 |
 |
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