
>
> Tim
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:53 PM Coral Sheldon-Hess <
> co...@sheldon-hess.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Point of order: *we do not have to incorporate, to have a fiscal
> sponsor*.
> > That is a large part of the benefit of fiscal sponsorship. While we
> > probably *should* have bylaws, none of the potential fiscal sponsors
> > have called that out as a requirement. The requirements they've given
> > us, that come closest to incorporation, are listed below (but I
> > encourage everyone to read the report in its entirety, because you
> > might see things in it that I do not):
> >
> > From the report section about fiscal sponsorship <
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.
> > code4lib.org%2FFCIG_Report%23Option_2%3A_Obtain_Ongoing_
> Fiscal_Sponsor
> > ship_from_an_External_Organization&data=01%7C01%
> 7Celizabeth.leonard%40
> > SHU.EDU%7C03c74e330eba49a9c63408d4cfce900d%
> 7C51f07c2253b744dfb97ca1326
> > 1d71075%7C1&sdata=Uf437%2F%2BfyC7aXudXj0sMorzQw3sjjG6CBCh
> HpY%2BZ8HE%3D
> > &reserved=0
> > >
> > :
> >
> > Option 1 of ALA/LITA (the less good one, which we would not be likely
> > to
> > choose) : "Although it wouldn’t be required, ALA would strongly
> > recommend that Code4Lib incorporate in this scenario, or else the
> > individuals would be personally liable and would have to pay taxes
> on any revenue."
> >
> > Option 2 of ALA/LITA (the option we would almost certainly choose):
> we
> &g

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Joseph Montibello]

I wonder if C4L could just decide to pay for ALA/LITA memberships for the 
conference organizers? That way it wouldn't be a burden on them. I don't know 
how much extra that would add to the cost of the conference but I wouldn't 
think it would be much, relative to the other costs. 

I don't really have a favorite between ALA / CLIR / OLF / whoever else might be 
in the mix. Just thought that this might be a way to keep the burdens off of 
the people and on the broader community, which is gaining the most benefit from 
the arrangement.

Joe Montibello, MLIS
Library Systems Manager
Dartmouth College
603.646.9394
joseph.montibe...@dartmouth.edu 
 

On 7/21/17, 8:39 AM, "Code for Libraries on behalf of Elizabeth Leonard" 
 wrote:

I concur with Tim's assessment. If folks have limited funds for 
professional development, they are less likely to become a member of an 
association that requires them to join another organization as a prerequisite 
to membership.

Elizabeth Leonard
973-761-9445


-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG] On Behalf Of Tim 
McGeary
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 8:21 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been 
deafening]

I would strongly oppose any requirement that forces membership to ALA / 
LITA.  This is unnecessary and an expense that is a personal choice and often 
not reimbursed by libraries. I also think it would servely limit who is willing 
to host / lead conferences.

Tim


On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:53 PM Coral Sheldon-Hess 
wrote:

> Point of order: *we do not have to incorporate, to have a fiscal sponsor*.
> That is a large part of the benefit of fiscal sponsorship. While we 
> probably *should* have bylaws, none of the potential fiscal sponsors 
> have called that out as a requirement. The requirements they've given 
> us, that come closest to incorporation, are listed below (but I 
> encourage everyone to read the report in its entirety, because you 
> might see things in it that I do not):
>
> From the report section about fiscal sponsorship <
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.
> code4lib.org%2FFCIG_Report%23Option_2%3A_Obtain_Ongoing_Fiscal_Sponsor
> ship_from_an_External_Organization&data=01%7C01%7Celizabeth.leonard%40
> SHU.EDU%7C03c74e330eba49a9c63408d4cfce900d%7C51f07c2253b744dfb97ca1326
> 1d71075%7C1&sdata=Uf437%2F%2BfyC7aXudXj0sMorzQw3sjjG6CBChHpY%2BZ8HE%3D
> &reserved=0
> >
> :
>
> Option 1 of ALA/LITA (the less good one, which we would not be likely 
> to
> choose) : "Although it wouldn’t be required, ALA would strongly 
> recommend that Code4Lib incorporate in this scenario, or else the 
> individuals would be personally liable and would have to pay taxes on any 
revenue."
>
> Option 2 of ALA/LITA (the option we would almost certainly choose): we 
> expressly *do not have to incorporate*, but our conference organizers 
> must be ALA/LITA members. (A note of my own: we would need to be 
> written into LITA's structure, I would guess as an "interest group," 
> because that's their most flexible option; but that doesn't really 
> require formal bylaws, let alone incorporation. As someone who has put 
> a LITA interest group together, I can assure you of that.)
>
> I don't see it in the report (my fault, sorry), but I remember from 
> some of the discussions that ALA/LITA would ideally like us to make a 
> single organizational contact point available to them. I believe they, 
> like DLF/CLIR (below), indicated that each year's conference committee 
> would serve just fine in that role.
>
> For DLF/CLIR: 'To specify and document expectations on both sides and 
> formalize the fiscal sponsorship, CLIR requests that Code4Lib 
> establish an MoU with CLIR. ... CLIR would not require or request that 
> Code4Lib’s annual conference organizers be affiliated with CLIR/DLF 
> member organizations. ... CLIR would not request any control over 
> Code4Lib’s organizational/"governance”
> processes, or that Code4Lib adopt CLIR’s or DLF’s bylaws. ... CLIR 
> expressed familiarity with Code4Lib’s current operational processes, 
> and indicated that they would be fine with these processes continuing: 
> "Single point of contact, changing annually, and without a required 
> connection to CLIR or DLF is fine. In short, the practice of having 
> local organizing committees and rotating leadership ov

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Elizabeth Leonard]

I concur with Tim's assessment. If folks have limited funds for professional 
development, they are less likely to become a member of an association that 
requires them to join another organization as a prerequisite to membership.

Elizabeth Leonard
973-761-9445


-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG] On Behalf Of Tim 
McGeary
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 8:21 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been 
deafening]

I would strongly oppose any requirement that forces membership to ALA / LITA.  
This is unnecessary and an expense that is a personal choice and often not 
reimbursed by libraries. I also think it would servely limit who is willing to 
host / lead conferences.

Tim


On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:53 PM Coral Sheldon-Hess 
wrote:

> Point of order: *we do not have to incorporate, to have a fiscal sponsor*.
> That is a large part of the benefit of fiscal sponsorship. While we 
> probably *should* have bylaws, none of the potential fiscal sponsors 
> have called that out as a requirement. The requirements they've given 
> us, that come closest to incorporation, are listed below (but I 
> encourage everyone to read the report in its entirety, because you 
> might see things in it that I do not):
>
> From the report section about fiscal sponsorship <
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.
> code4lib.org%2FFCIG_Report%23Option_2%3A_Obtain_Ongoing_Fiscal_Sponsor
> ship_from_an_External_Organization&data=01%7C01%7Celizabeth.leonard%40
> SHU.EDU%7C03c74e330eba49a9c63408d4cfce900d%7C51f07c2253b744dfb97ca1326
> 1d71075%7C1&sdata=Uf437%2F%2BfyC7aXudXj0sMorzQw3sjjG6CBChHpY%2BZ8HE%3D
> &reserved=0
> >
> :
>
> Option 1 of ALA/LITA (the less good one, which we would not be likely 
> to
> choose) : "Although it wouldn’t be required, ALA would strongly 
> recommend that Code4Lib incorporate in this scenario, or else the 
> individuals would be personally liable and would have to pay taxes on any 
> revenue."
>
> Option 2 of ALA/LITA (the option we would almost certainly choose): we 
> expressly *do not have to incorporate*, but our conference organizers 
> must be ALA/LITA members. (A note of my own: we would need to be 
> written into LITA's structure, I would guess as an "interest group," 
> because that's their most flexible option; but that doesn't really 
> require formal bylaws, let alone incorporation. As someone who has put 
> a LITA interest group together, I can assure you of that.)
>
> I don't see it in the report (my fault, sorry), but I remember from 
> some of the discussions that ALA/LITA would ideally like us to make a 
> single organizational contact point available to them. I believe they, 
> like DLF/CLIR (below), indicated that each year's conference committee 
> would serve just fine in that role.
>
> For DLF/CLIR: 'To specify and document expectations on both sides and 
> formalize the fiscal sponsorship, CLIR requests that Code4Lib 
> establish an MoU with CLIR. ... CLIR would not require or request that 
> Code4Lib’s annual conference organizers be affiliated with CLIR/DLF 
> member organizations. ... CLIR would not request any control over 
> Code4Lib’s organizational/"governance”
> processes, or that Code4Lib adopt CLIR’s or DLF’s bylaws. ... CLIR 
> expressed familiarity with Code4Lib’s current operational processes, 
> and indicated that they would be fine with these processes continuing: 
> "Single point of contact, changing annually, and without a required 
> connection to CLIR or DLF is fine. In short, the practice of having 
> local organizing committees and rotating leadership over the 
> conference and other activities that currently exists in Code4Lib 
> would be acceptable. We work with some other groups who operate in 
> this way, and were also comfortable taking on hosting of the Code4Lib 
> listserv recently, knowing and appreciating how grassroots leadership happens 
> in the community!"'
>
> So, yes, we would need to formalize a little bit--have a committee or 
> something that handles contact with our fiscal sponsor, or else give 
> that work to our conference committees--but we *do not need to 
> incorporate, *if we choose the fiscal sponsorship route. We might 
> *opt* to incorporate. It might make some things easier. But it is not a 
> requirement.
>
> Thanks,
> Coral
> Who is definitely not writing to this list again today; sorry for 
> sending two long messages in a single day.
>
--
Tim McGeary
timmcge...@gmail.com
GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
484-294-7660 (Google Voice)

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Tim McGeary]

I would strongly oppose any requirement that forces membership to ALA /
LITA.  This is unnecessary and an expense that is a personal choice and
often not reimbursed by libraries. I also think it would servely limit who
is willing to host / lead conferences.

Tim


On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:53 PM Coral Sheldon-Hess 
wrote:

> Point of order: *we do not have to incorporate, to have a fiscal sponsor*.
> That is a large part of the benefit of fiscal sponsorship. While we
> probably *should* have bylaws, none of the potential fiscal sponsors have
> called that out as a requirement. The requirements they've given us, that
> come closest to incorporation, are listed below (but I encourage everyone
> to read the report in its entirety, because you might see things in it that
> I do not):
>
> From the report section about fiscal sponsorship
> <
> https://wiki.code4lib.org/FCIG_Report#Option_2:_Obtain_Ongoing_Fiscal_Sponsorship_from_an_External_Organization
> >
> :
>
> Option 1 of ALA/LITA (the less good one, which we would not be likely to
> choose) : "Although it wouldn’t be required, ALA would strongly recommend
> that Code4Lib incorporate in this scenario, or else the individuals would
> be personally liable and would have to pay taxes on any revenue."
>
> Option 2 of ALA/LITA (the option we would almost certainly choose): we
> expressly *do not have to incorporate*, but our conference organizers must
> be ALA/LITA members. (A note of my own: we would need to be written into
> LITA's structure, I would guess as an "interest group," because that's
> their most flexible option; but that doesn't really require formal bylaws,
> let alone incorporation. As someone who has put a LITA interest group
> together, I can assure you of that.)
>
> I don't see it in the report (my fault, sorry), but I remember from some of
> the discussions that ALA/LITA would ideally like us to make a single
> organizational contact point available to them. I believe they, like
> DLF/CLIR (below), indicated that each year's conference committee would
> serve just fine in that role.
>
> For DLF/CLIR: 'To specify and document expectations on both sides and
> formalize the fiscal sponsorship, CLIR requests that Code4Lib establish an
> MoU with CLIR. ... CLIR would not require or request that Code4Lib’s annual
> conference organizers be affiliated with CLIR/DLF member
> organizations. ... CLIR
> would not request any control over Code4Lib’s organizational/"governance”
> processes, or that Code4Lib adopt CLIR’s or DLF’s bylaws. ... CLIR
> expressed familiarity with Code4Lib’s current operational processes, and
> indicated that they would be fine with these processes continuing: "Single
> point of contact, changing annually, and without a required connection to
> CLIR or DLF is fine. In short, the practice of having local organizing
> committees and rotating leadership over the conference and other activities
> that currently exists in Code4Lib would be acceptable. We work with some
> other groups who operate in this way, and were also comfortable taking on
> hosting of the Code4Lib listserv recently, knowing and appreciating how
> grassroots leadership happens in the community!"'
>
> So, yes, we would need to formalize a little bit--have a committee or
> something that handles contact with our fiscal sponsor, or else give that
> work to our conference committees--but we *do not need to incorporate, *if
> we choose the fiscal sponsorship route. We might *opt* to incorporate. It
> might make some things easier. But it is not a requirement.
>
> Thanks,
> Coral
> Who is definitely not writing to this list again today; sorry for sending
> two long messages in a single day.
>
-- 
Tim McGeary
timmcge...@gmail.com
GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
484-294-7660 (Google Voice)

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Coral Sheldon-Hess]

Point of order: *we do not have to incorporate, to have a fiscal sponsor*.
That is a large part of the benefit of fiscal sponsorship. While we
probably *should* have bylaws, none of the potential fiscal sponsors have
called that out as a requirement. The requirements they've given us, that
come closest to incorporation, are listed below (but I encourage everyone
to read the report in its entirety, because you might see things in it that
I do not):

>From the report section about fiscal sponsorship

:

Option 1 of ALA/LITA (the less good one, which we would not be likely to
choose) : "Although it wouldn’t be required, ALA would strongly recommend
that Code4Lib incorporate in this scenario, or else the individuals would
be personally liable and would have to pay taxes on any revenue."

Option 2 of ALA/LITA (the option we would almost certainly choose): we
expressly *do not have to incorporate*, but our conference organizers must
be ALA/LITA members. (A note of my own: we would need to be written into
LITA's structure, I would guess as an "interest group," because that's
their most flexible option; but that doesn't really require formal bylaws,
let alone incorporation. As someone who has put a LITA interest group
together, I can assure you of that.)

I don't see it in the report (my fault, sorry), but I remember from some of
the discussions that ALA/LITA would ideally like us to make a single
organizational contact point available to them. I believe they, like
DLF/CLIR (below), indicated that each year's conference committee would
serve just fine in that role.

For DLF/CLIR: 'To specify and document expectations on both sides and
formalize the fiscal sponsorship, CLIR requests that Code4Lib establish an
MoU with CLIR. ... CLIR would not require or request that Code4Lib’s annual
conference organizers be affiliated with CLIR/DLF member
organizations. ... CLIR
would not request any control over Code4Lib’s organizational/"governance”
processes, or that Code4Lib adopt CLIR’s or DLF’s bylaws. ... CLIR
expressed familiarity with Code4Lib’s current operational processes, and
indicated that they would be fine with these processes continuing: "Single
point of contact, changing annually, and without a required connection to
CLIR or DLF is fine. In short, the practice of having local organizing
committees and rotating leadership over the conference and other activities
that currently exists in Code4Lib would be acceptable. We work with some
other groups who operate in this way, and were also comfortable taking on
hosting of the Code4Lib listserv recently, knowing and appreciating how
grassroots leadership happens in the community!"'

So, yes, we would need to formalize a little bit--have a committee or
something that handles contact with our fiscal sponsor, or else give that
work to our conference committees--but we *do not need to incorporate, *if
we choose the fiscal sponsorship route. We might *opt* to incorporate. It
might make some things easier. But it is not a requirement.

Thanks,
Coral
Who is definitely not writing to this list again today; sorry for sending
two long messages in a single day.

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Jonathan Rochkind]

> The details depend on the fiscal sponsor. In all the cases we are
considering, the fiscal sponsor is already incorporated as a legal entity
and provides that legal entity status to hosted organizations as part of
the hosting.

Yes, this matches how it works with many non-library projects I've been
involved or aquainted with. You become a 'project' of the fiscal sponsor,
you do not need to be independently incorporated.

I suppose theoretically if you were independently incorporated and had a
Memorandum of Understanding, that MOU might protect you if the fiscal
sponsor became untrustworthy and decided to abscond with all your money for
some other purpose.  I don't see this being a significant threat here. I
know of many projects which have had various trustworthy fiscal sponsors
without the project being incorporated, without incident. It is a common
practice.

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Tod Olson  wrote:

> The details depend on the fiscal sponsor. In all the cases we are
> considering, the fiscal sponsor is already incorporated as a legal entity
> and provides that legal entity status to hosted organizations as part of
> the hosting.
>
> Let's take OLF, for example. (And Tim or Mike, correct me if I'm wrong
> here.) OLF exists to provide a home to organizations or projects that fit
> it's broad mission. OLE does require hosted organizations to describe their
> governance (and makes no proscriptions about that governance) It does not
> require those organizations to be legally incorporated, but there is some
> degree of formalization. And that formalization is there to assure the OLF
> that the organization is operating in a scope that the OLF supports and in
> a way that does not jeopardize the OLF's status. So the hosted organization
> needs some degree of formalizing, but has no need to incorporate. The OLF
> provides that incorporation (including not-for-profit status) for the
> hosted organization.
>
> As I read it, that's essentially the same for both CLIR/DLF and ALA/LITA.
> If Code4Lib were to be hosted by any of these, CLIR, ALA, or OLF would act
> as the legal entity that can enter into contracts on behalf of Code4Lib, no
> need for Code4Lib to legally incorporate.
>
> The hosting organizations will have some requirements for formalizing
> governance (and perhaps the Code4Lib "bubble" under LITA would be the least
> formal) but that is a far cry from incorporating.
>
> -Tod
>
> On Jul 19, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Cary Gordon  istu...@chillco.com>> wrote:
>
> One point that I don’t see addressed here is that even if we find a fiscal
> agent / sponsor, there still has to be some legal “we” that enters into an
> agreement. There are many organizational forms, including in many states
> some form of association, but even those require some level of governance
> and administration. Galan and I researched this a few years ago, and he has
> a handle on what’s available in Georgia. I don’t believe that we should
> organize in California, but if anyone else wants to volunteer their state,
> and do the research, have at it.
>
> Because librarians, the greater community will likely want some kind of
> say in this. My feeling is that we should solicit volunteers to create a
> simple association and come up with (e.g. steal) some bylaws, or perhaps
> just propose to have the Fiscal Continuity IG take this on and have a
> DieboldATron vote.
>
> Cary
>
> On Jul 19, 2017, at 9:54 AM, Becky Yoose  yo...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Thank you, Galen, for bumping the discussion thread and for the folks who
> responded thus far.
>
> A few folks have explored a bit more about the possibility of
> self-incorporation. Given that this has been batted around the community
> since the first code4lib conference (/me waves at Roy and his presentation
> in 2006 [1]), the fact that there has not been a successful push to
> self-incorporate in the last 11 or so years doesn't necessarily mean that
> an effort to do as such now would not succeed. Nonetheless, the resources
> needed from the community to not only go through the self-incorporation
> process but *also* overcome the cultural/community inertia that has built
> up over the years around this topic would be *substantial*.
>
> There's a reason why many who organize code4lib conferences take several
> steps back from the community after their work is done - if they even come
> back to the community, that is. It takes a lot of resources and labor to
> pull off a conference. Throughout the years the community has come to
> expect more from the conference, but I'm not sure if the number ratio of
> people who help with putting on the conference has grown with the community
> in general. The community and conference have grown, but our resources are
> not growing at the same rate.
>
> So, with my manager's hat firmly in place, I'm looking at the options with
> an eye on resource cost to the community in terms of money, human labor,
> emotional labor, time, etc. Finding a financial 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Peter Murray]

I think I learned something today.

Peter

On Jul 20, 2017, 5:15 PM -0400, Coral Sheldon-Hess , 
wrote:
> I agree with all of this, except for the idea of using ranked choice voting
> (aka "instant runoff voting" aka "IRV") option. For reasons that are
> mathematically
> interesting , ranked
> choice voting is not the best tool to help us determine the will of the
> community--short version: it's easy, under ranked choice/IRV to
> accidentally betray your favorite and help an option you don't like as well
> to win. Like in plurality voting (what we use for US elections, generally:
> choose a single option from the list), you have to vote strategically,
> rather than being able to vote honestly, or else you might risk your
> least-favorite option winning; and, unlike in plurality, it's sometimes
> hard to calculate the best strategic vote for you to make. Also, properly
> tallying the votes is annoying, for whoever has to do that.
>
> As someone on the committee that might have to tally votes, I am not even a
> little bit interested in trying to implement IRV/ranked choice; it's awful.
> As a member of the community who wants my vote to matter and who wants the
> community to have a fair say about this, I *definitely do not* want to use
> IRV/ranked choice.
>
> *When there are more than two options on a ballot, the better approaches,
> to find out what a community wants, are approval voting
>  and its slightly more nuanced
> cousin, score voting *. We already do
> score voting when choosing conference programs, so we know what that looks
> like and can easily put that into the Diebold-o-tron. Approval voting is
> just "check everything that you're happy with"; so, for reasons that are
> probably obvious, it's very easy to calculate and very good at finding the
> option that the most people will be happy with. ("Minimizing Bayesian
> regret," in the lingo.) I imagine getting the Diebold-o-tron to do that
> will not be a problem, either.
>
> Just as another suggestion, because I've been thinking about this for a
> while: we could also treat these questions as independent. I'm giving an
> approval voting-based example, below, but it could be rephrased to work
> with score voting ("give a numeric score to each of the options below") or
> even simple plurality ("choose your favorite option from this list").
>
> 1) Choose all of the options that you find acceptable:
> * Do nothing
> * Find a fiscal sponsor
> * Incorporate as a nonprofit entity
>
> 2) *Assuming the community as a whole wants to go with fiscal sponsorship*,
> choose the options you find acceptable:
> * ALA/LITA
> * DLF/CLIR
> * OLF
> * Other
>
> 3) *Assuming the community as a whole wants to go with incorporating*,
> choose the options you find acceptable:
> * 501c3
> * LLC
> * ???
>
> There's a possibility that we lose some nuance by separating the questions
> out like I have, above. This is worth discussing. I'm just suggesting this
> possibility, in case it's helpful to us, in designing our voting mechanism.
>
> I'm happy to discuss the nuances of voting math in more detail, if anyone
> cares to do so, but, um, no worries if nobody's into that. :)
>
> Best,
> Coral

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Cary Gordon]

Just a couple notes.

A) To repeat my earlier assertion, we need to form some kind of organization to 
do anything. Galen knows what this involves in Georgia, so I suggest that we 
ask for the community’s approval to do organize as a GA association. We will 
need bylaws, but we can start with some cribbed working bylaws until we have an 
organization.

B) We can incorporate in several different ways, including 501(c)(3), C corp, 
etc., or we can organize in some other form such as LLC, partnership, 
association, etc.

Thanks,

Cary

> On Jul 20, 2017, at 2:14 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess  
> wrote:
> 
> I agree with all of this, except for the idea of using ranked choice voting
> (aka "instant runoff voting" aka "IRV") option. For reasons that are
> mathematically
> interesting , ranked
> choice voting is not the best tool to help us determine the will of the
> community--short version: it's easy, under ranked choice/IRV to
> accidentally betray your favorite and help an option you don't like as well
> to win. Like in plurality voting (what we use for US elections, generally:
> choose a single option from the list), you have to vote strategically,
> rather than being able to vote honestly, or else you might risk your
> least-favorite option winning; and, unlike in plurality, it's sometimes
> hard to calculate the best strategic vote for you to make. Also, properly
> tallying the votes is annoying, for whoever has to do that.
> 
> As someone on the committee that might have to tally votes, I am not even a
> little bit interested in trying to implement IRV/ranked choice; it's awful.
> As a member of the community who wants my vote to matter and who wants the
> community to have a fair say about this, I *definitely do not* want to use
> IRV/ranked choice.
> 
> *When there are more than two options on a ballot, the better approaches,
> to find out what a community wants, are approval voting
>  and its slightly more nuanced
> cousin, score voting *. We already do
> score voting when choosing conference programs, so we know what that looks
> like and can easily put that into the Diebold-o-tron. Approval voting is
> just "check everything that you're happy with"; so, for reasons that are
> probably obvious, it's very easy to calculate and very good at finding the
> option that the most people will be happy with. ("Minimizing Bayesian
> regret," in the lingo.) I imagine getting the Diebold-o-tron to do that
> will not be a problem, either.
> 
> Just as another suggestion, because I've been thinking about this for a
> while: we could also treat these questions as independent. I'm giving an
> approval voting-based example, below, but it could be rephrased to work
> with score voting ("give a numeric score to each of the options below") or
> even simple plurality ("choose your favorite option from this list").
> 
> 1) Choose all of the options that you find acceptable:
> * Do nothing
> * Find a fiscal sponsor
> * Incorporate as a nonprofit entity
> 
> 2) *Assuming the community as a whole wants to go with fiscal sponsorship*,
> choose the options you find acceptable:
> * ALA/LITA
> * DLF/CLIR
> * OLF
> * Other
> 
> 3) *Assuming the community as a whole wants to go with incorporating*,
> choose the options you find acceptable:
> * 501c3
> * LLC
> * ???
> 
> There's a possibility that we lose some nuance by separating the questions
> out like I have, above. This is worth discussing. I'm just suggesting this
> possibility, in case it's helpful to us, in designing our voting mechanism.
> 
> I'm happy to discuss the nuances of voting math in more detail, if anyone
> cares to do so, but, um, no worries if nobody's into that. :)
> 
> Best,
> Coral

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Galen Charlton]

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess
 wrote:
> *When there are more than two options on a ballot, the better approaches,
> to find out what a community wants, are approval voting
>  and its slightly more nuanced
> cousin, score voting *. We already do
> score voting when choosing conference programs, so we know what that looks
> like and can easily put that into the Diebold-o-tron. Approval voting is
> just "check everything that you're happy with"; so, for reasons that are
> probably obvious, it's very easy to calculate and very good at finding the
> option that the most people will be happy with. ("Minimizing Bayesian
> regret," in the lingo.) I imagine getting the Diebold-o-tron to do that
> will not be a problem, either.

I'm on board with using approval or score voting (leaning a bit more
towards score voting if that means less work for the keepers of the
Diebold-o-tron).

> Just as another suggestion, because I've been thinking about this for a
> while: we could also treat these questions as independent. I'm giving an
> approval voting-based example, below, but it could be rephrased to work
> with score voting ("give a numeric score to each of the options below") or
> even simple plurality ("choose your favorite option from this list").

I think this could work as well, but...

> 2) *Assuming the community as a whole wants to go with fiscal sponsorship*,
> choose the options you find acceptable:
> * ALA/LITA
> * DLF/CLIR
> * OLF
> * Other

... if we do this, I feel a bit more strongly about first asking OLF
to respond to the FCIG questions [1] beforehand. I suspect, though,
that this need not cause a significant delay in setting up the vote.

[1] 
https://wiki.code4lib.org/FCIG_Report#Appendix_A_.E2.80.94_Questions_posed_to_potential_fiscal_sponsors

Regards,

Galen
-- 
Galen Charlton
Infrastructure and Added Services Manager
Equinox Open Library Initiative
phone:  1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
email:  g...@equinoxinitiative.org
web:  https://equinoxInitiative.org
direct: +1 770-709-5581
cell:   +1 404-984-4366

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Coral Sheldon-Hess]

I agree with all of this, except for the idea of using ranked choice voting
(aka "instant runoff voting" aka "IRV") option. For reasons that are
mathematically
interesting , ranked
choice voting is not the best tool to help us determine the will of the
community--short version: it's easy, under ranked choice/IRV to
accidentally betray your favorite and help an option you don't like as well
to win. Like in plurality voting (what we use for US elections, generally:
choose a single option from the list), you have to vote strategically,
rather than being able to vote honestly, or else you might risk your
least-favorite option winning; and, unlike in plurality, it's sometimes
hard to calculate the best strategic vote for you to make. Also, properly
tallying the votes is annoying, for whoever has to do that.

As someone on the committee that might have to tally votes, I am not even a
little bit interested in trying to implement IRV/ranked choice; it's awful.
As a member of the community who wants my vote to matter and who wants the
community to have a fair say about this, I *definitely do not* want to use
IRV/ranked choice.

*When there are more than two options on a ballot, the better approaches,
to find out what a community wants, are approval voting
 and its slightly more nuanced
cousin, score voting *. We already do
score voting when choosing conference programs, so we know what that looks
like and can easily put that into the Diebold-o-tron. Approval voting is
just "check everything that you're happy with"; so, for reasons that are
probably obvious, it's very easy to calculate and very good at finding the
option that the most people will be happy with. ("Minimizing Bayesian
regret," in the lingo.) I imagine getting the Diebold-o-tron to do that
will not be a problem, either.

Just as another suggestion, because I've been thinking about this for a
while: we could also treat these questions as independent. I'm giving an
approval voting-based example, below, but it could be rephrased to work
with score voting ("give a numeric score to each of the options below") or
even simple plurality ("choose your favorite option from this list").

1) Choose all of the options that you find acceptable:
* Do nothing
* Find a fiscal sponsor
* Incorporate as a nonprofit entity

2) *Assuming the community as a whole wants to go with fiscal sponsorship*,
choose the options you find acceptable:
* ALA/LITA
* DLF/CLIR
* OLF
* Other

3) *Assuming the community as a whole wants to go with incorporating*,
choose the options you find acceptable:
* 501c3
* LLC
* ???

There's a possibility that we lose some nuance by separating the questions
out like I have, above. This is worth discussing. I'm just suggesting this
possibility, in case it's helpful to us, in designing our voting mechanism.

I'm happy to discuss the nuances of voting math in more detail, if anyone
cares to do so, but, um, no worries if nobody's into that. :)

Best,
Coral

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[William Denton]

On 20 July 2017, Galen Charlton wrote:


If folks think we're ready to call a vote and move forward, what I
suggest we do is a ranked preference vote among the choice of
"maintain status quo", "incorporate as a separate entity", or "partner
with a fiscal host".


Narrowing like this, then finding out all the options for the top choice and 
making another choice, is a good way to go.


Bill
--
William Denton :: Toronto, Canada   ---   Listening to Art: 
https://listeningtoart.org/
https://www.miskatonic.org/ ---   GHG.EARTH: http://ghg.earth/
Caveat lector.  ---   STAPLR: http://staplr.org/

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Tim McGeary]

Tod is accurate in describing the minimal level of formalization that would
be required to be hosted by a legally defined non-profit.  Each of them
would (should) require a charter that details the purpose and
characteristics of the project / organization it is hosting and likely a
review at some period to ensure such charter is accurate and consistent
with the non-profit.

Per Galen's email, I support a preference and then giving appending OLF
response to the report with a second vote on the organizations to join.

Tim


On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 2:43 PM Galen Charlton 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Karl W Holten  wrote:
> > I would also like to see a vote on this sooner rather than later. The
> committee has done
> > a great job looking into the various possibilities, and I would hate to
> > see momentum stall out on this again.
> >
> > It seems that it is not quite as simple as just saying "we want a
> sponsor"
> > or "we would like to incorporate", but that there are also options
> within those
> > preferences to choose from. Maybe we could do something like a ranked
> > preference vote?
>
> If folks think we're ready to call a vote and move forward, what I
> suggest we do is a ranked preference vote among the choice of
> "maintain status quo", "incorporate as a separate entity", or "partner
> with a fiscal host".
>
> Under this approach, if the clear community preference is to partner
> with a fiscal host, the FCIG could present to OLF the same questions
> we asked of ALA/LITA and DLF/CLIR and append to the report. Folks
> could also ask questions of DLF/CLIR and ALA/LITA. If there are other
> organizations who would want to propose to act as fiscal host, they
> could also make themselves known.
>
> We could then hold a second vote to choose among them (or to decide
> that upon having full information about the potential fiscal hosts
> that Code4LIb would rather self-incorporate or maintain the status quo
> after all).
>
> Another option would be to allow a bit of time for OLF (and others) to
> answer the questions (and any other questions that community members
> care to raise), then hold a preference vote to choose among
> maintaining the status quo, self-incorporating, entering into
> negotiations with potential host X, with potential host Y, and so
> forth.
>
> Regards,
>
> Galen
> --
> Galen Charlton
> Infrastructure and Added Services Manager
> Equinox Open Library Initiative
> phone:  1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
> email:  g...@equinoxinitiative.org
> web:  https://equinoxInitiative.org
> direct: +1 770-709-5581
> cell:   +1 404-984-4366
>
-- 
Tim McGeary
timmcge...@gmail.com
GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
484-294-7660 (Google Voice)

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Galen Charlton]

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Karl W Holten  wrote:
> I would also like to see a vote on this sooner rather than later. The 
> committee has done
> a great job looking into the various possibilities, and I would hate to
> see momentum stall out on this again.
>
> It seems that it is not quite as simple as just saying "we want a sponsor"
> or "we would like to incorporate", but that there are also options within 
> those
> preferences to choose from. Maybe we could do something like a ranked
> preference vote?

If folks think we're ready to call a vote and move forward, what I
suggest we do is a ranked preference vote among the choice of
"maintain status quo", "incorporate as a separate entity", or "partner
with a fiscal host".

Under this approach, if the clear community preference is to partner
with a fiscal host, the FCIG could present to OLF the same questions
we asked of ALA/LITA and DLF/CLIR and append to the report. Folks
could also ask questions of DLF/CLIR and ALA/LITA. If there are other
organizations who would want to propose to act as fiscal host, they
could also make themselves known.

We could then hold a second vote to choose among them (or to decide
that upon having full information about the potential fiscal hosts
that Code4LIb would rather self-incorporate or maintain the status quo
after all).

Another option would be to allow a bit of time for OLF (and others) to
answer the questions (and any other questions that community members
care to raise), then hold a preference vote to choose among
maintaining the status quo, self-incorporating, entering into
negotiations with potential host X, with potential host Y, and so
forth.

Regards,

Galen
-- 
Galen Charlton
Infrastructure and Added Services Manager
Equinox Open Library Initiative
phone:  1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
email:  g...@equinoxinitiative.org
web:  https://equinoxInitiative.org
direct: +1 770-709-5581
cell:   +1 404-984-4366

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Karl W Holten]

I would also like to see a vote on this sooner rather than later. The committee 
has done a great job looking into the various possibilities, and I would hate 
to see momentum stall out on this again.

It seems that it is not quite as simple as just saying "we want a sponsor" or 
"we would like to incorporate", but that there are also options within those 
preferences to choose from. Maybe we could do something like a ranked 
preference vote?

I suspect that there will be differences of opinion on which 
incorporation/sponsorship option is best, but I think that more or less 
everyone agrees the status quo is untenable. 

Regards,
Karl Holten
LAMP Administrator- Library and L&S IT Office, University of 
Wisconsin-Milwaukee 


-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG] On Behalf Of Julie 
Swierczek
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 2:20 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been 
deafening]

Could we roll out the Diebold-a-tron just to get a sense of where people stand 
on this?  I, too, am in favor of the DLF/CLIR sponsorship, but it would be nice 
to see if the group has a strong preference in one direction or another.

Can we vote on the three options, and possibly also allow for people to input 
comments as part of their votes?

Julie

Julie C. Swierczek
Librarian for Primary Resources and Metadata Services Swarthmore College Peace 
Collection and Friends Historical Library jswie...@swarthmore.edu

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Tod Olson]

The details depend on the fiscal sponsor. In all the cases we are considering, 
the fiscal sponsor is already incorporated as a legal entity and provides that 
legal entity status to hosted organizations as part of the hosting.

Let's take OLF, for example. (And Tim or Mike, correct me if I'm wrong here.) 
OLF exists to provide a home to organizations or projects that fit it's broad 
mission. OLE does require hosted organizations to describe their governance 
(and makes no proscriptions about that governance) It does not require those 
organizations to be legally incorporated, but there is some degree of 
formalization. And that formalization is there to assure the OLF that the 
organization is operating in a scope that the OLF supports and in a way that 
does not jeopardize the OLF's status. So the hosted organization needs some 
degree of formalizing, but has no need to incorporate. The OLF provides that 
incorporation (including not-for-profit status) for the hosted organization.

As I read it, that's essentially the same for both CLIR/DLF and ALA/LITA. If 
Code4Lib were to be hosted by any of these, CLIR, ALA, or OLF would act as the 
legal entity that can enter into contracts on behalf of Code4Lib, no need for 
Code4Lib to legally incorporate.

The hosting organizations will have some requirements for formalizing 
governance (and perhaps the Code4Lib "bubble" under LITA would be the least 
formal) but that is a far cry from incorporating.

-Tod

On Jul 19, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Cary Gordon 
mailto:listu...@chillco.com>> wrote:

One point that I don’t see addressed here is that even if we find a fiscal 
agent / sponsor, there still has to be some legal “we” that enters into an 
agreement. There are many organizational forms, including in many states some 
form of association, but even those require some level of governance and 
administration. Galan and I researched this a few years ago, and he has a 
handle on what’s available in Georgia. I don’t believe that we should organize 
in California, but if anyone else wants to volunteer their state, and do the 
research, have at it.

Because librarians, the greater community will likely want some kind of say in 
this. My feeling is that we should solicit volunteers to create a simple 
association and come up with (e.g. steal) some bylaws, or perhaps just propose 
to have the Fiscal Continuity IG take this on and have a DieboldATron vote.

Cary

On Jul 19, 2017, at 9:54 AM, Becky Yoose 
mailto:b.yo...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Thank you, Galen, for bumping the discussion thread and for the folks who
responded thus far.

A few folks have explored a bit more about the possibility of
self-incorporation. Given that this has been batted around the community
since the first code4lib conference (/me waves at Roy and his presentation
in 2006 [1]), the fact that there has not been a successful push to
self-incorporate in the last 11 or so years doesn't necessarily mean that
an effort to do as such now would not succeed. Nonetheless, the resources
needed from the community to not only go through the self-incorporation
process but *also* overcome the cultural/community inertia that has built
up over the years around this topic would be *substantial*.

There's a reason why many who organize code4lib conferences take several
steps back from the community after their work is done - if they even come
back to the community, that is. It takes a lot of resources and labor to
pull off a conference. Throughout the years the community has come to
expect more from the conference, but I'm not sure if the number ratio of
people who help with putting on the conference has grown with the community
in general. The community and conference have grown, but our resources are
not growing at the same rate.

So, with my manager's hat firmly in place, I'm looking at the options with
an eye on resource cost to the community in terms of money, human labor,
emotional labor, time, etc. Finding a financial sponsor (DLF/OLA/CLIR)
would have lower resource cost to the community. The concerns about
autonomy are valid, but the organizations that we are looking at seem to
have friendly leadership folks that would be more than happy to talk
through any concerns :c)

And now for a controversial statement - option one, which is to keep status
quo, should not be considered further in this discussion. It not only
leaves us open to a greater amount of risk (see previous comments about how
FRAKKING LUCKY we've been so far with pulling off our events) than the
other two options, but is also demanding that future conference planners in
that the community spend additional resources, time, and labor in their
conference and community work that could be more wisely spent elsewhere.

We need to choose between a financial sponsor or to self-incorporate.
Resource-wise, a financial sponsor seems fall in line with what we, as a
community, can spend on this particular issue at this time.

[1] https://code4lib.org/2006/tennant

Ch

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Julie Swierczek]

Could we roll out the Diebold-a-tron just to get a sense of where people stand 
on this?  I, too, am in favor of the DLF/CLIR sponsorship, but it would be nice 
to see if the group has a strong preference in one direction or another.

Can we vote on the three options, and possibly also allow for people to input 
comments as part of their votes?

Julie

Julie C. Swierczek
Librarian for Primary Resources and Metadata Services
Swarthmore College Peace Collection and Friends Historical Library
jswie...@swarthmore.edu

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Cary Gordon]

One point that I don’t see addressed here is that even if we find a fiscal 
agent / sponsor, there still has to be some legal “we” that enters into an 
agreement. There are many organizational forms, including in many states some 
form of association, but even those require some level of governance and 
administration. Galan and I researched this a few years ago, and he has a 
handle on what’s available in Georgia. I don’t believe that we should organize 
in California, but if anyone else wants to volunteer their state, and do the 
research, have at it.

Because librarians, the greater community will likely want some kind of say in 
this. My feeling is that we should solicit volunteers to create a simple 
association and come up with (e.g. steal) some bylaws, or perhaps just propose 
to have the Fiscal Continuity IG take this on and have a DieboldATron vote.

Cary

> On Jul 19, 2017, at 9:54 AM, Becky Yoose  wrote:
> 
> Thank you, Galen, for bumping the discussion thread and for the folks who
> responded thus far.
> 
> A few folks have explored a bit more about the possibility of
> self-incorporation. Given that this has been batted around the community
> since the first code4lib conference (/me waves at Roy and his presentation
> in 2006 [1]), the fact that there has not been a successful push to
> self-incorporate in the last 11 or so years doesn't necessarily mean that
> an effort to do as such now would not succeed. Nonetheless, the resources
> needed from the community to not only go through the self-incorporation
> process but *also* overcome the cultural/community inertia that has built
> up over the years around this topic would be *substantial*.
> 
> There's a reason why many who organize code4lib conferences take several
> steps back from the community after their work is done - if they even come
> back to the community, that is. It takes a lot of resources and labor to
> pull off a conference. Throughout the years the community has come to
> expect more from the conference, but I'm not sure if the number ratio of
> people who help with putting on the conference has grown with the community
> in general. The community and conference have grown, but our resources are
> not growing at the same rate.
> 
> So, with my manager's hat firmly in place, I'm looking at the options with
> an eye on resource cost to the community in terms of money, human labor,
> emotional labor, time, etc. Finding a financial sponsor (DLF/OLA/CLIR)
> would have lower resource cost to the community. The concerns about
> autonomy are valid, but the organizations that we are looking at seem to
> have friendly leadership folks that would be more than happy to talk
> through any concerns :c)
> 
> And now for a controversial statement - option one, which is to keep status
> quo, should not be considered further in this discussion. It not only
> leaves us open to a greater amount of risk (see previous comments about how
> FRAKKING LUCKY we've been so far with pulling off our events) than the
> other two options, but is also demanding that future conference planners in
> that the community spend additional resources, time, and labor in their
> conference and community work that could be more wisely spent elsewhere.
> 
> We need to choose between a financial sponsor or to self-incorporate.
> Resource-wise, a financial sponsor seems fall in line with what we, as a
> community, can spend on this particular issue at this time.
> 
> [1] https://code4lib.org/2006/tennant
> 
> Cheers,
> Becky
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Peter Murray  wrote:
> 
>> I like what Coral, Kyle and Tod have said so far:
>> 
>> * work with an existing non-profit willing to be the community's fiscal
>> sponsor
>> 
>> * watch how the community continues to evolve to see if our own
>> incorporation makes sense
>> 
>> * lean slightly towards CLIR given past and present work with them, and
>> wouldn't be outright opposed to ALA or OLF
>> 
>> 
>> Peter
>> 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Kyle Banerjee]

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Becky Yoose  wrote:

>
> ...There's a reason why many who organize code4lib conferences take several
> steps back from the community after their work is done - if they even come
> back to the community, that is
>

This is an interesting and important observation.

Healthy groups experience natural turnover. But if those who share their
talents and time burn out rather than hoping for other opportunities to
participate, it's a sign that something needs to be adjusted.

kyle

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Becky Yoose]

Thank you, Galen, for bumping the discussion thread and for the folks who
responded thus far.

A few folks have explored a bit more about the possibility of
self-incorporation. Given that this has been batted around the community
since the first code4lib conference (/me waves at Roy and his presentation
in 2006 [1]), the fact that there has not been a successful push to
self-incorporate in the last 11 or so years doesn't necessarily mean that
an effort to do as such now would not succeed. Nonetheless, the resources
needed from the community to not only go through the self-incorporation
process but *also* overcome the cultural/community inertia that has built
up over the years around this topic would be *substantial*.

There's a reason why many who organize code4lib conferences take several
steps back from the community after their work is done - if they even come
back to the community, that is. It takes a lot of resources and labor to
pull off a conference. Throughout the years the community has come to
expect more from the conference, but I'm not sure if the number ratio of
people who help with putting on the conference has grown with the community
in general. The community and conference have grown, but our resources are
not growing at the same rate.

So, with my manager's hat firmly in place, I'm looking at the options with
an eye on resource cost to the community in terms of money, human labor,
emotional labor, time, etc. Finding a financial sponsor (DLF/OLA/CLIR)
would have lower resource cost to the community. The concerns about
autonomy are valid, but the organizations that we are looking at seem to
have friendly leadership folks that would be more than happy to talk
through any concerns :c)

And now for a controversial statement - option one, which is to keep status
quo, should not be considered further in this discussion. It not only
leaves us open to a greater amount of risk (see previous comments about how
FRAKKING LUCKY we've been so far with pulling off our events) than the
other two options, but is also demanding that future conference planners in
that the community spend additional resources, time, and labor in their
conference and community work that could be more wisely spent elsewhere.

We need to choose between a financial sponsor or to self-incorporate.
Resource-wise, a financial sponsor seems fall in line with what we, as a
community, can spend on this particular issue at this time.

[1] https://code4lib.org/2006/tennant

Cheers,
Becky



On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Peter Murray  wrote:

> I like what Coral, Kyle and Tod have said so far:
>
>  * work with an existing non-profit willing to be the community's fiscal
> sponsor
>
>  * watch how the community continues to evolve to see if our own
> incorporation makes sense
>
>  * lean slightly towards CLIR given past and present work with them, and
> wouldn't be outright opposed to ALA or OLF
>
>
> Peter
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Peter Murray]

I like what Coral, Kyle and Tod have said so far:

 * work with an existing non-profit willing to be the community's fiscal sponsor

 * watch how the community continues to evolve to see if our own incorporation 
makes sense

 * lean slightly towards CLIR given past and present work with them, and 
wouldn't be outright opposed to ALA or OLF


Peter

On Jul 18, 2017, 2:52 PM -0400, Coral Sheldon-Hess , 
wrote:
> It's worth pointing out that both ALA/LITA and DLF/CLIR would allow
> Code4Lib to work with them as our fiscal sponsor for a few years, in the
> lead-up to creating a legal entity of our own, should we decide we want to.
> Neither requires a long-term agreement. And (having served on the fiscal
> continuity working group, but speaking *only for myself*), I think this is
> a far better option than trying to jump right into forming our own
> nonprofit right out of the gate.
>
> For one thing, it comes with the possibility of having a sponsorship in
> place in time for the 2019 conference. Someone who worked more closely on
> the nonprofit option for our report is welcome to correct me, but it seems
> to me (from what I remember from our discussions, writing/editing the
> document, and also some work I've done with other potential nonprofits in
> the past) that jumping through those legal hoops takes a whole lot of time
> and effort.
>
> If people are really excited about forming a nonprofit of our own, I
> certainly wouldn't stand in the way. It isn't a bad option. But I believe
> it carries the same shorter-term risks as the "do nothing" option: we could
> fail to find a temporary sponsoring organization for 2019, and I believe it
> is probably more than we need to do, right this second.
>
> The fiscal sponsorship model seems to me like our best bet, especially as a
> first step into getting more organized. As our fiscal sponsor, ALA/LITA or
> DLF/CLIR (or, yeah, OLF) could take the EBSCO payments mentioned earlier in
> the thread, as well as letting us receive grants and donations that are
> only available to nonprofit entities. They could give us financial and
> organizational continuity that we lack, and neither organization has
> expressed any interest in telling us how to run our affairs; quite the
> opposite, in fact.
>
> And, to be clear: I believe the "do nothing" option is wildly irresponsible
> and asking too much of future conference committees; it does not give us a
> reasonable risk mitigation model. Under the current model, we risk losing
> our conference forever due to a natural or legal disaster (imagine
> something like Hurricane Katrina or the NC bathroom bill, happening mid-way
> through conference planning, one year). We only get to have conferences as
> a legal non-entity, right now, because we have a solid track record of not
> ever losing money--and talk to any former conference chair about how much
> pressure *that* puts on them. We've been lucky to avoid disaster, and going
> with the "do nothing" option is basically just assuming we will somehow
> keep avoiding disasters, forever. Because, if we fail to meet our financial
> obligations with a temporary sponsor? That's going to make it *really*
> difficult to find other temporary sponsors.
>
> Again, I speak only for myself, and I don't speak as clearly as I probably
> would under better personal circumstances. You're getting the best I've got
> to give, this week.
>
> - Coral

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Edward M. Corrado]

As someone who has co-founded and was president of a 501(3)c organization
[1]  and was a long-time steering committee member of ELUNA, a 501(c)6
organization [2], I believe the adminstriva of being incorporated and a
"real" organization, is substantial.

I also do not know that it gets us past one of the major hurdles Code4Lib
has in putting on conferences, which is being able to sign contracts with
hotels/confernce centers for meetings, at least not with significantly more
overhead then partnering with an organization such as DLF/CLIR would be
(and also likely requires more income then Code4Lib has (which might lead
to dues, etc. at some point down the road in order to be sustainable)).

The amount of money that needs to be guaranteed to secure a meeting space,
food, and hotel blocks for a conference the size of Code4Lib is substantial
and I don't think Code4Lib Inc. would have the funding to do so on its own.
True, it might make it easier for university libraries or others to partner
with Code4Lib Inc. to put on a conference, so it would have a positive
benefit in that regard but it only goes so far in addressing this issue.

Edward


[1] http://lugip.org - not very active anymore.
[2] http://el-una.org/

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Tod Olson  wrote:

> Agreed that finding a fiscal sponsor does seem like the best option and
> that doing nothing is irresponsible. Largely for reasons that have already
> been articulated.
>
> By way of context, I currently sit on the Boards of two non-profit
> corporations and had some involvement in setting up a different non-profit.
>
> Setting up, formalizing governance, and operating a non-profit do not seem
> like a good match for the community at this point. That may change, but I
> really don't see much benefit in that overhead, nor a great eagerness.
>
> One practical downside of incorporation not mentioned in earlier
> discussion is the need to survive an audit (though it is clear in the
> report). That means either a Treasurer who is capable with the accounting,
> or hiring an accounting service to run the books. As we now deal in six
> figures annually, I would lean towards a service. Not a big-picture issue,
> but part of being a non-profit. Insurance for the non-profit and its
> officers (for general liability, not just event insurance) is in a similar
> category: not strictly necessary, but once you're big enough to be worth
> suing... Or maybe we need that anyhow for the organizers. Again, not
> something I would hang the decision on, but they are part of the picture as
> we grow.
>
> In any event, the fiscal home option seems like a pretty good fit.
> Governance could remain loose, though may need some shape. There would be
> some ongoing fees for administrative support, which so far seem worth it
> for the accounting alone. The encouragement to develop a nest egg (let's
> call it a capital reserve) helps insulate from a conference going bust or
> some other unplanned fiscal need, though such a reserve may encourage some
> to seek ways to spend that "unused" cash. (I've seen that with capital
> reserves!) Also a danger with an non-profit, so no avoiding this one.
> Unless we do nothing, which is irresponsible.
>
> But I do think that, if fiscal continuity is the main goal, then a fiscal
> sponsor seems a pretty good match. Of the options presented in the report,
> I slightly favor CLIR. The services provided (accounting, filing taxes, tax
> exempt status, etc.) and open structure seem to meet our needs well. Under
> ALA/LITA, ALA as an "Association Management Firm" seems to give too few
> benefits, I'd rather suck up the overhead and gain the accounting,
> tax-exempt status, etc. benefits. And it could be interesting to have
> Code4Lib in a "bubble" under LITA, given the amount of overlap. The OLF is
> not mentioned in the report, I don't think its non-profit status had been
> formally granted at the time the report was being written, but could also
> be an option.
>
> In short, I favor seeking a fiscal sponsor and lean slightly toward CLIR,
> though would certainly consider either ALA/LITA or OLF.
>
> Best,
>
> -Tod
>
>
> > On Jul 18, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess 
> wrote:
> >
> > It's worth pointing out that both ALA/LITA and DLF/CLIR would allow
> > Code4Lib to work with them as our fiscal sponsor for a few years, in the
> > lead-up to creating a legal entity of our own, should we decide we want
> to.
> > Neither requires a long-term agreement. And (having served on the fiscal
> > continuity working group, but speaking *only for myself*), I think this
> is
> > a far better option than trying to jump right into forming our own
> > nonprofit right out of the gate.
> >
> > For one thing, it comes with the possibility of having a sponsorship in
> > place in time for the 2019 conference. Someone who worked more closely on
> > the nonprofit option for our report is welcome to correct me, but it
> seems
> > to me (from what I remember from our discu

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Tod Olson]

Agreed that finding a fiscal sponsor does seem like the best option and that 
doing nothing is irresponsible. Largely for reasons that have already been 
articulated.

By way of context, I currently sit on the Boards of two non-profit corporations 
and had some involvement in setting up a different non-profit. 

Setting up, formalizing governance, and operating a non-profit do not seem like 
a good match for the community at this point. That may change, but I really 
don't see much benefit in that overhead, nor a great eagerness. 

One practical downside of incorporation not mentioned in earlier discussion is 
the need to survive an audit (though it is clear in the report). That means 
either a Treasurer who is capable with the accounting, or hiring an accounting 
service to run the books. As we now deal in six figures annually, I would lean 
towards a service. Not a big-picture issue, but part of being a non-profit. 
Insurance for the non-profit and its officers (for general liability, not just 
event insurance) is in a similar category: not strictly necessary, but once 
you're big enough to be worth suing... Or maybe we need that anyhow for the 
organizers. Again, not something I would hang the decision on, but they are 
part of the picture as we grow.

In any event, the fiscal home option seems like a pretty good fit. Governance 
could remain loose, though may need some shape. There would be some ongoing 
fees for administrative support, which so far seem worth it for the accounting 
alone. The encouragement to develop a nest egg (let's call it a capital 
reserve) helps insulate from a conference going bust or some other unplanned 
fiscal need, though such a reserve may encourage some to seek ways to spend 
that "unused" cash. (I've seen that with capital reserves!) Also a danger with 
an non-profit, so no avoiding this one. Unless we do nothing, which is 
irresponsible.

But I do think that, if fiscal continuity is the main goal, then a fiscal 
sponsor seems a pretty good match. Of the options presented in the report, I 
slightly favor CLIR. The services provided (accounting, filing taxes, tax 
exempt status, etc.) and open structure seem to meet our needs well. Under 
ALA/LITA, ALA as an "Association Management Firm" seems to give too few 
benefits, I'd rather suck up the overhead and gain the accounting, tax-exempt 
status, etc. benefits. And it could be interesting to have Code4Lib in a 
"bubble" under LITA, given the amount of overlap. The OLF is not mentioned in 
the report, I don't think its non-profit status had been formally granted at 
the time the report was being written, but could also be an option.

In short, I favor seeking a fiscal sponsor and lean slightly toward CLIR, 
though would certainly consider either ALA/LITA or OLF.

Best,

-Tod


> On Jul 18, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess  
> wrote:
> 
> It's worth pointing out that both ALA/LITA and DLF/CLIR would allow
> Code4Lib to work with them as our fiscal sponsor for a few years, in the
> lead-up to creating a legal entity of our own, should we decide we want to.
> Neither requires a long-term agreement. And (having served on the fiscal
> continuity working group, but speaking *only for myself*), I think this is
> a far better option than trying to jump right into forming our own
> nonprofit right out of the gate.
> 
> For one thing, it comes with the possibility of having a sponsorship in
> place in time for the 2019 conference. Someone who worked more closely on
> the nonprofit option for our report is welcome to correct me, but it seems
> to me (from what I remember from our discussions, writing/editing the
> document, and also some work I've done with other potential nonprofits in
> the past) that jumping through those legal hoops takes a whole lot of time
> and effort.
> 
> If people are really excited about forming a nonprofit of our own, I
> certainly wouldn't stand in the way. It isn't a bad option. But I believe
> it carries the same shorter-term risks as the "do nothing" option: we could
> fail to find a temporary sponsoring organization for 2019, and I believe it
> is probably more than we need to do, right this second.
> 
> The fiscal sponsorship model seems to me like our best bet, especially as a
> first step into getting more organized. As our fiscal sponsor, ALA/LITA or
> DLF/CLIR (or, yeah, OLF) could take the EBSCO payments mentioned earlier in
> the thread, as well as letting us receive grants and donations that are
> only available to nonprofit entities. They could give us financial and
> organizational continuity that we lack, and neither organization has
> expressed any interest in telling us how to run our affairs; quite the
> opposite, in fact.
> 
> And, to be clear: I believe the "do nothing" option is wildly irresponsible
> and asking too much of future conference committees; it does not give us a
> reasonable risk mitigation model. Under the current model, we risk losing
> our conference forever due to

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Coral Sheldon-Hess]

It's worth pointing out that both ALA/LITA and DLF/CLIR would allow
Code4Lib to work with them as our fiscal sponsor for a few years, in the
lead-up to creating a legal entity of our own, should we decide we want to.
Neither requires a long-term agreement. And (having served on the fiscal
continuity working group, but speaking *only for myself*), I think this is
a far better option than trying to jump right into forming our own
nonprofit right out of the gate.

For one thing, it comes with the possibility of having a sponsorship in
place in time for the 2019 conference. Someone who worked more closely on
the nonprofit option for our report is welcome to correct me, but it seems
to me (from what I remember from our discussions, writing/editing the
document, and also some work I've done with other potential nonprofits in
the past) that jumping through those legal hoops takes a whole lot of time
and effort.

If people are really excited about forming a nonprofit of our own, I
certainly wouldn't stand in the way. It isn't a bad option. But I believe
it carries the same shorter-term risks as the "do nothing" option: we could
fail to find a temporary sponsoring organization for 2019, and I believe it
is probably more than we need to do, right this second.

The fiscal sponsorship model seems to me like our best bet, especially as a
first step into getting more organized. As our fiscal sponsor, ALA/LITA or
DLF/CLIR (or, yeah, OLF) could take the EBSCO payments mentioned earlier in
the thread, as well as letting us receive grants and donations that are
only available to nonprofit entities. They could give us financial and
organizational continuity that we lack, and neither organization has
expressed any interest in telling us how to run our affairs; quite the
opposite, in fact.

And, to be clear: I believe the "do nothing" option is wildly irresponsible
and asking too much of future conference committees; it does not give us a
reasonable risk mitigation model. Under the current model, we risk losing
our conference forever due to a natural or legal disaster (imagine
something like Hurricane Katrina or the NC bathroom bill, happening mid-way
through conference planning, one year). We only get to have conferences as
a legal non-entity, right now, because we have a solid track record of not
ever losing money--and talk to any former conference chair about how much
pressure *that* puts on them. We've been lucky to avoid disaster, and going
with the "do nothing" option is basically just assuming we will somehow
keep avoiding disasters, forever. Because, if we fail to meet our financial
obligations with a temporary sponsor? That's going to make it *really*
difficult to find other temporary sponsors.

Again, I speak only for myself, and I don't speak as clearly as I probably
would under better personal circumstances. You're getting the best I've got
to give, this week.

- Coral

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Kyle Banerjee]

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Eric Hellman  wrote:

>
> ...Also, the new CODE4LIB could grow and prosper based on its superior
> anarchistic management culture, then acquire CLIR/DLF, LITA and OLF. Then
> the end result would be the same.
>
> While we're at it, we could stage a hostile takeover of OCLC and then when
> a Kakistocratic Party decides to privatize LOC
>


I'm glad Eric woke this topic up. Business processes aside, I think a good
long term plan needs to depend on something other than individuals and
organizations donating core resources and volunteering to assume all risk
and liability.

Becoming a nonprofit corporation that's a legal entity under federal,
state, and local law is a big deal with a significant ongoing time and
financial commitment. My personal sense is that given what c4l actually
does and how it operates, fiscal sponsorship as suggested by others would
be a better fit.

Time does funny things. A group that put together an "unconference" has
morphed into an organization (at least unofficially) that's largely built
around a conference. Anarchistic is not a word I would use to describe c4l.
Evolution is inevitable, and that's not a bad thing.

kyle

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Eric Hellman]

Having created a non-profit, I can say that there's quite a range of ways to 
structure and govern such an entity.

Code4Lib can't really be bottled up into any legal entity, so even if a 
Code4Lib entity were created to provide fiscal continuity for the annual 
conference, the relationship between the new entity and Code4Lib would be more 
similar to a relationship between Code4Lib and a 3rd party fiscal sponsor than 
it would be different. It all depends on the governance agreement.

It's my view that EricLM's options 1 and 3 are really the same option, and the 
possible differences between sponsoring organizations would be similar to the 
possible differences between custom entities.

Also, the new CODE4LIB could grow and prosper based on its superior anarchistic 
management culture, then acquire CLIR/DLF, LITA and OLF. Then the end result 
would be the same.

While we're at it, we could stage a hostile takeover of OCLC and then when a 
Kakistocratic Party decides to privatize LOC



Eric Hellman
President, Free Ebook Foundation
Founder, Unglue.it https://unglue.it/
https://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/
twitter: @gluejar



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Eric Lease Morgan]

On Jul 18, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Carol Bean  wrote:

> Thanks for bringing this up again, Eric.  The first time around I pretty
> much sat on the sidelines and watched. This time around, I'm waving my hand
> vigorously for the incorporation option…
> 
> But is there something I'm missing here?  What, exactly, would the downside
> of incorporation be?  Do we need volunteers to commit to acting as officers
> for a time? And what would that involve?


In a word, the downside of incorporation is an increased level of formality, 
which is something not akin to our community. Allow me to elaborate.

To incorporate we would first need to draft a set of bylaws. These bylaws would 
state the purpose of our community and well as outline how our community would 
be governed. Believe it or not, the statement of purpose would probably be very 
vague in order to not pin anything down too hard. Regarding governance, we 
would definitely need to elect officers (president, secretary, treasurer, 
etc.). Non-profit status would probably require a board, and to paraphrase a 
lawyer we asked, “The board could even consist of all people who are members of 
the community.” I believe this is very much in line with our values. 

The actual fees to incorporate are minimal, less than a few hundred dollars. It 
is only when one pays an expert (lawyer) to cross the T’s and dot the I’s that 
the expense may get into the thousand’s of dollars.† These are one time fees. 
To be a not for profit entity, additional paperwork needs to be submitted. 
Again, I believe such is “included” in the initial set up. 

There are then on going expenses, mostly in the form of payments to the 
government to maintain incorporation and not for profit status. And since an 
incorporated body is an entity, it pays taxes. So there are annual tax returns 
to file.

To summarize, the downsides to incorporation include:

  * the articulation of bylaws
  * the paying of one time fees
  * the on going paperwork & fees to maintain incorporation
  * the regular election of officiers

†  I’m not sure, but I think our community has many thousands of dollars 
floating around somewhere, and I believe the money has gotten passed from one 
annual meeting sponsor to the next.

—
Eric Lease Morgan

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Jonathan Rochkind]

I still think the same thing I posted first time this was on the listserv.

I think a fiscal sponsor is the sweet spot, if a suitable fiscal sponsor
with suitable terms can be found. Incorporating ourself takes a lot of work
and additional expense -- both setup and ongoing. It's a real commitment. A
fiscal sponsor's sponsorship fee is not neccesarily more expensive than
doing your own accounting and taxes etc.

A fiscal sponsor gives us the continuity that the lack of which has been a
problem, with very little additional energy needed to be put into it. It
still allows us to move to incorporating ourselves at a later date, if that
looks more advantageous after fiscal sponsor experience.

That is, if a fiscal sponsor can be found with relatively short-term
commitments, good fees, and allows us to otherwise keep doing things the
way we like, and which we believe has the capacity/experience to do fiscal
sponsorship well.

Fortunately, DLF/CLIR seems to be that. What they are suggesting as fiscal
sponsorship terms are great terms, they are an organization with a track
record whose mission and programs are aligned to ours. I think a CLIR
fiscal sponsorship is ideal.

Jonathan

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Eric Lease Morgan  wrote:

> On Jul 10, 2017, at 6:37 PM, Galen Charlton  wrote:
>
> > Back in January the Fiscal Continuity IG released our report
> > describing some options for establishing a more permanent fiscal
> > arrangement for Code4Lib activities, particularly the annual
> > conference. [0]
>
>
> When it comes to “fiscal continuity”, the silence has been deafening.
> Let’s discuss.
>
> Code4Lib has existed for more than ten years. Our mailing list has
> approximately 3,500 subscribers. The majority seem to be from the United
> States. We host an annual meeting which has grown to accommodate about 400
> people. According to the wiki, there are about about 18 local/regional
> groups hosting their own meetings. And we support a journal which comes out
> at least a few times year. All of these things are signs of real community.
>
> Almost by definition, communities are risk adverse. If they weren’t, then
> they would most likely cease to exist. Our community is no exception, and
> because we have grown over the years, it is time to assess what we do in
> order to minimize risk, specifically when it comes to the annual meeting.
>
> The Fiscal Continuity Interest Group members [1] have investigated the
> issues regarding risk, and we have articulated a few solutions:
>
>   * do nothing
>   * incorporate ourselves
>   * partner with a hosting institution
>
> The first option — do nothing — means we continue on the path we have
> already trodden. It means we have no real bank account of our own, we have
> no real way to sign contracts, and every year we hope some good soul of an
> institution takes on the fiscal responsibility (risk) when it comes to the
> annual meeting.
>
> The second option — incorporate ourselves — means the creation of a legal
> entity, most likely in the form of a non-profit corporation (code4lib.org).
> Such an option has up front costs (which we can apparently afford), on
> going costs (which we can apparently afford), the articulation of bylaws
> (which are rather boiler plate), and the creation of a more formal
> governing body (which would be new to us).
>
> The third option — partner with a hosting institution — means we would
> fold ourselves under the umbrella of some other legal entity, and this
> other legal entity would shoulder some of the legal & fiscal risk at an
> annual financial cost (which we can probably afford).†
>
> As a member of the Group but without speaking for the Group, my personal
> preferences are listed here, in priority order:
>
>   1. incorporate ourselves - I advocate the creation of a formal
> code4lib.org community. We can financially afford such an option. We will
> be able to sign contracts. We will be able to have our own bank account.
> And most importantly, I believe it will provide the means for our community
> to grow in ways we have yet to envision.
>
>   2. do nothing - Personally, I’m not too concerned about regularly
> identifying an annual meeting host. In my gut I feel someone will always
> step up to the plate. Moreover, I sincerely believe things like the
> local/regional groups (“franchises”) will continue to facilitate smaller,
> more immediate opportunities for professional development & networking.
> This option is easy.
>
>   3. partner with a hosting institution - While this may seem to be a
> "middle of the road" sort of choice, I believe it is really a stop gap
> measure which does not provide enough autonomy.
>
> Because of our size and maturity, it is probably time to do something
> differently. What do you think we ought to do?
>
>
> † - This sentence mixes way too many metaphors!
>
> [0] report - https://wiki.code4lib.org/FCIG_Report
> [1] Group members - https://wiki.code4lib.org/Fiscal_Continuity#Members
>
> —
> Eric 

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Mark A. Matienzo]

I'd like to thank Eric, Carol and Tim for resurfacing this thread, Like
Tim, I disagree with Eric's ordering, and would place chartering at the top
of my list (with incorporation second and doing nothing last).

I am not sure why Eric thinks that obtaining fiscal sponsorship from
another organization suggests that "we" are giving up autonomy. The
previous discussions with both ALA/LITA and DLF/CLIR have indicated that we
will retain autonomy (presumably in conference planning, particularly
around the program).

My preference would be to consider DLF/CLIR as the preferable option, which
is informed by the due diligence undertaken by FCIG, as well as the
organization's track record. They are already hosting this email list, and
have demonstrated the ability to provide this support of financial
infrastructure for a number of initiatives and collaborations, including
IIIF, IIPC, and several others.

Best,
Mark

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Tim McGeary]

I think incorporation is long overdue, but I disagree with Eric's order of
preference.  I can say from experience on a project that incorporating
ourselves is a lot more challenging than perceived, and also costly.  As a
past Code4Lib Conference co-chair and member of the Journal Editorial
Board, I think that doing nothing is, frankly, irresponsible.

I would suggest we look at the newly formed Open Library Foundation as the
place to charter.  The OLF was developed to ensure autonomy of chartered
projects, and is designed to be low impact.  For example, VuFind has begun
its chartering process.

The OLF could provide the bank account to receive the royalty funds for the
journal, provide the insurance backing for conference planners, and provide
the consistent year-after-year accounting needs for the conference as it
moves around from host to host.

Mike Winkler is the Treasurer of the OLF, and I believe a conversation
between him and the Fiscal Continuity Interest Group would be quite
prudent.  (michael.wink...@openlibraryfoundation.org)

Tim McGeary
Associate University Librarian for Information Technology Services
Duke University
tim.mcge...@duke.edu

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Carol Bean  wrote:

> Thanks for bringing this up again, Eric.  The first time around I pretty
> much sat on the sidelines and watched. This time around, I'm waving my hand
> vigorously for the incorporation option.
>
> Since 2009, when EBSCO began indexing the Code4Lib Journal, royalties have
> been accruing but unpayable because there is no entity to turn the funds
> over to.  I posted a recent update to the situation on the C4LJ-Discussion
> group (https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/c4lj-
> discuss/prECQ8kZp_o ); the situation remains the same, but may have a new
> wrinkle as we move into a new agreement with EBSCO.  (you may be wondering
> how we can enter into a contractual agreement, but not receive
> contractually agreed monies; you wouldn't be alone!)
>
> The amount of royalties involved is not very much (I estimate <$50/yr), but
> we on the Journal have lamented not being able to send that money to, say,
> the people generously hosting the Journal (ibiblio.org)!  My hope is for
> an
> entity with a Taxpayer ID that the Journal can be attached to in order to
> receive royalty payments.
>
> But is there something I'm missing here?  What, exactly, would the downside
> of incorporation be?  Do we need volunteers to commit to acting as officers
> for a time? And what would that involve?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> Carol Bean
> beanwo...@gmail.com
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Eric Lease Morgan  wrote:
>
> > On Jul 10, 2017, at 6:37 PM, Galen Charlton  wrote:
> >
> > > Back in January the Fiscal Continuity IG released our report
> > > describing some options for establishing a more permanent fiscal
> > > arrangement for Code4Lib activities, particularly the annual
> > > conference. [0]
> >
> >
> > When it comes to “fiscal continuity”, the silence has been deafening.
> > Let’s discuss.
> >
> > Code4Lib has existed for more than ten years. Our mailing list has
> > approximately 3,500 subscribers. The majority seem to be from the United
> > States. We host an annual meeting which has grown to accommodate about
> 400
> > people. According to the wiki, there are about about 18 local/regional
> > groups hosting their own meetings. And we support a journal which comes
> out
> > at least a few times year. All of these things are signs of real
> community.
> >
> > Almost by definition, communities are risk adverse. If they weren’t, then
> > they would most likely cease to exist. Our community is no exception, and
> > because we have grown over the years, it is time to assess what we do in
> > order to minimize risk, specifically when it comes to the annual meeting.
> >
> > The Fiscal Continuity Interest Group members [1] have investigated the
> > issues regarding risk, and we have articulated a few solutions:
> >
> >   * do nothing
> >   * incorporate ourselves
> >   * partner with a hosting institution
> >
> > The first option — do nothing — means we continue on the path we have
> > already trodden. It means we have no real bank account of our own, we
> have
> > no real way to sign contracts, and every year we hope some good soul of
> an
> > institution takes on the fiscal responsibility (risk) when it comes to
> the
> > annual meeting.
> >
> > The second option — incorporate ourselves — means the creation of a legal
> > entity, most likely in the form of a non-profit corporation (
> code4lib.org).
> > Such an option has up front costs (which we can apparently afford), on
> > going costs (which we can apparently afford), the articulation of bylaws
> > (which are rather boiler plate), and the creation of a more formal
> > governing body (which would be new to us).
> >
> > The third option — partner with a hosting institution — means we would
> > fold ourselves under the umbrella of some other legal entity, and this
> > oth

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Carol Bean]

Thanks for bringing this up again, Eric.  The first time around I pretty
much sat on the sidelines and watched. This time around, I'm waving my hand
vigorously for the incorporation option.

Since 2009, when EBSCO began indexing the Code4Lib Journal, royalties have
been accruing but unpayable because there is no entity to turn the funds
over to.  I posted a recent update to the situation on the C4LJ-Discussion
group (https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/c4lj-
discuss/prECQ8kZp_o ); the situation remains the same, but may have a new
wrinkle as we move into a new agreement with EBSCO.  (you may be wondering
how we can enter into a contractual agreement, but not receive
contractually agreed monies; you wouldn't be alone!)

The amount of royalties involved is not very much (I estimate <$50/yr), but
we on the Journal have lamented not being able to send that money to, say,
the people generously hosting the Journal (ibiblio.org)!  My hope is for an
entity with a Taxpayer ID that the Journal can be attached to in order to
receive royalty payments.

But is there something I'm missing here?  What, exactly, would the downside
of incorporation be?  Do we need volunteers to commit to acting as officers
for a time? And what would that involve?

Carol



Carol Bean
beanwo...@gmail.com

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Eric Lease Morgan  wrote:

> On Jul 10, 2017, at 6:37 PM, Galen Charlton  wrote:
>
> > Back in January the Fiscal Continuity IG released our report
> > describing some options for establishing a more permanent fiscal
> > arrangement for Code4Lib activities, particularly the annual
> > conference. [0]
>
>
> When it comes to “fiscal continuity”, the silence has been deafening.
> Let’s discuss.
>
> Code4Lib has existed for more than ten years. Our mailing list has
> approximately 3,500 subscribers. The majority seem to be from the United
> States. We host an annual meeting which has grown to accommodate about 400
> people. According to the wiki, there are about about 18 local/regional
> groups hosting their own meetings. And we support a journal which comes out
> at least a few times year. All of these things are signs of real community.
>
> Almost by definition, communities are risk adverse. If they weren’t, then
> they would most likely cease to exist. Our community is no exception, and
> because we have grown over the years, it is time to assess what we do in
> order to minimize risk, specifically when it comes to the annual meeting.
>
> The Fiscal Continuity Interest Group members [1] have investigated the
> issues regarding risk, and we have articulated a few solutions:
>
>   * do nothing
>   * incorporate ourselves
>   * partner with a hosting institution
>
> The first option — do nothing — means we continue on the path we have
> already trodden. It means we have no real bank account of our own, we have
> no real way to sign contracts, and every year we hope some good soul of an
> institution takes on the fiscal responsibility (risk) when it comes to the
> annual meeting.
>
> The second option — incorporate ourselves — means the creation of a legal
> entity, most likely in the form of a non-profit corporation (code4lib.org).
> Such an option has up front costs (which we can apparently afford), on
> going costs (which we can apparently afford), the articulation of bylaws
> (which are rather boiler plate), and the creation of a more formal
> governing body (which would be new to us).
>
> The third option — partner with a hosting institution — means we would
> fold ourselves under the umbrella of some other legal entity, and this
> other legal entity would shoulder some of the legal & fiscal risk at an
> annual financial cost (which we can probably afford).†
>
> As a member of the Group but without speaking for the Group, my personal
> preferences are listed here, in priority order:
>
>   1. incorporate ourselves - I advocate the creation of a formal
> code4lib.org community. We can financially afford such an option. We will
> be able to sign contracts. We will be able to have our own bank account.
> And most importantly, I believe it will provide the means for our community
> to grow in ways we have yet to envision.
>
>   2. do nothing - Personally, I’m not too concerned about regularly
> identifying an annual meeting host. In my gut I feel someone will always
> step up to the plate. Moreover, I sincerely believe things like the
> local/regional groups (“franchises”) will continue to facilitate smaller,
> more immediate opportunities for professional development & networking.
> This option is easy.
>
>   3. partner with a hosting institution - While this may seem to be a
> "middle of the road" sort of choice, I believe it is really a stop gap
> measure which does not provide enough autonomy.
>
> Because of our size and maturity, it is probably time to do something
> differently. What do you think we ought to do?
>
>
> † - This sentence mixes way too many metaphors!
>
> [0] report - https://wiki.c

Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

[Eric Lease Morgan]

On Jul 10, 2017, at 6:37 PM, Galen Charlton  wrote:

> Back in January the Fiscal Continuity IG released our report
> describing some options for establishing a more permanent fiscal
> arrangement for Code4Lib activities, particularly the annual
> conference. [0]


When it comes to “fiscal continuity”, the silence has been deafening. Let’s 
discuss.

Code4Lib has existed for more than ten years. Our mailing list has 
approximately 3,500 subscribers. The majority seem to be from the United 
States. We host an annual meeting which has grown to accommodate about 400 
people. According to the wiki, there are about about 18 local/regional groups 
hosting their own meetings. And we support a journal which comes out at least a 
few times year. All of these things are signs of real community. 

Almost by definition, communities are risk adverse. If they weren’t, then they 
would most likely cease to exist. Our community is no exception, and because we 
have grown over the years, it is time to assess what we do in order to minimize 
risk, specifically when it comes to the annual meeting.

The Fiscal Continuity Interest Group members [1] have investigated the issues 
regarding risk, and we have articulated a few solutions:

  * do nothing
  * incorporate ourselves
  * partner with a hosting institution

The first option — do nothing — means we continue on the path we have already 
trodden. It means we have no real bank account of our own, we have no real way 
to sign contracts, and every year we hope some good soul of an institution 
takes on the fiscal responsibility (risk) when it comes to the annual meeting.

The second option — incorporate ourselves — means the creation of a legal 
entity, most likely in the form of a non-profit corporation (code4lib.org). 
Such an option has up front costs (which we can apparently afford), on going 
costs (which we can apparently afford), the articulation of bylaws (which are 
rather boiler plate), and the creation of a more formal governing body (which 
would be new to us). 

The third option — partner with a hosting institution — means we would fold 
ourselves under the umbrella of some other legal entity, and this other legal 
entity would shoulder some of the legal & fiscal risk at an annual financial 
cost (which we can probably afford).† 

As a member of the Group but without speaking for the Group, my personal 
preferences are listed here, in priority order:

  1. incorporate ourselves - I advocate the creation of a formal code4lib.org 
community. We can financially afford such an option. We will be able to sign 
contracts. We will be able to have our own bank account. And most importantly, 
I believe it will provide the means for our community to grow in ways we have 
yet to envision. 

  2. do nothing - Personally, I’m not too concerned about regularly identifying 
an annual meeting host. In my gut I feel someone will always step up to the 
plate. Moreover, I sincerely believe things like the local/regional groups 
(“franchises”) will continue to facilitate smaller, more immediate 
opportunities for professional development & networking. This option is easy.

  3. partner with a hosting institution - While this may seem to be a "middle 
of the road" sort of choice, I believe it is really a stop gap measure which 
does not provide enough autonomy.

Because of our size and maturity, it is probably time to do something 
differently. What do you think we ought to do?


† - This sentence mixes way too many metaphors!

[0] report - https://wiki.code4lib.org/FCIG_Report
[1] Group members - https://wiki.code4lib.org/Fiscal_Continuity#Members

—
Eric Lease Morgan, Digital Initiatives Librarian
Hesburgh Libraries
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, IN 46556

emor...@nd.edu
574/631-8604