I am involved in Code4Lib precisely because I cannot afford an ALA/LITA
membership.

Kyle Breneman


On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Jason Bengtson <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Personally I agree that incorporation presents enough tangible advantages
> that we should seriously consider making that move, and Carol makes an
> excellent point vis-a-vis the journal royalties, no matter how modest they
> may be. I think a sponsor is also a workable model, and I agree with folks
> that have had reservations about ALA/LITA. I have nothing against ALA (far
> from it), but it seems like, from some of the posted comments, ALA/LITA
> sponsorship would come with strings that are potentially limiting or at
> least off putting to some members of the community. When I first became a
> part of Code4Lib I was working in medical libraries, and hadn't even joined
> ALA (I was in the MLA at the time). Along with ASIS&T, one library
> professional organization at a time is all that I'm interested in footing
> the bill for. While I'm currently a member of ALA/LITA, I wouldn't want us
> to create a situation where folks who were solely involved in MLA, SLA, or
> no professional organization at all found it difficult or uncomfortable to
> participate in any of the formal activities of the group.
>
> Best regards,
>
> *Jason Bengtson*
>
>
> *http://www.jasonbengtson.com/ <http://www.jasonbengtson.com/>*
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Joseph Montibello <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > I wonder if C4L could just decide to pay for ALA/LITA memberships for the
> > conference organizers? That way it wouldn't be a burden on them. I don't
> > know how much extra that would add to the cost of the conference but I
> > wouldn't think it would be much, relative to the other costs.
> >
> > I don't really have a favorite between ALA / CLIR / OLF / whoever else
> > might be in the mix. Just thought that this might be a way to keep the
> > burdens off of the people and on the broader community, which is gaining
> > the most benefit from the arrangement.
> >
> > Joe Montibello, MLIS
> > Library Systems Manager
> > Dartmouth College
> > 603.646.9394
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
> > On 7/21/17, 8:39 AM, "Code for Libraries on behalf of Elizabeth Leonard"
> <
> > [log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >     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%2BfyC7aXudXj0sMorzQw3sjjG6CBCh
> > HpY%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)
> >
> >
> >
>