[Eg-oversight-board] Fwd: issues re: sponsorship of the Evergreen "birthday party"

[Chris Sharp]

----- Forwarded Message -----

> From: "Grace Dunbar" <gdunbar at esilibrary.com>
> To: "Tony Sebro" <tony at sfconservancy.org>, evergreen at sfconservancy.org
> Cc: evergreen-2016 at sfconservancy.org, "Amy Terlaga" <terlaga at biblio.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:54:30 AM
> Subject: Re: issues re: sponsorship of the Evergreen "birthday party"

> In my position as conference committee chair, I have had a bit more
> involvement in this issue and, perhaps, can clarify a few things.

> Since the Evergreen project has a new venue and local planning committee for
> its annual conference each year, we have challenges in the turnover and
> transfer of information. There are committees and planning processes to try
> to make that easier but it feels like each year is an uphill battle to get
> everyone in sync.

> That said, I feel that the expectations of the sponsorships are made clear in
> the transitions from year to year. We set sponsorships so that all sponsors
> have an equal opportunity to demonstrate their love and devotion to the
> Evergreen community by sponsoring either a thing (breakfast, reception,
> coffee break, keynote speaker, etc.) or by giving a non-specific sponsorship
> amount (bronze level, silver level, gold level, platinum level). While the
> "thing" you are sponsoring is specified in the abstract (a breakfast!), it
> is not specified in detail. This allows the conference committee to make the
> most of the sponsorships. If the budget is tight and the conference is
> barely going to break even, you can use that breakfast sponsorship for
> yogurt/coffee/muffins. If the conference is swimming in money, the committee
> can decide we need bacon/caviar/Kona every morning. Conference committees
> don't make promises to vendors regarding what their sponsorship is going to
> "buy" outside of the abstract "breakfast" and the goodwill and thanks of our
> attendees.

> I find it worrisome that this event was something that was brought to you by
> a sponsor (GPLS) almost a year ago and that you didn't try to incorporate it
> into the actual sponsorship package which went out in September of last
> year. It feels like this was handled in a manner that was not at all above
> board. We have not traditionally allowed any sponsor to "name their own
> price" or, in fact, to make any changes at all to the sponsorships. Another
> red flag to me is the fact that you are saying GPLS has "pledged $2850" when
> there is no sponsorship paperwork, no invoice, and no actual payment.

> The conference committee should have been more than aware that this wasn't
> acceptable. The current conference committee was given a wealth of turnover
> documentation and was specifically warned that
> trading/modifying/negotiating/designing sponsorship packages outside of what
> is officially offered is not something that can be done. This warning was
> given because there have been sponsors in the past who have attempted to
> make these kinds of modifications and have been denied. The conference
> committee does not have the authority to make special deals with certain
> vendors or sponsors.

> Lastly, when the conference committee contacted Tony at the SFC last October
> and detailed this very idea to him he specifically explained how this was
> not common, how it was bad precedent and practice, and he gave you good
> ideas for moving around it in a positive way. The fact that you disregarded
> his advice (and mine) and proceeded with this is incredibly troubling.

> To be clear, I am not against celebrating Evergreen's 10th anniversary.
> I am not against the community choosing to recognize and celebrate PINES/GPLS
> at such an event. I am, however, against setting a precedent of letting any
> sponsor dictate their own sponsorship or direct specifically how their money
> can be spent.

> For many reasons, I think Tony's idea here is the best way to proceed:

> > 2) With Emerald Data's permission, the committee creates the opportunity
> > for
> > other would-be sponsors to make contributions that would be acknowledged in
> > some way at the reception. In a sense, we'd be creating a new class of
> > sponsorship (we could call it "Birthday Friends," or some
> 
> > such). This is doable, but not ideal, in that other current sponsors may
> > complain that they weren't presented with this new option before committing
> > to a different sponsorship level from the original menu. But the new
> > sponsorship level needs to be available to all; we can't just only offer it
> > GPLS, or any other one entity, since that wouldn't be fair to the other
> > sponsors and would-be sponsors. And, we would still need to find a way to
> > make it clear that Emerald Data is *the* reception
> 
> > sponsor, and not just one of many.
> 
> Please let me know if there are any questions I can answer.
> Thank you,
> Grace

> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Prokrym, Tatiana H <
> tanya.prokrym at ncdcr.gov > wrote:

> > Hi everyone,
> 

> > To put some perspective on this issue, the NC Cardinal staff felt that the
> > idea of a celebration was a great idea. GPLS approached us at last year’s
> > conference. We felt that a 10 th year anniversary only comes around once.
> > And it is a proven fact that the majority of large initiatives fail well
> > before that time…so 10 years is a great achievement!
> 

> > GPLS contacted Emerald Data who is officially sponsoring the reception.
> > They
> > were amenable to the idea of celebrating/hosting the reception together. We
> > could have Emerald be the only sponsor of the reception and instead
> > recognize GPLS at the reception. The cake was going to be the only “sweet”
> > item at the reception.
> 

> > Please also note that half of the $2850 pledged by GPLS was already
> > integrated into the general overall budget, not the full amount. The only
> > additional expenditures outside of the “general” sponsorship funding for
> > catering was for the band ($850) and cake ($600). I ran the conference
> > numbers without the $2850 and it puts us in a scramble at this date to
> > obtain more sponsorships. It’s doable, just a bit stressful at this time.
> 

> > Just wanted you to know how this came about. No one here realized that this
> > was unusual behavior. Based upon past experiences, we felt that this was
> > typical conference activity.
> 

> > Tanya
> 

> > From: Timothy Spindler [mailto: tspindler at cwmars.org ]
> 
> > Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 8:37 AM
> 
> > To: 'Ruth Frasur' < director at hagerstownlibrary.org >; Chris Sharp <
> > csharp at georgialibraries.org >
> 
> > Cc: Tony Sebro < tony at sfconservancy.org >; evergreen at sfconservancy.org ;
> > evergreen-2016 at sfconservancy.org
> 
> > Subject: RE: issues re: sponsorship of the Evergreen "birthday party"
> 

> > I’m wondering if we could still honor the spirit of the agreement with
> > Emerald and recognize GPLS in a different way as the “founder” of Evergreen
> > and not necessarily a sponsor of the birthday.
> 

> > ____________________________
> 

> > Tim Spindler
> 

> > Executive Director
> 

> > tspindler at cwmars.org
> 

> > 508-755-3323 x20
> 

> > C/W MARS, Inc.
> 
> > http://www.cwmars.org
> 

> > From: Ruth Frasur [ mailto:director at hagerstownlibrary.org ]
> 
> > Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 11:12 AM
> 
> > To: Chris Sharp
> 
> > Cc: Tony Sebro; evergreen at sfconservancy.org ;
> > evergreen-2016 at sfconservancy.org
> 
> > Subject: Re: issues re: sponsorship of the Evergreen "birthday party"
> 

> > From my perspective, having only received this email at 4:45 p.m. on Friday
> > afternoon, but not knowing how soon a decision needs to be made, #1 seems
> > to
> > be the most reasonable without all the exceptions, bad feelings, and extra
> > work that #2 would engender. There is no question that GPLS will be very
> > explicitly highlighted during the reception no matter who sponsors it. How
> > could they not? Evergreen was their idea and their project.
> 

> > I also agree wholeheartedly with Tony's comment, " As a threshold matter:
> > the
> > conference committee needs to have the flexibility to treat their revenue
> > line items (e.g., specific sponsorship levels) as decoupled from specific
> > expense line items."
> 

> > --
> 

> > Ruth Frasur
> 
> > Director of the Historic(ally Awesome) Hagerstown - Jefferson Township
> > Library
> 
> > 10 W. College Street in Hagerstown, Indiana (47346)
> 
> > p (765) 489-5632 ; f (765) 489-5808
> 

> > Our Kickin' Website Our Rockin' Facebook Page and Stuff I've Read
> 

> --
> Grace Dunbar, Vice President
> Equinox Software, Inc. - The Open Source Experts
> gdunbar at esilibrary.com
> 1-877-OPEN-ILS www.esilibrary.com

-- 
Chris Sharp 
PINES System Administrator 
Georgia Public Library Service 
1800 Century Place, Suite 150 
Atlanta, Georgia 30345 
(404) 235-7147 
csharp at georgialibraries.org 
http://pines.georgialibraries.org/ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.evergreen-ils.org/pipermail/eg-oversight-board/attachments/20160223/a024a39a/attachment-0001.html>