 |
 |
I still think the same thing I posted first time this was on the listserv. I think a fiscal sponsor is the sweet spot, if a suitable fiscal sponsor with suitable terms can be found. Incorporating ourself takes a lot of work and additional expense -- both setup and ongoing. It's a real commitment. A fiscal sponsor's sponsorship fee is not neccesarily more expensive than doing your own accounting and taxes etc. A fiscal sponsor gives us the continuity that the lack of which has been a problem, with very little additional energy needed to be put into it. It still allows us to move to incorporating ourselves at a later date, if that looks more advantageous after fiscal sponsor experience. That is, if a fiscal sponsor can be found with relatively short-term commitments, good fees, and allows us to otherwise keep doing things the way we like, and which we believe has the capacity/experience to do fiscal sponsorship well. Fortunately, DLF/CLIR seems to be that. What they are suggesting as fiscal sponsorship terms are great terms, they are an organization with a track record whose mission and programs are aligned to ours. I think a CLIR fiscal sponsorship is ideal. Jonathan On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Jul 10, 2017, at 6:37 PM, Galen Charlton <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Back in January the Fiscal Continuity IG released our report > > describing some options for establishing a more permanent fiscal > > arrangement for Code4Lib activities, particularly the annual > > conference. [0] > > > When it comes to “fiscal continuity”, the silence has been deafening. > Let’s discuss. > > Code4Lib has existed for more than ten years. Our mailing list has > approximately 3,500 subscribers. The majority seem to be from the United > States. We host an annual meeting which has grown to accommodate about 400 > people. According to the wiki, there are about about 18 local/regional > groups hosting their own meetings. And we support a journal which comes out > at least a few times year. All of these things are signs of real community. > > Almost by definition, communities are risk adverse. If they weren’t, then > they would most likely cease to exist. Our community is no exception, and > because we have grown over the years, it is time to assess what we do in > order to minimize risk, specifically when it comes to the annual meeting. > > The Fiscal Continuity Interest Group members [1] have investigated the > issues regarding risk, and we have articulated a few solutions: > > * do nothing > * incorporate ourselves > * partner with a hosting institution > > The first option — do nothing — means we continue on the path we have > already trodden. It means we have no real bank account of our own, we have > no real way to sign contracts, and every year we hope some good soul of an > institution takes on the fiscal responsibility (risk) when it comes to the > annual meeting. > > The second option — incorporate ourselves — means the creation of a legal > entity, most likely in the form of a non-profit corporation (code4lib.org). > Such an option has up front costs (which we can apparently afford), on > going costs (which we can apparently afford), the articulation of bylaws > (which are rather boiler plate), and the creation of a more formal > governing body (which would be new to us). > > The third option — partner with a hosting institution — means we would > fold ourselves under the umbrella of some other legal entity, and this > other legal entity would shoulder some of the legal & fiscal risk at an > annual financial cost (which we can probably afford).† > > As a member of the Group but without speaking for the Group, my personal > preferences are listed here, in priority order: > > 1. incorporate ourselves - I advocate the creation of a formal > code4lib.org community. We can financially afford such an option. We will > be able to sign contracts. We will be able to have our own bank account. > And most importantly, I believe it will provide the means for our community > to grow in ways we have yet to envision. > > 2. do nothing - Personally, I’m not too concerned about regularly > identifying an annual meeting host. In my gut I feel someone will always > step up to the plate. Moreover, I sincerely believe things like the > local/regional groups (“franchises”) will continue to facilitate smaller, > more immediate opportunities for professional development & networking. > This option is easy. > > 3. partner with a hosting institution - While this may seem to be a > "middle of the road" sort of choice, I believe it is really a stop gap > measure which does not provide enough autonomy. > > Because of our size and maturity, it is probably time to do something > differently. What do you think we ought to do? > > > † - This sentence mixes way too many metaphors! > > [0] report - https://wiki.code4lib.org/FCIG_Report > [1] Group members - https://wiki.code4lib.org/Fiscal_Continuity#Members > > — > Eric Lease Morgan, Digital Initiatives Librarian > Hesburgh Libraries > University of Notre Dame > Notre Dame, IN 46556 > > [log in to unmask] > 574/631-8604 >