Am I misunderstanding Roy and/or Francis's intention though that given essentially a full year to plan C4L 2017, that either they or entities that they have strong connections too are willing to be the fiscal agent for 2017? That's what I thought they were implying. Both indicated that they could pull of a big conference for 2017.

So perhaps we can discuss the matter of finding a "permanent" fiscal agent face to face at conference in 2017????

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 Edward M. Corrado
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 11:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

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
>
>