 |
 |
Thanks! On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess <[log in to unmask] > wrote: > Sorry, I meant "the least we could do for the people who are compelled to > be members," NOT "the least we could do for ALA/LITA." (As the person who > pulled together the LITA part of the report, obviously I am aware that we > owe LITA significantly more than that if they are our fiscal sponsor.) > > I see no reason to be coy about the math, though. Quotes below come from > the report: > > If we went with ALA/LITA, we would gain "ALA’s tax-exempt status and > liability insurance," and we would pay "ALA’s overhead rate for fiscal > years 2017 and 2018 [which] will be 26.4% of gross revenue." > > If we went with DLF/CLIR, "CLIR would strongly recommend/request that > Code4Lib obtain event insurance for future conferences. CLIR has experience > with purchasing event insurance for other conferences such as the DLF > Forum, and can provide recommendations to Code4Lib about options." > "CLIR/DLF > would request payment of an annual fee of $5,000 as compensation for staff > time and auditor fees required for fiscal sponsor services," and "CLIR > would request that conference budgets be established to allow for a second > annual payment of at least $5,000 be deposited by Code4Lib into the "nest > egg" account." > > So, it's 26.4% of gross revenue versus $5k + event insurance (+ another $5k > that goes into savings for us). It's been a while since I've looked at > conference budget numbers. I believe Jonathan is correct that CLIR/DLF > comes out to a smaller annual fee, given the current size of our budget, > but someone who has access to those numbers might want to confirm. > > Best, > Coral >