 |
 |
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. ([log in to unmask]) Tim McGeary Associate University Librarian for Information Technology Services Duke University [log in to unmask] On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Carol Bean <[log in to unmask]> 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 > [log in to unmask] > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > On Jul 10, 2017, at 6:37 PM, Galen Charlton <[log in to unmask]> 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 > > > > [log in to unmask] > > 574/631-8604 > > > -- Tim McGeary [log in to unmask] GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary 484-294-7660 (Google Voice)