Spam detection software, running on the system "avery.infomotions.com", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see eric_morgan_at_infomotions.com for details. Content preview: Some info via googling on fiscal sponsor fees, matching my own (limited) experience. CLIR is offering pretty complete services for what I think is an unusually reasonable fee. "The fee structure should be spelled out in the fiscal sponsorship agreement or policies. Fees can range from token to 25 percent, but an average fee is around 10 percent. Some fiscal sponsors take it from the revenues as they are received; others take the fee from the expenses as they are incurred. (See fiscalsponsordirectory.org for a national list of fiscal sponsors. This directory, maintained by the San Francisco Study Center, includes information on each fiscal sponsor, including fees.)" [...] Content analysis details: (-0.2 points, -1.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [66.175.211.245 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.5 RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM RBL: SORBS: sender is a spam source [74.125.82.48 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 1.6 URIBL_SBL Contains an URL's NS IP listed in the SBL blocklist [URIs: fusionpartnerships.wordpress.com] 0.1 URIBL_SBL_A Contains URL's A record listed in the SBL blocklist [URIs: fusionpartnerships.wordpress.com] 0.0 T_HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail domains are different -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail domains are different -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.6 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000]
attached mail follows:
Some info via googling on fiscal sponsor fees, matching my own (limited) experience. CLIR is offering pretty complete services for what I think is an unusually reasonable fee. "The fee structure should be spelled out in the fiscal sponsorship agreement or policies. Fees can range from token to 25 percent, but an average fee is around 10 percent. Some fiscal sponsors take it from the revenues as they are received; others take the fee from the expenses as they are incurred. (See fiscalsponsordirectory.org for a national list of fiscal sponsors. This directory, maintained by the San Francisco Study Center, includes information on each fiscal sponsor, including fees.)" -- http://www.giarts.org/article/fiscal-sponsorship-maturing-field "More than half of fiscal sponsors say they charge a flat fee, and 42% of the total are in the 5%-10% range. Also, of those with sliding-scale fees, almost two-thirds charge 5%-10%, usually depending on a project’s revenues. Thirty sponsors will charge 12% or more to handle government-funded projects, which can require adhering to higher federal audit standards. What mostly accounts for the disparity in fees is the range of services a sponsor provides." -- http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hxth860JFDQJ:www.fiscalsponsordirectory.org/facts_stats.php+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us " These percentages vary depending on the types of services included, requirements of the project, the sponsor’s policies, and other factors, but in general the range is between 9% and 15%. It is common for fiscal sponsors to charge a higher percentage to administer government grants." -- http://www.fiscalsponsors.org/pages/10-questions-potential-projects-should-ask-fiscal-sponsor "FEES: Mostly 5%-10% About 30% of these fiscal sponsors charge fees of 5% or less of a project’s revenues, and half charge 6% to 10%. Only 12 charge more than 10%, in most cases to handle government-funded projects, which can require adhering to federal audit standards. Some sponsors have sliding-scale fees, depending on a project’s revenues; others will negotiate the fee." -- https://fusionpartnerships.wordpress.com/fiscal-sponsorship/about-fiscal-sponsorship/ (Fusion sponsors many tiny nonprofit projects here in Baltimore,is why I went looking at their website. Their fees aren't public on their website, I suspect they customize them per project. I could ask people I know what they are being charged, but I'm pretty sure it's almost always at least 5%). On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <jonathan_at_dnil.net> wrote: > I think fiscal sponsorship by CLIR is definitely the sweet spot. It's > pretty awesome CLIR is offering on those terms, really, and it's not > entirely risk-free for them obviously. It's a real vote of confidence. > > Setting up your own 501-c-3 gives you LOTS of financial and legal > obligations. Even just financially, I'm pretty sure it would not come up > advantageously, on book-keeping and tax preparation alone, compared to > CLIR's . And it requires a persistent governance structure that I'm not > sure Code4Lib actually wants or needs -- I think many of us like the > amorphous aspect of Code4Lib -- more community than organization -- and I > think the CLIR proposal pretty much keeps it. But even for those who don't, > just on financial considerations alone, your own 501c3 is not the smooth > easy choice. > > CLIR's flat $5000 fee is very reasonable -- based on historical conference > budgets of $100K to $250K, that's percentage-wise 2%-5%, which is actually > a quite low fiscal sponsorship fee. And they're doing it flat fee not > percentage, which is actually great. I assume the fee would be rolled into > conference budget, since that's Code4Lib's only real income. It's really > quite a good offer from CLIR, unusually good terms both financially and > organizationally for the full fiscal sponsorship they are offering. I > assume they are doing it because they want to support Code4Lib as part of > their mission. > > As far as "what to do with any money leftover from a conference" -- the > default answer seems obvious, just roll it into the next year's conf > budget, whether via scholarships or making registration slightly cheaper > for everyone, as it has always been. > > Jonathan > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Galen Charlton <gmcharlt_at_gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Karen Coyle <lists_at_kcoyle.net> wrote: >> > Did you look at other states in terms of becoming a 501c3? I was under >> the >> > impression that some states are easier/cheaper than others. >> >> Not in depth -- the focus on Georgia was largely driven by the >> availability of an attorney who I knew and trusted and who generously >> gave of his time. Since there is, to my knowledge, nothing that ties >> Code4Lib to any particular state, I expect that if we decide to set up >> a 501(c)3 that we'd do a scan to find the most advantageous >> jurisdiction to register in. >> >> I should mention that I wouldn't want to preclude the possibility of >> registering as a Canadian nonprofit, but we did not investigate the >> legal issues that might arise from that option. >> >> > There's also the Tides Foundation in San Francisco that provides the >> > structure for a non-profit (staff, legal work, fiscal sponsorship, >> etc.) It >> > seems to be stable. >> > >> > http://www.tides.org/i-want-to/turn-my-vision-ideas-into-a- >> nonprofit-project/start-a-nonprofit-project/ >> > >> > http://www.tides.org/i-want-to/turn-my-vision-ideas-into-a- >> nonprofit-project/learn-about-fiscal-sponsorship-at-tides/ >> service-overview/ >> >> Thank you for sharing this; I'll incorporate this this on the IG's >> resource list. >> >> Regards, >> >> Galen >> -- >> Galen Charlton >> gmcharlt_at_gmail.com >> > >Received on Mon Jan 23 2017 - 18:22:39 EST