 |
 |
> 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 > > >