I would strongly oppose any requirement that forces membership to ALA /
LITA.  This is unnecessary and an expense that is a personal choice and
often not reimbursed by libraries. I also think it would servely limit who
is willing to host / lead conferences.

Tim


On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:53 PM Coral Sheldon-Hess <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Point of order: *we do not have to incorporate, to have a fiscal sponsor*.
> That is a large part of the benefit of fiscal sponsorship. While we
> probably *should* have bylaws, none of the potential fiscal sponsors have
> called that out as a requirement. The requirements they've given us, that
> come closest to incorporation, are listed below (but I encourage everyone
> to read the report in its entirety, because you might see things in it that
> I do not):
>
> From the report section about fiscal sponsorship
> <
> https://wiki.code4lib.org/FCIG_Report#Option_2:_Obtain_Ongoing_Fiscal_Sponsorship_from_an_External_Organization
> >
> :
>
> Option 1 of ALA/LITA (the less good one, which we would not be likely to
> choose) : "Although it wouldn’t be required, ALA would strongly recommend
> that Code4Lib incorporate in this scenario, or else the individuals would
> be personally liable and would have to pay taxes on any revenue."
>
> Option 2 of ALA/LITA (the option we would almost certainly choose): we
> expressly *do not have to incorporate*, but our conference organizers must
> be ALA/LITA members. (A note of my own: we would need to be written into
> LITA's structure, I would guess as an "interest group," because that's
> their most flexible option; but that doesn't really require formal bylaws,
> let alone incorporation. As someone who has put a LITA interest group
> together, I can assure you of that.)
>
> I don't see it in the report (my fault, sorry), but I remember from some of
> the discussions that ALA/LITA would ideally like us to make a single
> organizational contact point available to them. I believe they, like
> DLF/CLIR (below), indicated that each year's conference committee would
> serve just fine in that role.
>
> For DLF/CLIR: 'To specify and document expectations on both sides and
> formalize the fiscal sponsorship, CLIR requests that Code4Lib establish an
> MoU with CLIR. ... CLIR would not require or request that Code4Lib’s annual
> conference organizers be affiliated with CLIR/DLF member
> organizations. ... CLIR
> would not request any control over Code4Lib’s organizational/"governance”
> processes, or that Code4Lib adopt CLIR’s or DLF’s bylaws. ... CLIR
> expressed familiarity with Code4Lib’s current operational processes, and
> indicated that they would be fine with these processes continuing: "Single
> point of contact, changing annually, and without a required connection to
> CLIR or DLF is fine. In short, the practice of having local organizing
> committees and rotating leadership over the conference and other activities
> that currently exists in Code4Lib would be acceptable. We work with some
> other groups who operate in this way, and were also comfortable taking on
> hosting of the Code4Lib listserv recently, knowing and appreciating how
> grassroots leadership happens in the community!"'
>
> So, yes, we would need to formalize a little bit--have a committee or
> something that handles contact with our fiscal sponsor, or else give that
> work to our conference committees--but we *do not need to incorporate, *if
> we choose the fiscal sponsorship route. We might *opt* to incorporate. It
> might make some things easier. But it is not a requirement.
>
> Thanks,
> Coral
> Who is definitely not writing to this list again today; sorry for sending
> two long messages in a single day.
>
-- 
Tim McGeary
[log in to unmask]
GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
484-294-7660 (Google Voice)