 |
 |
I realize the C4L Journal is only a tiny part of this whole issue, but as we look at going with ALA/LITA, (and the others, for that matter, for comparison's sake), I am wondering how and whether the Journal would have a place (since to process royalty payments there would have to be some kind of formal connection). I'm kind of wary of the Journal being sucked into ALA, but I dunno... I guess it would need to be written into whatever documentation is created, if the group wanted to include the Journal in the formalized structure. I have spoken to an EBSCO rep, and they are pretty flexible about how and where to make past and future payments (there's a growing balance waiting to be disbursed), but there does have to be, at the very least, an entity with a Tax ID. Carol Carol Bean [log in to unmask] On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I think CLIR's fiscal sponsorship fee is amazingly generous to us. > > And ALA's 26.4% of gross revenue is very high when considered as a fiscal > sponsorship fee. Fiscal sponsorship fees in general 501c3 world are > typically 9-15%[1], often on the low end of that. > > Of course, ALA probably doesn't consider it a fiscal sponsorship fee > exactly is part of why it seems high when looked at like that. They > consider it as "you an ALA interest group, you are part of ALA, and you get > benefits including non-tangible ones from just being part of ALA, and > identify with ALA, and ALA takes 26.4% of ALA sub-project/"interest group" > revenue to support the parent organization." That may in fact be most of > what ALA's revenue comes from, revenue from sub-parts like this. It's more > 'becoming part of ALA' than a fiscal sponsorship. > > I think the CLIR fiscal sponsorship offer, in both monetary and other > aspects, is really quite generous. They are making it for mission-driven > reasons, charging the least they can get away with, and being transparent > about that -- I like that the insurance is just a pass-through, they need > it, whatever it is they pass through. ALA's offer is less generous, and I > don't think we have community interest in becoming part of ALA. > > [1] > http://www.fiscalsponsors.org/pages/10-questions-potential- > projects-should-ask-fiscal-sponsor > > Jonathan > > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > 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 > >> > > > > >