 |
 |
Am I misunderstanding Roy and/or Francis's intention though that given essentially a full year to plan C4L 2017, that either they or entities that they have strong connections too are willing to be the fiscal agent for 2017? That's what I thought they were implying. Both indicated that they could pull of a big conference for 2017. So perhaps we can discuss the matter of finding a "permanent" fiscal agent face to face at conference in 2017???? Christina Salazar Systems Librarian John Spoor Broome Library California State University, Channel Islands 805/437-3198 -----Original Message----- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward M. Corrado Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 11:30 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib? Generally speaking, what the fiduciary agent normally would get rewarded in money. Arrangements can vary of course, but basically they would get a portion of the income of the event. Edward On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Shaun D. Ellis <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I agree that securing a permanent fiscal agent is the only way to > sustain the annual conference at the current level, but I think there > are ways to make a less formal commitment. What I don’t understand is > what any fiduciary agent gets out of such a deal. There is > significant risk and overhead for anyone to take this on. What is the reward? > > Overhead > It’s not just about fronting money and signing contracts. There is > people power involved too. For 2016, I reviewed every contract and > agreement that came through because my hide was on the line if we > screwed up. It’s not hard to miss something in the fine print, or to > find estimates and invoices that don’t add up. Furthermore, there > were people in our finance department who had to do extra work to set > up the account, cut checks, double-check contracts, communicate with vendors, etc. > > Risk > While we have not yet gone "into the red" on an annual Code4Lib > conference (knock on wood), it is certainly possible unless there is a > degree of vigilance on the part of the organizers. Because you have > different organizers each year there can be large fluctuations when it > comes to fundraising/sponsorship effort and experience. The same goes > for researching, negotiating, and comparing vendor and venue prices. > We do pass on documentation as best we can, but the process is rarely > cookie cutter. > > Reward > Is the reward simply “thanks” and a pat on the back? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (For > what it’s worth, I could see a high-visibility sponsor spot given to > this org since it's a form of in-kind donated resources.) > > Even if Code4Lib were to form a non-profit to strictly handle the > annual conf, someone’s hide needs to be on the line to make sure > there’s proper oversight of funds, budgets are properly formed and > adhered to, contracts are not putting the org at risk, and so on. To > me, that sounds like a dedicated employee of the non-profit. > > -Shaun > > On Jun 13, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Rogan Hamby <[log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > There are a variety of options but I think it's fairly safe to say > that it would require some additional organization. If another body > took Code4Lib under it's umbrella they would want organizational > contacts and some arrangements in place with whatever served as the > governance of Code4Lib (and I use the term governance here very > loosely). And at the other end of the spectrum if Code4Lib did > something like become a non-profit there are a number of IRS > requirements it would have to observe in terms of a board, bylaws, etc.... > > Note, I'm sure there are other options, those are just the two that > occur to me off the top of my head from opposing ends of the "we have > to be a formal entity spectrum." > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Akerman, Laura <[log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Would "finding a permanent fiduciary agent" call for some degree of > organizational formalization? Wouldn't somebody or bodies have to > "sign for" Code4Lib on this agreement with this agent, and wouldn't > their role therefore have to be, to some degree, permanent? > > Sorry, but just wondering... > > Laura > > -----Original Message----- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf > Of Salazar, Christina > Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 5:26 PM > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib? > > Yes I think it's time to do so and I also felt that there was > significant support for the idea. > > I think perhaps the title "formalizing Code4Lib" might be a bit > misleading though... We might want to frame the idea as "finding a > permanent fiduciary agent" or something along those lines. This way, > we don't have to think about major changes all at once. > > I imagine it would help those who plan for Code4Lib 2017 as well, > assuming that there will be a physical one. > > Christina Salazar > Systems Librarian > John Spoor Broome Library > California State University, Channel Islands > 805/437-3198 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf > Of Brian Rogers > Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 2:20 PM > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib? > > Since the Chattanooga Planning Committee inadvertently prompted this > newest round of conversations around some degree of formalization, > would it be useful if we threw together a follow-up survey for the > community, to test the waters around support (or lack there of) for > the notion of formalizing, to the extent that it allows for a stable > place to house the annual conference funds? And if it seems like there > is overwhelming support for the idea, a group of volunteers can band > together at that point to pursue options to present back to the community? > > ________________________________ > > This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of > the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged > information. If the reader of this message is not the intended > recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is > strictly prohibited. > > If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender > by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message > (including attachments). > > > > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Rogan R. Hamby, Data and Project Analyst Equinox - Open Your Library > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> > 1-877-OPEN-ILS | www.esilibrary.com > >