10
edits
Changes
m
<This table> <tr> <td>Option</td> <td>Cost required to implement</td> <td>Other costs/ recurring costs?</td> <td>Any required changes to Code4Lib conference- planning process?</td> <td>Any required changes to Code4Lib organizational structure?</td> <td>Does this provide ongoing gives only a broad comparison of the options. For fuller details on the points summarized below, please see the individual sections for each of the potential fiscal host for Code4Lib conference?</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Fiscal sponsorshipsponsors: LITA/ALA</td> <td>26.4% of gross revenue</td> <td></td> <td>Coordination with LITA/ALA</td> <td>Primary conference organizers would need to hold LITA membership; would need process to identify primary contact to LITA/ALA</td> <td>yes</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Fiscal sponsorship: CLIR/DLF</td> <td>$5,000 / year</td> <td>$5,000 / year to Code4Lib nest egg account</td> <td>CLIR/DLF would not require changes; Code4Lib would need to continue hiring conference mgmt services. CLIR/DLF recommends event insurance.</td> <td>Would need process to identify primary contact to CLIR/DLF</td> <td>yes</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Code4Lib forms NPO</td> <td>$2,000 to $8OLF,000 to form</td> <td>$1and DuraSpace,000 to $2and the sections presenting the requirements involved in forming a non-profit organization option,000 in filing fees</td> <td>Potential need to secure legal services to review contracts.</td> <td>Election of the board (or setting up board to include all Code4Lib members) and election of officers</td> <td>yes</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Maintain as well as maintaining status quo</td> <td>0</td> <td>Ongoing liability burdens on host institutions</td> <td>no</td> <td>no</td> <td>no</td> </tr></table>.
sub-heading disambiguation
Code4Lib Fiscal Continuity Interest Group Report
23 January 2017, updated on 19 September 2017
== A. Executive Summary ==
The FCIG shared communications via a Google group list, and met via videochat 1-2 times per month from July 1, 2016 - Dec. 23, 2016. [https://wiki.code4lib.org/Fiscal_Continuity#Meetings Meeting notes] are shared at the FCIG wiki page within the main Code4Lib wiki.
In initial discussions, the group brainstormed many potential options to explore as ways for Code4Lib to move forward in establishing, or determining not to establish, an ongoing fiscal entity; the FCIG wiki page contains an [https://wiki.code4lib.org/Fiscal_Continuity#Fiscal_Structures extensive list] of these possibilities. Group consensus determined which of these preliminary possibilities to gather more information about. Individuals volunteered to do the work of investigating each option. In order to provide a consistent and comprehensive template for discussions with potential fiscal sponsors, Coral Sheldon-Hess compiled a list of questions which was reviewed and agreed upon by the group. This list is included in the Appendix A section of this report.
== C. Findings ==
2. LITA/ALA
===== Proposed Terms for Fiscal Sponsorship , LITA/ALA =====
The Library Information Technology Association (LITA), a division of the American Library Association (ALA), is willing to serve as a fiscal agent for the Code4Lib conference on either a short-term or long-term basis. There are two models under which this could happen:
4. CLIR/DLF
===== Proposed Terms for Fiscal Sponsorship , CLIR/DLF =====
The Council on Library and Information Resources, the parent organization of the Digital Library Federation, has also offered possible terms for providing ongoing fiscal sponsorship for Code4Lib. The terms outlined below were discussed via email and phone conversations with Bethany Nowviskie, Director, DLF, and Sharon Ivy Weiss, Chief Operating Officer, CLIR, between October-December 2016. In these conversations, the FCIG provided via email an adaptation of the list of questions Coral prepared for potential sponsors (as discussed with LITA/ALA, outlined above). Quotations below are taken from emails written by Bethany Nowviskie in response to these questions, and are used with her permission.
=== Table: Summary of Options ===
{|
!Option
!Cost required to implement
!Other costs/ recurring costs?
!Any required changes to Code4Lib conference- planning process?
!Any required changes to Code4Lib organizational structure?
!Does this provide ongoing fiscal host for Code4Lib conference?
|-
|Fiscal sponsorship: LITA/ALA
|26.4% of gross revenue
|
|Coordination with LITA/ALA
|Primary conference organizers would need to hold LITA membership; would need process to identify primary contact to LITA/ALA
|yes
|-
|Fiscal sponsorship: CLIR/DLF
|$5,000 / year
|$5,000 / year to Code4Lib nest egg account
|CLIR/DLF would not require changes; Code4Lib would need to continue hiring conference mgmt services. CLIR/DLF recommends event insurance.
|No change to current C4L culture would be necessary. CLIR/DLF is fine with C4L’s current practice of local organizing committees and rotating leadership for the conference and other activities. CLIR/DLF requests only that C4L would identify current points of contact for each activity such as conference, listserv, website, etc.
|yes
|-
|Fiscal sponsorship: Open Library Federation
|To be determined, in coordination with OLF
|Needs to be determined: whether OLF or C4L would cover event insurance cost annually
|OLF did not specify any required changes to the conference planning process
|OLF requires member communities to have explicit governance that is documented in a charter or similar instrument
|yes
|-
|Fiscal sponsorship: DuraSpace
|$7,000 / year
|DuraSpace recommends C4L create & maintain a reserve account of $75Kto cover at minimum half of the cost of potential conference failure, and to purchase event insurance for annual conference
|DuraSpace would not require changes, but strongly recommends C4L obtain event insurance for annual conference
|DuraSpace requests C4L identify leadership with authorization: to sign Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and to spend C4L funds; also expects C4L to report expenses and revenues annually
|yes, with qualification regarding shared coverage of potential conference failure
|-
|Code4Lib forms NPO
|$2,000 to $8,000 to form
|$1,000 to $2,000 in filing fees
|Potential need to secure legal services to review contracts.
|Election of the board (or setting up board to include all Code4Lib members) and election of officers
|yes
|-
|Maintain status quo
|0
|Ongoing liability burdens on host institutions
|no
|no
|no
|}
=== Option 1: Maintain the status quo ===
=== Option 2: obtain ongoing fiscal sponsorship from an external organization ===
In this Report, the terms specified for each of the organizations identified as possible fiscal sponsors provide an outline of the requirements and benefits of ongoing fiscal sponsorship with a host organization. This analysis is meant to inform a Code4Lib community vote among the three broad options presented in this Report (1: maintain status quo, 2: obtain ongoing fiscal sponsorship, or 3: form an independent non-profit organization), as well as to provide a basis for comparison between the possible terms offered by each of the organizations within Option 2.
====== Pros: Possible Benefits of an Ongoing, Long-term fiscal sponsor for Code4Lib ======
<li><p>Are there any significant incompatibilities between your mission and Code4Lib’s?</p></li>
<li><p>Are you able to readily collect funds in a variety of ways, such as check, bank transfer, PayPal, direct credit card payments, and so forth?</p></li></ol>
= Appendix B — Educopia =
This section is an addenda to the Report of the FCIG, which was first shared with Code4Lib on January 23, 2017. After the FCIG shared its Report with Code4Lib in late January, we were subsequently able to follow up on our initial inquiry to Educopia, and have prepared this summary of our findings about that option.
The Code4Lib FCIG first reached out to Educopia on January 11, 2017 to inquire if there might be a possibility for a fiscal sponsorship or similar arrangement. We were subsequently able to arrange a phone call for a conversation with Katherine Skinner, Executive Director, Sam Meister, Preservation Communities Manager, and Christina Drummond, Director of Strategic Initiatives of Educopia, on January 31, 2017. In advance of the phone conversation, we sent via email our list of questions for potential sponsors, and our framing questions about duration - to ask about possibilities for short-term or longer-term options for a fiscal sponsorship arrangement.
Our phone conversation on January 31 confirmed that the aims of Educopia’s partnership program are well-matched to Code4Lib’s commitment to a decentralized, low-cost/low-overhead model for community-led action. The significant scope of services available within Educopia’s model for development partnerships, however, likely exceeds the current scope of the FCIG’s Report, which has been to investigate options for the primary purpose of securing ongoing fiscal sponsorship for Code4Lib’s annual conference. For this reason, the FCIG would recommend that if Code4Lib community members wish to initiate a conversation about pursuing further options relative to Educopia’s partnership program, a process for further investigation and discussion by the community should be undertaken to determine if consensus exists to pursue this option.
To summarize Educopia’s work and approach, this group works with communities at various stages - “nascent, growing, or revitalizing” - who are actively seeking to grow and mature organizationally. The wide range of communities Educopia engages work in a range of strategic areas, and are typically focused around a defined research area. Educopia’s incubator partnerships support organizational maturation by providing information and expertise to assist with development through a series of structured steps, addressing areas including methods for outreach, building revenue models, and considerations for governance structures to facilitate collaborative, responsive partnerships.
This model is in alignment with Code4Lib’s cultural values and objectives, but deciding to move in this direction would constitute a significant step relative to Code4Lib’s history and identity thus far as a loosely-affiliated community that embraces its role as an open forum for its members’ diverse and ever-expanding research interests, rather than focusing around a particular defined area of research. For this reason, the FCIG has determined that this option would require further investigation and significant community evaluation, which exceeds the scope of this Report.
A couple additional points emerged from the conversation with Educopia, which may be useful to include in the broader community discussion as it unfolds. Throughout our communications, Educopia expressed strong support for Code4Lib’s exploration of options for developing our community, and their initiatives in this area suggest several areas of expertise that could be very useful for Code4Lib’s community to keep in mind going forward, which we have outlined below.
First, Educopia’s explicit [https://educopia.org/about-us/mission mission], “to build networks and collaborative communities to help cultural, scientific, and scholarly institutions achieve greater impact” is clearly closely aligned with many areas within Code4Lib’s objectives. In practical terms, this suggests that if Code4Lib decides to pursue some form of organizational structure in the future, Educopia’s expertise, particularly in helping communities to grow and articulate their strengths and purpose from the earliest stages, and to come up with mechanisms to move forward in making connections” across institutions and sectors” for the purpose of knowledge sharing, could greatly assist Code4Lib’s efforts. A specific example discussed in our phone call on January 31 is that Educopia could be a source for recommendations about facilitator/consulting services, to assist with providing neutrality for community development discussions if this avenue is pursued. Another potential area of overlap between Educopia’s work and Code4Lib’s activities would be if the Code4Lib Journal were to become a further developed initiative in the future. Educopia mentioned their interest in the Journal as a vigorous example of sustained, community-driven and practical research by and for information professionals, and their experience in supporting interdisciplinary research efforts in this field could be relevant in supporting this endeavor as well.
= Appendix C — Open Library Foundation =
Appendix C — Proposal by the Open Library Foundation to act as fiscal sponsor
The [http://www.openlibraryfoundation.org/ Open Library Foundation] (OLF) acts as a host for FOLIO, the Open Library Environment (OLE), and the Global Knowledgebase (GOKb). It views its mission as
<blockquote>To assist and facilitate educational organizations, foundations, partnerships and commercial entities in collaborating to foster, develop and sustain open technologies and innovation to support libraries, learning, research and teaching.
</blockquote>
OLF has expressed interest in acting as a fiscal sponsor to Code4Lib. In July of 2017, the FCIG posed its questions to Michael Winkler, the Managing Director of OLF. His responses on behalf of OLF follow:
== What does your fee structure look like, for fiscal sponsorship of a group? ==
The OLF is meeting with our initial community this summer to pin down the business model, and the fee structures, for member communities. Currently, OLE and EBSCO have agreed to fund the operations of the Foundation through June of 2018. This will allow our communities to meet and determine the financial structure of the OLF. New member communities would be welcome to those discussions. After half a year of full operations, it is clear to me as Treasurer, that the needs of the OLF financial obligations are reasonably lightweight.
== What would you need from Code4Lib, in terms of organization? What kind of governance, if any, would your organization need Code4Lib to have? ==
In general, the OLF does not proscribe a governance model to member communities. We do require that a community have explicit governance, and that it be documented in a charter, or similar instrument, for the community. The Foundation is interested in communities that are committed to open, wide and diverse participation, focused around the library domain, and work to increase the value and options for libraries, particularly in technology and shared solutions.
== Is a single point of contact sufficient? (For example, the chair of the conference committee?) ==
A single point of contact is sufficient.
== Would it be acceptable for that point of contact to change annually? ==
This is acceptable if it is a well-regulated and understood process.
== Does that point of contact need to be a formal member of your organization? ==
The Foundation model for membership, at this point, is that the community join the Foundation, not individuals. So, should we move forward, the Code4Lib Community would be a member community of the Foundation, would provide a governing charter that aligns with the goals of the Foundation, and that the Community participate in the activities of the Foundation.
== What kind of control does your organization want/need to have, if any, over Code4Lib’s processes? ==
We are interested in providing the structures and infrastructures to communities that support, further, and enhance the goals of the Foundation. We believe that member communities best understand the needs of their communities and how they should operate and resource their activities. The Foundation has interests in broadening participation in member communities. We anticipate that there are opportunities for cross-fertilization between our member communities where interests and capacity coincide. The Foundation may wish to participate in community governance to ensure coordination and communication among member communities, and to identify and leverage collaborative opportunities. The Foundation has obligations to provide shared collaborative infrastructure to our member communities, and expect that our member communities share and cooperate in the provision, management, and use of these resources. Beyond this, the Foundation does not seek to control the processes of our member organizations.
== Would your organization need Code4Lib to follow your organization’s bylaws, or to have our own? ==
We expect member communities to provide a governance structure that makes sense to its participants, that supports its goals, and is aligned with the Foundation goals for openness, innovation, responsibility, and effectiveness. This governance could take the form of bylaws, charter, or other governing document. The Foundation's interest is that the governance of a member community be clear and responsible for community activities so that we can understand how scope, obligations, and responsibility are managed by the community.
== Would Code4Lib need to adopt your organization’s code of conduct for its conferences, or may we continue to use our own? ==
The Foundation has a code of conduct, though it is based on the Code4Lib code. Again, as a member organization, we'd expect that the Code4Lib community would work within the Foundation to bring forward ideas embodied in your code to enrich the code of our other member communities. We believe that our member communities can learn from each other, and enhance our collective experience. The Foundation would not require Code4Lib to adopt the OLF Code. Nor would we expect that the Code4Lib community would withhold positive contributions to the collective OLF Community.
== Would we have the option available to have conference in Canada, if a group there volunteered, or would that pose problems for your organization? Can you readily receive and disburse funds in Canadian dollars? ==
We are a global organization and have already held events in the US, Denmark, Australia, Germany, Italy, Mexico, and Chile. The Foundation can receive and disburse funds in foreign currencies.
== Some of our attendees are international; will this pose any problems? ==
No
== Do you have enough staff available to deal with bookkeeping, particularly during the registration rush and the post-conference invoice-paying period? ==
I would need to know more about the demands that you expect. The Foundation is staffed through volunteer contributions of effort. We have contracted services with accounting and banking operations, but I would need to understand the scale and responsiveness expected. It is likely that the Foundation might accommodate temporary increased demand for a service with additional contracted effort.
== In the worst case, do you have sufficient assets or insurance to absorb the complete failure of a Code4Lib conference? ==
The Foundation currently has no needs for this sort of reserve or insurance. As a functioning corporation, the Foundation can obtain insurance, as necessary, to cover risks on behalf of the community.
== Do you currently act as a fiscal sponsor for a group that did not originate from within your own organization? May we contact them? ==
The Foundation was chartered in March of 2016, approved bylaws and sat a Board in October 2016, and began operations in January 2017. In that sense, all of our communities - FOLIO, GOKb, and OLE - originated outside the Foundation. I can provide you with contacts for those communities. We are closing negotiations with another long-standing and unaffiliated community, but I am unable to provide a contact at this time.
== Have you acted in the past as a fiscal sponsor for a group or project that subsequently decided to leave your organization? If so, why did they leave? ==
We have not.
== How would you manage giving Code4Lib conference organizers timely access to financial records for monies held by your organization on Code4Lib's behalf? ==
We provide monthly accounting to our member communities of the Foundation accounts and accounts held for the community. As Treasurer, I am available to all member communities to discuss, analyze, and act on financial issues.
== Are there any significant incompatibilities between your mission and Code4Lib’s? ==
I do not believe that there are significant incompatibilities between the OLF and Code4Lib. The Foundation stands to support, foster, and encourage open and collaborative engagement among library community organizations and actors to provide a forum for conversation and collective action. The Foundation, as a public charity, is obliged to serve educational interests of our member communities. We value diversity, open engagement and participation, and shared responsibility and risk. I believe that these are consistent with Code4Lib community ethics.
== Are you able to readily collect funds in a variety of ways, such as check, bank transfer, PayPal, direct credit card payments, and so forth? ==
Yes
= Appendix D — DuraSpace =
Appendix D — Proposal by DuraSpace to act as fiscal sponsor
[http://www.duraspace.org/ DuraSpace] describes itself as follows:
<blockquote>DuraSpace is a non-profit organization providing technical leadership, sustainability planning, fundraising, community development, marketing and communications, collaborations and strategic partnerships and administration to the DSpace, Fedora and VIVO projects.
</blockquote>
DuraSpace has expressed interest in acting as a fiscal sponsor to Code4Lib. In July and August of 2017, the FCIG posed its questions to representatives of DuraSpace. In early September, FCIG members held a conference call with DuraSpace to discuss their response. Their final response to the initial questions follows.
== What does your fee structure look like, for fiscal sponsorship of a group? ==
We’ve structured fiscal agreements in a variety of ways. For example, we have experience with flat fee, percentage of gross receipts, and hourly rate calculations plus transaction fee arrangements.
As mentioned by FCIG, if DuraSpace is selected as a fiscal sponsor, we would be responsible for filing taxes, handling funds, contract review, performing due diligence on those contracts and signing them. We recommend a flat annual fee of $7,000 USD. We will also recommend fiscal practices that ensure Code4Lib maintain a healthy fiscal reserve and purchase event insurance.
== What would you need from Code4Lib, in terms of organization? What kind of governance, if any, would your organization need Code4Lib to have? ==
We would like to have identified leadership within the project community that is authorized to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), if needed and have authority to spend C4L money.
== Is a single point of contact sufficient? (For example, the chair of the conference committee?) ==
If the conference committee chair is able to speak to or connect us with those responsible for the journal or other initiatives that require fiscal intervention we would consider a single point of contact. We typically work with a steering committee for sponsored or incubated projects.
== Would it be acceptable for that point of contact to change annually? ==
Yes.
== (If applicable) Does that point of contact need to be a formal member of your organization? ==
No.
== What kind of control does your organization want/need to have, if any, over Code4Lib’s processes? ==
We promote autonomy for our partners, projects, contracts, etc.
== Would your organization need Code4Lib to follow your organization’s bylaws, or to have our own? ==
C4L would be expected to report expenses and revenues adhering to GAAP practices and report revenue and expenses in the same fiscal year: http://duraspace.org/sites/duraspace.org/files/bylaws-may-2010-approved%20copy_0.pdf.
== Would Code4Lib need to adopt your organization’s code of conduct for its conferences, or may we continue to use our own? ==
DuraSpace does have a draft Code of Conduct, available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HRisLUyIGZnQR52okP96_Tej6noiB4hy1NiCy1mlSd4/edit. It is based in part on the C4L code.
Affiliates can use their own Code of Conduct. For example Samvera and VIVO have their own Codes of Conducts.
== Would we have the option available to have a conference in Canada, if a group there volunteered, or would that pose problems for your organization? Can you readily receive and disburse funds in Canadian dollars? ==
We have two staff members located in Canada. We can receive and disburse funds in CDN for payroll. However, when spending outside of the USA on events we are limited to two payment methods, wire transfer and check in USD. Lifting these limitations is something we can investigate with our bank if C4L is interested in pursuing fiscal sponsorship with DuraSpace.
== Some of our attendees are international; will this pose any problems? ==
No, we aim to engage effectively with the global community. We can write sponsorship letters for attendees whose organizations require them and have a policy to return registration fees if someone is turned away at immigration.
== Do you have enough staff available to deal with bookkeeping, particularly during the registration rush and the post-conference invoice-paying period? ==
At present, no. We would need to contract more time from our accountant and allocate portions of time from a few members of our executive leadership team in the pre and post-conference periods.
== In the worst case, do you have sufficient assets or insurance to absorb the complete failure of a Code4Lib conference? ==
We have an obligation to the greater DuraSpace community to spend money, including reserves, on projects and contracts, as articulated in membership agreements, MOUs, and other formal agreements. Similarly, we will not use Code4Lib conference money for anything but related expenses as approved by the Code4Lib community.
However, we are capable of obtaining event insurance to protect against the failure of a conference against natural disasters and other insurable occurrences. We have a good network of insurers who can help us find a good option to mitigate risk. In many cases, venue costs and contracts pose the most risk. We would expect Code4Lib to build a reserve (within 5 years) to cover a minimum of half of the total accommodation costs for an event (approximately $75,000) to mitigate the risk of an uninsurable occurrence (e.g. circumstances that may lead to changing location and losing a deposit/ breaking terms).
== Do you currently act as a fiscal sponsor for a group that did not originate from within your own organization? May we contact them? ==
The Samvera project is an affiliate project. The steering committee consists of DuraSpace’s Debra Hanken Kurtz, Hull University’s Richard Green & Chris Awre, Stanford University’s Tom Cramer (signing authority), University of Virginia’s Robin Ruggaber. We can make introductions for contact as you wish.
The VIVO project went from incubated project to full project recently. Mike Conlon is the contact for VIVO. We can make an introductions for contact as you wish.
PASIG is an affiliate group. Art Pasquinelli and Tom Cramer are the contacts. We can make introductions for contact as you wish.
== Have you acted in the past as a fiscal sponsor for a group or project that subsequently decided to leave your organization? If so, why did they leave? ==
Not in the recent past, no.
== How would you manage giving Code4Lib conference organizers timely access to financial records for monies held by your organization on Code4Lib's behalf? ==
There would be regular reporting based on the conference registration system as well as monthly financial reporting.
== Are there any significant incompatibilities between your mission and Code4Lib’s? ==
We feel our mission aligns well with that of Code4Lib.
DuraSpace is committed to providing leadership and innovation in the development and deployment of open technologies that promote durable, persistent access to digital data. We collaborate with academic, scientific, cultural, and technology communities in creating practical solutions to help ensure that current and future generations have access to our collective digital heritage. Our values are expressed in our organizational byline, "open technologies for durable digital content."
We promote the autonomy for our partners. We will strive to support the decisions of our affiliates (both fiscal and ethical) as much as possible, within the parameters of our own organization's legal and fiscal responsibility.
== Are you able to readily collect funds in a variety of ways, such as check, bank transfer, PayPal, direct credit card payments, and so forth? ==
Yes. All of the above mentioned payment options are accepted by DuraSpace.
