 |
 |
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 > >