[Board] Getting the organization for 2014 settled

[Paul Ramsey]

I'm a bit confused, you have $30K in the budget for a professional
conference organizer, they should be able to be the bank, and signer
of contracts, with the possible exception of the venue, which could be
handled as a one-off using Daniel or Jeff as the signer for OSGeo. Who
is your professional organizing company?

P.

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Darrell Fuhriman <darrell at garnix.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board