Thanks!

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess <[log in to unmask]
> wrote:

> 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
>