> 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 <[log in to unmask]> 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 <[log in to unmask]<mailto:l
> [log in to unmask]>> 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 <[log in to unmask]<mailto:b.
> [log in to unmask]>> 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 <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>> 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
>
>
>
|