[Board] Getting the organization for 2014 settled

[Darrell Fuhriman]

Hi, Board(s), we’d like to follow up to Daniel’s recent e-mail to the board list.

> I envision that one of first the tasks of this rep could be to work with you to define the best fiscal scenario, and at the same time better document the process and contractual relationship between OSGeo and the FOSS4G LOC (and/or PCO). There is a good amount of experience from past years to work from (see emails from Paul and Peter for instance), so it should be mostly a matter of documenting an existing process, and then perhaps come up with a template contract that would be used for this year and future years.


We’ve been discussing this internally, and with Steve Swazee of SharedGeo and David Bitner who worked on FOSS4G-NA 2013.

There are essentially two reasonable alternatives for handling this.

1) Have OSGeo be the entity that signs contracts with facilities, contractors, etc. With responsibilities and authority delegated as appropriate to the LOC.
2) Have a second organization be the contracting entity, with proceeds to be returned to OSGeo. 

As I understand it (1) has yet to be done. Also, given the state of the OSGeo’s tax-exempt status, it’s possible that (1) will trigger a taxable event, if the application for tax-exempt status does not go through, or is delayed, or found to not be retroactive.

Option (2) is how FOSS4G-NA was handled, through Steve’s organization, SharedGeo. SharedGeo still has funds from FOSS4G-NA, which are ear-marked for OSGeo, but not yet transferred to OSGeo. Obviously that can still trigger a taxable event, but at least leaves somewhere for the money to sit until OSGeo’s tax-exempt status is worked out.

Long term, I think (1) is clearly the best option. Further, I think OSGeo should have one person on staff, even if only part-time, to handle many of these details in the future, or there should be an on-going contractual relationship with an event management firm to do so.

If FOSS4G is going to be the primary source of revenue for OSGeo for the foreseeable future, then it is foolish to not devote resources to making sure that that revenue stream is reliable. If OSGeo fails to do so, there *will* be a repeat of 2012. The current structure is simply too haphazard to depend on. 

And since now is as good a time as any, as I’ve said on the conference list, but I will reiterate here in all caps for emphasis: ONE YEAR IS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO ORGANIZE A CONFERENCE THIS SIZE. A paid staff person/organization should be planning the conferences at least two, and ideally three years in advance. We are very fortunate to be have been able to get the spaces we need for 2014, and we should depend on planning, not luck for the future.

However, the long-term is not here yet, and we still have to deal with contracts for FOSS4G 2014, and we need the board to decide whether to take option (1) or option (2), and we need them to decide soon. If we’re going to pull this off in 13 months, we need to be signing contracts now. (Well, really, 12 months ago, but now is what we have.)

If the board feels that option (2) is the best option, then Steve Swazee of SharedGeo has offered to operate FOSS4G 2014 under a similar tax and organizational regime as they did for FOSS4G-NA 2013, however Steve feels that the 3% of gross revenue SharedGeo received was ultimately inadequate and has asked for 7% instead. Under our baseline budget estimates, that is about $40,000 – for comparison, if we had to pay 30% taxes on profits under our baseline budget that would be $29,000. Obviously that amount will vary with the ultimate profitability of the conference.

I, personally, would like the see the board go with option (1) – and quickly (as in immediately) assign a person to work the Portland LOC to hash out which responsibilities go where, and then use that as a template for future conferences.

But whichever option the board chooses, I cannot overemphasize the need to make the decision and start to act as quickly as possible.

Darrell

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20130827/3345f867/attachment.htm>