 |
 |
I am involved in Code4Lib precisely because I cannot afford an ALA/LITA membership. Kyle Breneman On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Jason Bengtson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Personally I agree that incorporation presents enough tangible advantages > that we should seriously consider making that move, and Carol makes an > excellent point vis-a-vis the journal royalties, no matter how modest they > may be. I think a sponsor is also a workable model, and I agree with folks > that have had reservations about ALA/LITA. I have nothing against ALA (far > from it), but it seems like, from some of the posted comments, ALA/LITA > sponsorship would come with strings that are potentially limiting or at > least off putting to some members of the community. When I first became a > part of Code4Lib I was working in medical libraries, and hadn't even joined > ALA (I was in the MLA at the time). Along with ASIS&T, one library > professional organization at a time is all that I'm interested in footing > the bill for. While I'm currently a member of ALA/LITA, I wouldn't want us > to create a situation where folks who were solely involved in MLA, SLA, or > no professional organization at all found it difficult or uncomfortable to > participate in any of the formal activities of the group. > > Best regards, > > *Jason Bengtson* > > > *http://www.jasonbengtson.com/ <http://www.jasonbengtson.com/>* > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Joseph Montibello < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > I wonder if C4L could just decide to pay for ALA/LITA memberships for the > > conference organizers? That way it wouldn't be a burden on them. I don't > > know how much extra that would add to the cost of the conference but I > > wouldn't think it would be much, relative to the other costs. > > > > I don't really have a favorite between ALA / CLIR / OLF / whoever else > > might be in the mix. Just thought that this might be a way to keep the > > burdens off of the people and on the broader community, which is gaining > > the most benefit from the arrangement. > > > > Joe Montibello, MLIS > > Library Systems Manager > > Dartmouth College > > 603.646.9394 > > [log in to unmask] > > > > > > On 7/21/17, 8:39 AM, "Code for Libraries on behalf of Elizabeth Leonard" > < > > [log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > 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%2BfyC7aXudXj0sMorzQw3sjjG6CBCh > > HpY%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) > > > > > > >