[Noisebridge-discuss] Hologlyphic-Movie/Noisbridge grant funding re-application
marybraindoe at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 23 15:22:03 PST 2011
Hi Everyone - here are the thoughts of the fiscal sponsor:
Noisebridge appears to have filed their 501(c)(3), but I can't determine if the IRS has actually anointed them as such. Even if they DO have their
501(c)(3), I get the impression that they don't really have the
accounting/compliance/donor-acknowledgement/grant-reporting mechanism to handle the donation.
Would you say that is accurate?
If so, then IAM can still be the fiscal sponsor, we can use our heavy-duty IRS compliance fol-de-rol to make sure the money is properly tracked,
disbursed, reports produced, etc. This actually works well, because then we are not regranting to you, an individual, but rather an
organization, Noisebridge, which has its own incorporation and can
handle its own tax reporting. So the fiscal sponsorship agreement would
be with Noisebridge. Since the project is open-source, we'd want that
language in the proposal.
From: rachel lyra hospodar <rachel at mediumreality.com>
To: Rubin Abdi <rubin at starset.net>
Cc: Walter Funk <marybraindoe at yahoo.com>; "noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net" <noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Hologlyphic-Movie/Noisbridge grant funding re-application
This is a fiscal sponsorship to the tune of $30k...that is a significant
financial relationship you are proposing.
It's a good thing we have started developing a framework for this, from
Noisetor. We made Noisetor creators jump through a bunch of hoops to
make sure that we have a sound agreement regarding the financial
obligations incurred in such a relationship.
I think it's pretty important to hammer out that kind of agreement.
If the tone of the discussion next week is good, it probably could be
done in parallel with your letter of intent, as long as you are under
the understanding that the sponsorship may not be approved if consensus
is not reached.
Please check out the noisetor wiki page if you need a starting point for
what kind of agreement i am talking about. Even trusted longstanding
members of the community can become a little lax in fulfilling their
obligations, and for everyone's peace of mind it's important to spell
out what those obligations are ahead of time.
On 11/23/2011 2:30 PM, Rubin Abdi wrote:
> Hi Walter.
> Last night at the meeting you wanted to talk about your project and this
> letter of intent to be indorsed by Noisebridge. You were asked to hold
> off talking about it till a more appropriate time in the meeting.
> It seems as though it wasn't clear to Jim or Shannon or anyone else at
> the meeting that you actually wanted to bring this action up as a
> discussion item, to be consented on at our next meeting (Nov 29th). If
> you remember we spoke about this after the meeting was over, and that
> generally through miscommunication we never brought it up formally as a
> discussion item. Since you have a due date to work worth, you wanted to
> know if there was any way to bring this item up for consensus on the
> 29th without having it actually getting discussed at the meeting that
> just passed.
> My advice to you was to bring up this mishap on the discussion list and
> see if anyone would object to you pushing for consensus next week by
> holding discussion for the item on the mailing list, in addition to the
> actually item you want to achieve consensus on. However I don't see text
> from your previous email regarding any of that, nor are you even asking
> for consensus.
> Did I miss something? When we were chatting?
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss