Sorry, I meant "the least we could do for the people who are compelled to
be members," NOT "the least we could do for ALA/LITA." (As the person who
pulled together the LITA part of the report, obviously I am aware that we
owe LITA significantly more than that if they are our fiscal sponsor.)

I see no reason to be coy about the math, though. Quotes below come from
the report:

If we went with ALA/LITA, we would gain "ALA’s tax-exempt status and
liability insurance," and we would pay "ALA’s overhead rate for fiscal
years 2017 and 2018 [which] will be 26.4% of gross revenue."

If we went with DLF/CLIR, "CLIR would strongly recommend/request that
Code4Lib obtain event insurance for future conferences. CLIR has experience
with purchasing event insurance for other conferences such as the DLF
Forum, and can provide recommendations to Code4Lib about options." "CLIR/DLF
would request payment of an annual fee of $5,000 as compensation for staff
time and auditor fees required for fiscal sponsor services," and "CLIR
would request that conference budgets be established to allow for a second
annual payment of at least $5,000 be deposited by Code4Lib into the "nest
egg" account."

So, it's 26.4% of gross revenue versus $5k + event insurance (+ another $5k
that goes into savings for us). It's been a while since I've looked at
conference budget numbers. I believe Jonathan is correct that CLIR/DLF
comes out to a smaller annual fee, given the current size of our budget,
but someone who has access to those numbers might want to confirm.

Best,
Coral