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
[log in to unmask]
On 7/21/17, 8:39 AM, "Code for Libraries on behalf of Elizabeth Leonard" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> 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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim McGeary
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 8:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
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 <[log in to unmask]>
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
[log in to unmask]
GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
484-294-7660 (Google Voice)
