Hi all,

Great discussion so far. I want to add a few things as I do not see them mentioned in the email thread so far.

As a current Local Planning Committee (LPC) member for the C4L18 DC Conference, here are some things that I would like to share.

--- Having a separate fiscal sponsor allows a more diverse group of C4L people to propose and host a conference in their area. Previously, only those affiliated with large higher ed institutions ('and' those who were in an empowered position such as dean, AD, AUL etc., to persuade their library to take up on the fiscal sponsorship responsibility) were able to propose and host a conference. But with a fiscal sponsor, that limit will be lifted. My hope is that with a fiscal sponsor already determined, more diverse and grassroots groups of C4L members will be able to volunteer and participate in C4L conference planning and hosting in terms of affiliation and location.

(Also note that it is entirely possible that someone or some group of people without such affiliation still want to host a conference while no one or no group with such affiliation want to host a conference in the same year. In the current system, we get no conference. This is exactly what happened after last year's conference until DLF stepped up for us for the 1-year contract, which they initially did not want to do. If they didn't change their position, there would have been no DC hosting proposal, period.)

--- As many of you know, conference planning is complicated, such as negotiating hotel contracts, finding a reception venue, catering cost, etc. These are definitely not our expertise and shouldn't be although LPC will inevitably deal with a good deal of them. My experience so far working with DLF (Bethany) and Concentra (Jen) has been terrific, and I believe our conference tremendously benefit from their expertise in conference planning, budget management, negotiating etc. Their expertise in logistics saves us money. If our goal is to create the best conference experience (including conference planning experience for LPC and other committee volunteers) and if we can afford to pay a small fee for fiscal agency and professional conference planning, then I say that's money well-spent and worthwhile investment for the long-term sustainability of C4L and C4L conference.

--- Regarding the need to create C4L as a legal entity, that is NOT required to enter a fiscal sponsorship agreement AFAIK. Note that this year, the current LPC is ALREADY working with DLF as a fiscal sponsor for the 2018 DC conference. Fiscal sponsor is there to make things easier in terms of fund transfer and fiscal liability on behalf of the Code4Lib community. I highly doubt any org we discussed as potential future sponsor would be remotely interested in taking away our autonomy. The fiscal sponsor has no saying in programming or anything else. Its involvement is limited to the conference logistics only, and all decisions are mediated and finalized by the C4L LPC.

Personally I would be more worried about C4L autonomy if we start setting up bylaws and the formal board and electing people to. I am not saying that that is necessarily bad. But as a community, we have been operating successfully so far based upon group consensus (from discussion + occasional heated arguments) and I like it that way. Making C4L a legal entity with the board that formally governs with bylaws is a far far greater change to C4L as it currently is than getting a fiscal sponsor with a 3 or 5 year term limit for a fee in order to get us more stability in annual conference logistics.

Cheers,
Bohyun

--
Bohyun Kim, MA, MSLIS
Associate Director, University of Maryland Baltimore
Health Sciences and Human Services Library: http://www.hshsl.umaryland.edu/
Vice President/President-Elect, Library & Information Technology Association: http://www.lita.org

<http://www.hshsl.umaryland.edu/>
________________________________
From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 3:25:04 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

On Jul 24, 2017 11:28, "Tod Olson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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.


Of the things issues surrounding governance and finances, I wouldn't invest
much energy in  journal royalties --  it's a simple issue and the distance
between best and worst case scenarios is narrow.

C4l's strength and weakness is the same exact thing -- things happen
because people do things. The domain name, systems, and  everything we rely
on are controlled be the individuals and entities that stepped up --meaning
that management of these things is dispersed. I would think it would be
desirable to consolidate management of all core assets as part of the
process of finding a fiscal home.

Kyle