 |
 |
I concur with Tim's assessment. If folks have limited funds for professional development, they are less likely to become a member of an association that requires them to join another organization as a prerequisite to membership. Elizabeth Leonard 973-761-9445 -----Original Message----- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim McGeary Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 8:21 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fiscal Continuity IG report redux [silence has been deafening] I would strongly oppose any requirement that forces membership to ALA / LITA. This is unnecessary and an expense that is a personal choice and often not reimbursed by libraries. I also think it would servely limit who is willing to host / lead conferences. Tim On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:53 PM Coral Sheldon-Hess <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Point of order: *we do not have to incorporate, to have a fiscal sponsor*. > That is a large part of the benefit of fiscal sponsorship. While we > probably *should* have bylaws, none of the potential fiscal sponsors > have called that out as a requirement. The requirements they've given > us, that come closest to incorporation, are listed below (but I > encourage everyone to read the report in its entirety, because you > might see things in it that I do not): > > From the report section about fiscal sponsorship < > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki. > code4lib.org%2FFCIG_Report%23Option_2%3A_Obtain_Ongoing_Fiscal_Sponsor > ship_from_an_External_Organization&data=01%7C01%7Celizabeth.leonard%40 > SHU.EDU%7C03c74e330eba49a9c63408d4cfce900d%7C51f07c2253b744dfb97ca1326 > 1d71075%7C1&sdata=Uf437%2F%2BfyC7aXudXj0sMorzQw3sjjG6CBChHpY%2BZ8HE%3D > &reserved=0 > > > : > > Option 1 of ALA/LITA (the less good one, which we would not be likely > to > choose) : "Although it wouldn’t be required, ALA would strongly > recommend that Code4Lib incorporate in this scenario, or else the > individuals would be personally liable and would have to pay taxes on any revenue." > > Option 2 of ALA/LITA (the option we would almost certainly choose): we > expressly *do not have to incorporate*, but our conference organizers > must be ALA/LITA members. (A note of my own: we would need to be > written into LITA's structure, I would guess as an "interest group," > because that's their most flexible option; but that doesn't really > require formal bylaws, let alone incorporation. As someone who has put > a LITA interest group together, I can assure you of that.) > > I don't see it in the report (my fault, sorry), but I remember from > some of the discussions that ALA/LITA would ideally like us to make a > single organizational contact point available to them. I believe they, > like DLF/CLIR (below), indicated that each year's conference committee > would serve just fine in that role. > > For DLF/CLIR: 'To specify and document expectations on both sides and > formalize the fiscal sponsorship, CLIR requests that Code4Lib > establish an MoU with CLIR. ... CLIR would not require or request that > Code4Lib’s annual conference organizers be affiliated with CLIR/DLF > member organizations. ... CLIR would not request any control over > Code4Lib’s organizational/"governance” > processes, or that Code4Lib adopt CLIR’s or DLF’s bylaws. ... CLIR > expressed familiarity with Code4Lib’s current operational processes, > and indicated that they would be fine with these processes continuing: > "Single point of contact, changing annually, and without a required > connection to CLIR or DLF is fine. In short, the practice of having > local organizing committees and rotating leadership over the > conference and other activities that currently exists in Code4Lib > would be acceptable. We work with some other groups who operate in > this way, and were also comfortable taking on hosting of the Code4Lib > listserv recently, knowing and appreciating how grassroots leadership happens in the community!"' > > So, yes, we would need to formalize a little bit--have a committee or > something that handles contact with our fiscal sponsor, or else give > that work to our conference committees--but we *do not need to > incorporate, *if we choose the fiscal sponsorship route. We might > *opt* to incorporate. It might make some things easier. But it is not a requirement. > > Thanks, > Coral > Who is definitely not writing to this list again today; sorry for > sending two long messages in a single day. > -- Tim McGeary [log in to unmask] GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary 484-294-7660 (Google Voice)