If we go the fiscal sponsor route, the fiscal sponsor would be able to receive such payments, assuming the Journal is part of Code4Lib for these purposes. That would be part of the sponsor being able to "hold funds on behalf of Code4Lib." (FCIG report, p. 6.)

The particulars of how the Journal would sit in any fiscal sponsor would be up for discussion with that sponsor. Off the cuff, I see no reason for the Journal to change it's policies in any way, and that could be made explicit in whatever arrangement we might come to.

And I suppose I'm assuming that we would want the Journal to be included in the fiscal sponsor arrangement. How and whether the Journal fits into all of this could be taken up during a discussion of governance.

-Tod


> On Jul 24, 2017, at 8:49 AM, Carol Bean <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 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
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>