I concur with Tim's assessment. If folks have limited funds for professional development, they are less likely to become a member of an association that requires them to join another organization as a prerequisite to membership.

Elizabeth Leonard
973-761-9445


-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim McGeary
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 8:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening]

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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.
> code4lib.org%2FFCIG_Report%23Option_2%3A_Obtain_Ongoing_Fiscal_Sponsor
> ship_from_an_External_Organization&data=01%7C01%7Celizabeth.leonard%40
> SHU.EDU%7C03c74e330eba49a9c63408d4cfce900d%7C51f07c2253b744dfb97ca1326
> 1d71075%7C1&sdata=Uf437%2F%2BfyC7aXudXj0sMorzQw3sjjG6CBChHpY%2BZ8HE%3D
> &reserved=0
> >
> :
>
> 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)