I still think the same thing I posted first time this was on the listserv.

I think a fiscal sponsor is the sweet spot, if a suitable fiscal sponsor
with suitable terms can be found. Incorporating ourself takes a lot of work
and additional expense -- both setup and ongoing. It's a real commitment. A
fiscal sponsor's sponsorship fee is not neccesarily more expensive than
doing your own accounting and taxes etc.

A fiscal sponsor gives us the continuity that the lack of which has been a
problem, with very little additional energy needed to be put into it. It
still allows us to move to incorporating ourselves at a later date, if that
looks more advantageous after fiscal sponsor experience.

That is, if a fiscal sponsor can be found with relatively short-term
commitments, good fees, and allows us to otherwise keep doing things the
way we like, and which we believe has the capacity/experience to do fiscal
sponsorship well.

Fortunately, DLF/CLIR seems to be that. What they are suggesting as fiscal
sponsorship terms are great terms, they are an organization with a track
record whose mission and programs are aligned to ours. I think a CLIR
fiscal sponsorship is ideal.

Jonathan

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Jul 10, 2017, at 6:37 PM, Galen Charlton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Back in January the Fiscal Continuity IG released our report
> > describing some options for establishing a more permanent fiscal
> > arrangement for Code4Lib activities, particularly the annual
> > conference. [0]
>
>
> When it comes to “fiscal continuity”, the silence has been deafening.
> Let’s discuss.
>
> Code4Lib has existed for more than ten years. Our mailing list has
> approximately 3,500 subscribers. The majority seem to be from the United
> States. We host an annual meeting which has grown to accommodate about 400
> people. According to the wiki, there are about about 18 local/regional
> groups hosting their own meetings. And we support a journal which comes out
> at least a few times year. All of these things are signs of real community.
>
> Almost by definition, communities are risk adverse. If they weren’t, then
> they would most likely cease to exist. Our community is no exception, and
> because we have grown over the years, it is time to assess what we do in
> order to minimize risk, specifically when it comes to the annual meeting.
>
> The Fiscal Continuity Interest Group members [1] have investigated the
> issues regarding risk, and we have articulated a few solutions:
>
>   * do nothing
>   * incorporate ourselves
>   * partner with a hosting institution
>
> The first option — do nothing — means we continue on the path we have
> already trodden. It means we have no real bank account of our own, we have
> no real way to sign contracts, and every year we hope some good soul of an
> institution takes on the fiscal responsibility (risk) when it comes to the
> annual meeting.
>
> The second option — incorporate ourselves — means the creation of a legal
> entity, most likely in the form of a non-profit corporation (code4lib.org).
> Such an option has up front costs (which we can apparently afford), on
> going costs (which we can apparently afford), the articulation of bylaws
> (which are rather boiler plate), and the creation of a more formal
> governing body (which would be new to us).
>
> The third option — partner with a hosting institution — means we would
> fold ourselves under the umbrella of some other legal entity, and this
> other legal entity would shoulder some of the legal & fiscal risk at an
> annual financial cost (which we can probably afford).†
>
> As a member of the Group but without speaking for the Group, my personal
> preferences are listed here, in priority order:
>
>   1. incorporate ourselves - I advocate the creation of a formal
> code4lib.org community. We can financially afford such an option. We will
> be able to sign contracts. We will be able to have our own bank account.
> And most importantly, I believe it will provide the means for our community
> to grow in ways we have yet to envision.
>
>   2. do nothing - Personally, I’m not too concerned about regularly
> identifying an annual meeting host. In my gut I feel someone will always
> step up to the plate. Moreover, I sincerely believe things like the
> local/regional groups (“franchises”) will continue to facilitate smaller,
> more immediate opportunities for professional development & networking.
> This option is easy.
>
>   3. partner with a hosting institution - While this may seem to be a
> "middle of the road" sort of choice, I believe it is really a stop gap
> measure which does not provide enough autonomy.
>
> Because of our size and maturity, it is probably time to do something
> differently. What do you think we ought to do?
>
>
> † - This sentence mixes way too many metaphors!
>
> [0] report - https://wiki.code4lib.org/FCIG_Report
> [1] Group members - https://wiki.code4lib.org/Fiscal_Continuity#Members
>
> —
> Eric Lease Morgan, Digital Initiatives Librarian
> Hesburgh Libraries
> University of Notre Dame
> Notre Dame, IN 46556
>
> [log in to unmask]
> 574/631-8604
>