Generally speaking, what the fiduciary agent normally would get rewarded in
money. Arrangements can vary of course, but basically they would get a
portion of the income of the event.

Edward

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Shaun D. Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> I agree that securing a permanent fiscal agent is the only way to sustain
> the annual conference at the current level, but I think there are ways to
> make a less formal commitment.  What I don’t understand is what any
> fiduciary agent gets out of such a deal.  There is significant risk and
> overhead for anyone to take this on.  What is the reward?
>
> Overhead
> It’s not just about fronting money and signing contracts.  There is people
> power involved too.  For 2016, I reviewed every contract and agreement that
> came through because my hide was on the line if we screwed up.  It’s not
> hard to miss something in the fine print, or to find estimates and invoices
> that don’t add up.  Furthermore, there were people in our finance
> department who had to do extra work to set up the account, cut checks,
> double-check contracts, communicate with vendors, etc.
>
> Risk
> While we have not yet gone "into the red" on an annual Code4Lib conference
> (knock on wood), it is certainly possible unless there is a degree of
> vigilance on the part of the organizers.  Because you have different
> organizers each year there can be large fluctuations when it comes to
> fundraising/sponsorship effort and experience.  The same goes for
> researching, negotiating, and comparing vendor and venue prices.  We do
> pass on documentation as best we can, but the process is rarely cookie
> cutter.
>
> Reward
> Is the reward simply “thanks” and a pat on the back?  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  (For what
> it’s worth, I could see a high-visibility sponsor spot given to this org
> since it's a form of in-kind donated resources.)
>
> Even if Code4Lib were to form a non-profit to strictly handle the annual
> conf, someone’s hide needs to be on the line to make sure there’s proper
> oversight of funds, budgets are properly formed and adhered to, contracts
> are not putting the org at risk, and so on.  To me, that sounds like a
> dedicated employee of the non-profit.
>
> -Shaun
>
> On Jun 13, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Rogan Hamby <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> There are a variety of options but I think it's fairly safe to say that it
> would require some additional organization.  If another body took Code4Lib
> under it's umbrella they would want organizational contacts and some
> arrangements in place with whatever served as the governance of Code4Lib
> (and I use the term governance here very loosely).  And at the other end of
> the spectrum if Code4Lib did something like become a non-profit there are a
> number of IRS requirements it would have to observe in terms of a board,
> bylaws, etc....
>
> Note, I'm sure there are other options, those are just the two that occur
> to me off the top of my head from opposing ends of the "we have to be a
> formal entity spectrum."
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Akerman, Laura <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Would "finding a permanent fiduciary agent" call for some degree of
> organizational formalization?  Wouldn't somebody or bodies have to "sign
> for" Code4Lib on this agreement with this agent, and wouldn't their role
> therefore have to be, to some degree, permanent?
>
> Sorry, but just wondering...
>
> Laura
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Salazar, Christina
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 5:26 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?
>
> Yes I think it's time to do so and I also felt that there was significant
> support for the idea.
>
> I think perhaps the title "formalizing Code4Lib" might be a bit misleading
> though... We might want to frame the idea as "finding a permanent fiduciary
> agent" or something along those lines. This way, we don't have to think
> about major changes all at once.
>
> I imagine it would help those who plan for Code4Lib 2017 as well, assuming
> that there will be a physical one.
>
> Christina Salazar
> Systems Librarian
> John Spoor Broome Library
> California State University, Channel Islands
> 805/437-3198
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Brian Rogers
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 2:20 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?
>
> Since the Chattanooga Planning Committee inadvertently prompted this
> newest round of conversations around some degree of formalization, would it
> be useful if we threw together a follow-up survey for the community, to
> test the waters around support (or lack there of) for the notion of
> formalizing, to the extent that it allows for a stable place to house the
> annual conference funds? And if it seems like there is overwhelming support
> for the idea, a group of volunteers can band together at that point to
> pursue options to present back to the community?
>
> ________________________________
>
> This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
> the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
> information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
> or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
> prohibited.
>
> If you have received this message in error, please contact
> the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
> original message (including attachments).
>
>
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Rogan R. Hamby, Data and Project Analyst
> Equinox - Open Your Library
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> 1-877-OPEN-ILS | www.esilibrary.com
>
>