I realize the C4L Journal is only a tiny part of this whole issue, but as
we look at going with ALA/LITA, (and the others, for that matter, for
comparison's sake), I am wondering how and whether the Journal would have a
place (since to process royalty payments there would have to be some kind
of formal connection).  I'm kind of wary of the Journal being sucked into
ALA, but I dunno...

I guess it would need to be written into whatever documentation is created,
if the group wanted to include the Journal in the formalized structure.

I have spoken to an EBSCO rep, and they are pretty flexible about how and
where to make past and future payments (there's a growing balance waiting
to be disbursed), but there does have to be, at the very least, an entity
with a Tax ID.

Carol

Carol Bean
[log in to unmask]

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> I think CLIR's fiscal sponsorship fee is amazingly generous to us.
>
> And ALA's 26.4% of gross revenue is very high when considered as a fiscal
> sponsorship fee. Fiscal sponsorship fees in general 501c3 world are
> typically 9-15%[1], often on the low end of that.
>
> Of course, ALA probably doesn't consider it a fiscal sponsorship fee
> exactly is part of why it seems high when looked at like that. They
> consider it as "you an ALA interest group, you are part of ALA, and you get
> benefits including non-tangible ones from just being part of ALA, and
> identify with ALA, and ALA takes 26.4% of ALA sub-project/"interest group"
> revenue to support the parent organization." That may in fact be most of
> what ALA's revenue comes from, revenue from sub-parts like this.  It's more
> 'becoming part of ALA' than a fiscal sponsorship.
>
> I think the CLIR fiscal sponsorship offer, in both monetary and other
> aspects, is really quite generous. They are making it for mission-driven
> reasons, charging the least they can get away with, and being transparent
> about that -- I like that the insurance is just a pass-through, they need
> it, whatever it is they pass through.  ALA's offer is less generous, and I
> don't think we have community interest in becoming part of ALA.
>
> [1]
> http://www.fiscalsponsors.org/pages/10-questions-potential-
> projects-should-ask-fiscal-sponsor
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks!
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess <
> > [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry, I meant "the least we could do for the people who are compelled
> to
> >> be members," NOT "the least we could do for ALA/LITA." (As the person
> who
> >> pulled together the LITA part of the report, obviously I am aware that
> we
> >> owe LITA significantly more than that if they are our fiscal sponsor.)
> >>
> >> I see no reason to be coy about the math, though. Quotes below come from
> >> the report:
> >>
> >> If we went with ALA/LITA, we would gain "ALA’s tax-exempt status and
> >> liability insurance," and we would pay "ALA’s overhead rate for fiscal
> >> years 2017 and 2018 [which] will be 26.4% of gross revenue."
> >>
> >> If we went with DLF/CLIR, "CLIR would strongly recommend/request that
> >> Code4Lib obtain event insurance for future conferences. CLIR has
> >> experience
> >> with purchasing event insurance for other conferences such as the DLF
> >> Forum, and can provide recommendations to Code4Lib about options."
> >> "CLIR/DLF
> >> would request payment of an annual fee of $5,000 as compensation for
> staff
> >> time and auditor fees required for fiscal sponsor services," and "CLIR
> >> would request that conference budgets be established to allow for a
> second
> >> annual payment of at least $5,000 be deposited by Code4Lib into the
> "nest
> >> egg" account."
> >>
> >> So, it's 26.4% of gross revenue versus $5k + event insurance (+ another
> >> $5k
> >> that goes into savings for us). It's been a while since I've looked at
> >> conference budget numbers. I believe Jonathan is correct that CLIR/DLF
> >> comes out to a smaller annual fee, given the current size of our budget,
> >> but someone who has access to those numbers might want to confirm.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Coral
> >>
> >
> >
>