While I think it might make sense to separate the question like that, first
figure out if people agree the status quo is no good...
We already have that committee Tom mentions, the Fiscal Continuity WG.
They've already done a heck of a lot of work towards laying out the various
options for hosts / incorporation. And continue to do work on getting more
information, and guiding us to a decision. Why would we need to create
another separate committee? They are already the committee Tom proposes, I
think.
I think we should delegate a lot of this decision-making to that Fiscal
Continuity WG -- which is also in line with our traditional decision-making
practices, letting committees do things. Informed by public discussion, as
the Fiscal Continuity WG is obivously interested in, cause they are the
ones that got us to have this discussion (after asking 2-3 times :) ).
I agree a poll makes sense. I don't think it's a binding poll, I think it's
info for the Fiscal Continuity WG. They'd probably follow it, unless they
have reason to think the results of the poll are really going to be
disastrous.
I trust the Fiscal Continuity WG to decide what questions should be on the
poll and how they are worded. It might make sense to have two or more
questions, first Tom's "retain the status quo or not", and then "if not the
status quo, then...".
I also think it would be reasonable to ascertain that at this time the
community has consensus that the status quo is not sustainable, and skip
that question. Although there could still be a "none of the above" for
people who agree the current status quo is unsustainable but don't like any
of the options presented.
I dunno, just possibilities. I think discussion on the poll questions is
fine to inform to the Fiscal Continuity WG who will create the poll, and
that they should just create the poll using their judgement informed by
discussion.
Jonathan
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Tom Cramer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> This discussion has been wide-ranging, with as much on the “how” as the
> “why” of incorporating/finding a fiscal sponsor. To tease the two questions
> apart, I think we should start with one simple question:
>
> In the interest of fiscal continuity, should Code4Lib:
> a. retain a fiscal sponsor and/or incorporate as a non-profit, or
> b. maintain the status quo?
>
> If there is a clear majority for [a.], then a committee can be formed with
> a mandate to
>
> 1.) lay out the various options for hosts / incorporation (building on the
> Fiscal Continuity WG’s report, and adding in any new ones),
> 2.) present those options in a binding election to the Code4Lib community,
> and
> 3.) execute an agreement with a fiscal sponsor / file the incorporation
> paperwork on behalf of the community.
>
> If there is a clear majority for [b.] then the discussions can continue
> (or not) and many people may learn more about various approaches to
> non-profits, fiscal sponsorship, and community organization.
>
> - Tom
>
>
>
> On Jul 24, 2017, at 3:30 PM, Kim, Bohyun <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> 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]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Kyle Banerjee <
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 3:25:04 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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]<mailto:tod@
> uchicago.edu>> 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
>
>
|
