[Eg-oversight-board] Statement of Clarification
Tim Spindler
tjspindler at gmail.com
Wed May 18 16:14:30 EDT 2016
I'm wondering rather than questioning whether a vendor can be on the EOB or
not, I think we should consider a more robust conflict of interest policy
along with better communication and documentation for the conference
committee as has been discussed. (The additional lists that Grace proposed
are a good start.)
Kathy makes some very good points that it can be difficult to define a
vendor. At C/W MARS, our board is required to sign off on a conflict of
interest policy every year. This was reviewed by our attorney.
Our policy is pasted below. I'm not suggesting that the EOB adopt this
exact policy but I think it is worth considering something more expansive
that all EOB members sign and agree to and hopefully avoid even the
appearance of a conflict. Such policies provide protection for the board
members and the community.
____________
*Article I: Purpose*
The purpose of the conflict of interest policy is to protect this
tax-exempt organization’s (“C/W MARS”) interest when it is contemplating
entering into a transaction or arrangement that might benefit the private
interest of an officer or director of C/W MARS or might result in a
possible excess benefit transaction. This policy is intended to supplement
but not replace any applicable state and federal laws governing conflict of
interest applicable to nonprofit and charitable organizations.
*Article II: Definitions*
1. Interested Person -- Any director, principal officer, or member of a
committee with Executive Committee delegated powers, who has a direct or
indirect financial interest, as defined below, is an interested person.
2. Financial Interest – A person has a financial interest if the has,
directly or indirectly, through business, investment, or family:
1. An ownership or investment interest in any entity with which C/W
MARS has a transaction or arrangement, or
2. A compensation arrangement with C/W MARS or with any entity or
individual with which C/W MARS has a transaction of arrangement; or
3. A potential ownership or investment interest in, or compensation
arrangement with, any entity or individual with which C/W MARS is
negotiating a transaction or arrangement.
Compensation includes direct and indirect remuneration as well as gifts or
favors that are not insubstantial.
A financial interest is not necessarily a conflict of interest. Under
Article III, Section 2, a person who has a financial interest may have a
conflict of interest only if the appropriate governing board or committee
decides that a conflict of interest exists.
*Article III: Procedures*
1. Duty to Disclose. In connection with any actual or possible conflict
of interest, an interested person must disclose the existence of the
financial interest and be given the opportunity to disclose all material
facts to the directors and members of the Executive Committee delegated
powers considering the proposed transaction or arrangement.
2. Determining Whether a Conflict of Interest Exists. After disclosure
of the financial interest and all material facts, and after any discussion
with the interested person, he/she shall leave the Executive Committee or
committee meeting while the determination of a conflict of interest is
discussed and voted upon. The remaining committee members shall decide if
a conflict of interest exists.
3. Procedures for Addressing the Conflict of Interest.
1. An interested person may make a presentation at the Executive
Committee or committee meeting, but after the presentation, he/she shall
leave the meeting during the discussion of, and the vote on, the
transaction or arrangement involving the possible conflict of interest.
2. The chairperson of the Executive Committee shall, if appropriate,
appoint a disinterested person or committee to investigate
alternatives to
the proposed transaction or arrangement.
3. After exercising due diligence, the Executive Committee shall
determine whether C/W MARS can obtain with reasonable efforts a more
advantageous transaction or arrangement from a person or entity
that would
not give rise to a conflict of interest.
4. If a more advantageous transaction or arrangement is not
reasonably possible under circumstances not producing a conflict of
interest, the Executive Committee shall determine by a majority
vote of the
disinterested directors whether the transaction or arrangement is in C/W
MARS best interest, for its own benefit, and whether it is fair and
reasonable. In conformity with the above determination it shall make its
decision as to whether to enter into the transaction or arrangement.
4. Violations of the Conflicts of Interest Policy.
1. If the Executive Committee has reasonable cause to believe a
member has failed to disclose actual or possible conflicts of
interest, it
shall inform the member of the basis for such belief and afford
the member
an opportunity to explain the alleged failure to disclose.
2. If, after hearing the member’s response and after making further
investigation as warranted by the circumstances, the Executive Committee
determines the member has failed to disclose an actual or
possible conflict
of interest, it shall take appropriate disciplinary and corrective action.
*Article IV: Records of Proceedings*
The minutes of the Executive Committee and all committees with board
delegated powers shall contain:
1. The names of the persons who disclosed or otherwise were found to
have a financial interest in connection with an actual or possible conflict
of interest, the nature of the financial interest, any action taken to
determine whether a conflict of interest was present, and the Executive
Committee’s decision as to whether a conflict of interest in fact existed.
2. The names of the persons who were present for discussions and votes
relating to the transaction or arrangement, the content of the discussion,
including any alternatives to the proposed transaction or arrangement, and
a record of any votes taken in connection with the proceedings.
*Article V: Compensation*
1. A voting member of the Executive Committee of Directors who receives
compensation, directly or indirectly, from C/W MARS for services is
precluded from voting on matters pertaining to that member’s compensation.
2. A voting member of any committee whose jurisdiction includes
compensation matters and who receives compensation, directly or indirectly,
from C/W MARS for services is precluded from voting on matters pertaining
to that member’s compensation.
3. No voting member of the Executive Committee or any committee whose
jurisdiction includes compensation matters and who receives compensation,
directly or indirectly, from C/W MARS, either individually or collectively,
is prohibited from providing information to any committee regarding
compensation.
*Article VI: Annual Statements*
Each director, principal officer and member of a committee with Executive
Committee delegated powers shall annually sign a statement which affirms
such person:
1. has received a copy of the conflicts of interest policy,
2. has read and understands the policy,
3. has agreed to comply with the policy, and
4. understands C/W MARS is charitable and in order to maintain its
federal tax exemption it must engage primarily in activities which
accomplish one or more of its tax-exempt purposes.
*Article VII: Periodic Reviews*
To ensure C/W MARS operates in a manner consistent with charitable purposes
and does not engage in activities that could jeopardize its tax-exempt
status, periodic reviews shall be conducted. The periodic reviews shall,
at a minimum, include the following subjects:
1. whether compensation arrangements and benefits are reasonable, based
on competent survey information, and the result of arm’s length bargaining.
2. Whether partnerships, joint ventures, and arrangements with
management organizations conform to C/W MARS written policies, are properly
recorded, reflect reasonable investment or payments for goods and services,
further charitable purposes and do not result in inurement, impermissible
private benefit or in an excess benefit transaction.
*Article VIII: Use of Outside Experts*
When conducting the periodic reviews as provide for in Article VII, the
Foundation may, but need not, use outside advisors. If outside experts are
used, their use shall not relieve the governing committee of its
responsibility for ensuring periodic reviews are conducted.
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Kathy Lussier <klussier at masslnc.org>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I want to provide some background from the perspective of a previous
> conference co-organizer, a former EOB member, and a former rep to the
> Conservancy.
>
> Having served in the role as local organizer and also as an EOB conference
> committee rep, I can say both roles have their challenges. I'm sure
> everyone working on the 2016 conference, including Tanya and Grace, acted
> in a way they thought was best for the conference and for the project as a
> whole. I don't think anyone acted out of self-interest or the interests of
> their employer.
>
> Looking at the specific communications, as related by Grace, I believe
> many of the actions she took and recommendations she made align with how we
> previously conducted conferences and with what I would have recommended if
> I were still serving in a role as a standing conference committee rep. For
> those who have not previously been involved in organizing an Evergreen
> conference, I want to provide some background on why I think these actions
> were appropriate.
>
> - To maintain its non-profit status, the Conservancy has communicated to
> the project that sponsorship opportunities cannot be changed after the
> sponsorship package has been released. It presents an issue if one
> potential sponsor decides to, for example, go with a Gold package only to
> find out that another vendor was able to get more from the Platinum package
> than was originally advertised. I participated in the kickoff calls with
> Tony Sebro, attorney at the SFC, for both the Cambridge and Hood River
> conferences. He made this issue clear from the start of conference
> planning. I did not participate in the kickoff call with Raleigh because I
> was no longer a conference committee rep, so I can't say whether this
> information was communicated for the most recent team.
>
> - There is some flexibility where we can create new sponsorship packages,
> similar to the birthday package Grace outlined in here e-mail. For example,
> looking back to the 2014 conference, we created a new sponsorship for
> Eventbrite so that they could waive our registration feeds. However, those
> who were on the Board at the time may remember that we had one issue with
> the Eventbrite conditions for that sponsorship. They wanted all of the
> confirmation e-mails to include a statement saying that Eventbrite was a
> sponsor for the conference (I don't recall the exact language). At the
> time, the Board felt uncomfortable with this request because the same
> opportunity hadn't been provided to other sponsors who had already
> committed to the conference. We resolved the issue by acknowledging all
> sponsors in the confirmation email. I believe this decision is one in which
> the Project set a precedent. Even when it was legally permissible to
> create a new package, we didn't want to present opportunities for new
> sponsors that weren't available to the vendors who had already signed up to
> support the conference. This is a precedent I think the project should
> continue to maintain.
>
> - I think few non-conference-organizers realize that the sponsorship for a
> specific function, particularly when it comes to the reception, supports
> only a fraction of the cost of that function. To an outsider, it may seem
> reasonable to allow the sponsor paying for a function to determine what
> type of food or entertainment is provided at that function. But the project
> is really funding a large percentage of that function. I don't now what the
> numbers were for Raleigh, but, in the case of Cambridge, the sponsorship
> didn't even cover half the cost of the reception. The project needs to have
> the flexibility to contain those costs as much as they can while also
> meeting contractual food & beverage minimums and providing what they
> believe is a quality conference experience to attendees. As Grace said, the
> sponsorships are there to offset costs. They are not there to involve
> sponsors in the planning.
>
> - As far as giving welcome speeches at an event, I have attended other
> non-Evergreen conferences where speaking opportunities, perhaps during the
> Welcome session, were part of a sponsorship package. If we want to provide
> that opportunity, we can do so. It just needs to be part of a package that
> all vendors have an opportunity to support. The idea here is that we need
> to be fair to all potential exhibitors and sponsors. Changing the rules in
> the middle of the game is likely to cause frustrations among other sponsors
> who may not feel they were given an equal opportunity to do receive a
> particular benefit.
>
> - Overall, I would say vendor/sponsor communications is something that can
> add a lot of stress to a local planning team that is already working hard
> to put on a great conference. If there is anything the Board can do to
> alleviate that stress and remove some of the burden from the shoulders of
> the local planning team, I think it would be a step in the right direction.
> There is the expected stress of getting enough sponsors to keep the
> conference in the black. But there was also a lot of unexpected stress.
> During the two years I worked on conference planning, we dealt with a) a
> vendor that was reluctant to provide a sponsorship because they were
> unhappy with a new policy adopted, with community support, by the Board b)
> a vendor that wanted additional conference registrations to go along with
> their sponsorship, and, in 2015, c) a vendor that wanted a custom package
> reflecting the benefits they were most interested in. In the last instance,
> we ultimately lost the sponsor, but we (we being the joint local and
> standing conference committee, in consultation with the EOB chair) felt it
> was better not to set a precedent that a vendor could pick and choose which
> benefits they received from various packages.
>
> It may not sound like a lot of stress, but, sometimes, vendors can be very
> persistent in these requests, which sucks a lot of time from the conference
> planning process. It really doesn't need to be the local planning team
> dealing with these issues and, in some ways, I think it's better if the
> same group handles sponsors from year to year. When a new team comes along,
> a vendor may see it as an opportunity to see if they can get a different
> answer than they received for previous conferences.
>
> As far as the role of Conservancy rep, I believe it has traditionally been
> the rep's role to inform the Conservancy of votes taken by the EOB that
> require Conservancy attention. For the Cambridge conference, the rep, who
> also happened to be EOB chair, checked in once in a while just to see how
> our relationship with the Conservancy was going. However, when issues arose
> late in the conference planning process, it was the local planning
> committee that handled those issues. I was the rep during the 2015
> conference, but I also was serving on the standing conference committee,
> so, even though I was involved in many discussions with the Conservancy, I
> don't think it was done in my role as Conservancy rep. Having said that, I
> do remember the discussion at the 2015 conference, and I have long believed
> that local conference volunteers, on top of everything else they are doing,
> should not have to deal with what can sometimes be unpleasant
> communications with the Conservancy. If the Conservancy rep can be an
> intermediary to resolve those issues, I think that's fine. Otherwise, I
> don't think this role should be include involvement in the particulars of
> conference planning. Clarifying this role in the by-laws may be a good
> thing.
>
> I also wanted to talk a bit of the handoff that typically happens from
> conference to conference. It certainly does need improvement, as we have
> all agreed, but I don't want to leave people with the impression that no
> guidance is given to the incoming team. We have also gradually made
> improvements to the process over the past few years.
>
> - When the Vancouver conference wrapped up, Ben Hyman handed off a Google
> drive folder to Amy and me with documents, budgets, etc from the 2011,
> 2012, and 2013 conferences. He also met with us via phone to go through the
> post mortem typically done by the previous year's committee. Amy and I
> added a 2014 folder to that Google drive folder and handed it off to the
> Hood River team for 2015 and also had a similar phone call with Buzzy. I
> don't know if a similar phone call happened with the Raleigh team, but I do
> know that I shared the Google drive folder with Tanya early in the stages
> of the Raleigh conference planning process. Indeed, there is a lot of
> paperwork to go through in that folder, but Amy and I found it invaluable
> to consult it when we were confronted with specific questions about the
> conference.
>
> - I do know Tony Sebro from the Conservancy typically has a kickoff phone
> call with the local team where, among other things, he talks about some of
> the sponsorship issues outlined above.
>
> - After the Cambridge conference, in an effort to further improve the
> process, the Board created the Standing Conference Committee that would
> work on the conference in conjunction with the local team. The idea was
> that the local team should not reinvent the wheel every year. If involved
> in the planning, this committee may recognize potential issues before they
> snowballed. For the 2015 conference, the local planning team met regularly
> with the standing committee to go through conference planning activities. I
> think this helped with communication. Perhaps we need to be clearer with
> the local planning team when they come on board that these joint meetings
> should happen.
>
> - In 2015, in an effort to further improve the process, we developed the
> "Expectations of the Local Arrangements Committee" available at the bottom
> of http://wiki.evergreen-ils.org/doku.php?id=eg09:conference_nominations.
> Those expectations were shared with potential hosts during the site
> selection for the 2016 conference. Previously, local teams had worked off
> sample timelines from previous planners. These expectations included set
> deadlines for when the EOB expected to have certain tasks completed.
>
> - There clearly needs to be more documentation around conference planning,
> and I'm confident that the process will get even better for the 2017 team.
>
> I also concur with a lot of what Andrea said. The Evergreen community is a
> community of users, developers, volunteers and vendors. I think it's
> important for vendors to be an integral part of the community, and
> community involvement is something I look for when I am seeking with
> vendors. It tells me that they care about the Evergreen project and are not
> just about providing a service to customers. If a vendor or any other Board
> member, whether they are working for a library, for a state agency, or a
> library consortium or in a volunteer capacity, behaves inappropriately,
> then the Board should deal with the inappropriate behavior. I haven't seen
> indication yet of inappropriate behavior.
>
> There are also a lot of gray areas in the Evergreen community on who is a
> vendor and who is not. We have some developers who have day jobs working
> for library organizations, but who also perform contract work in their
> off-hours time. Technically, MassLNC is now a service provider (or will be
> in another month) and were exhibitors at the last conference. However, I
> also consider this organization to be a strong representation of the
> Evergreen users who are partners in our project. We also are customers for
> the other vendors in the community. So the vendor/user/customer distinction
> is not very clear. I just want people to be careful in whatever direction
> is taken because restrictions against vendors being conference liaisons may
> impact more community members than originally intended.
>
> Overall, as unpleasant as this recent experience may have been, I'm
> confident it will lead to better planning processes for future conferences.
>
> Thanks to everyone who made it to the end of this e-mail!
>
> Kathy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 05/17/2016 01:47 PM, Grace Dunbar wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I appreciate Tanya’s thoughts on how the conference planning can be
> improved. There are many things that do need to be improved and the EOB
> and conference committee are actively working on these changes. However, I
> do take exception to the implication that there was a conflict of interest
> in my role as the Chair of the standing Conference Committee because I am
> employed by Equinox. This hits me particularly hard because this is not at
> all how Tanya clarified her statements to me, in person, after the EOB
> meeting.
>
>
>
> I take my Board responsibilities very seriously and I strive to ensure
> that, as a representative of the Project, regardless of my personal or
> professional relationship with any group or individual, I treat them
> equitably.
>
>
>
> I invite the current EOB, former EOB members, and any previous Evergreen
> conference organizers to please weigh in with your opinions on the
> guidelines and statements I provided in the course of the 2016 conference
> process.
>
>
>
> Below I have detailed, as best as my memory and fast email scraping
> allows, the issues that involved other vendors and sponsorships for the
> conference. Please note that some of the issues that are detailed below
> are issues where the Project, if not following the guidelines, could
> inadvertently get the SFC in trouble with the IRS and they could
> potentially lose their 501c3 status. Hence, the issues have implications
> outside our community.
>
>
>
> 1.) On May 13, 2015 GPLS broached the idea of a PINES Birthday Party
> (separate from the reception). Tanya asked me how this should be included
> in the budget and she and I agreed that since this was branded as a PINES
> birthday party with specific money they wanted to put towards it, GPLS
> should handle that separately – in other words, don’t put it in your budget
> if you’re not in control of how the money is spent. We agreed that it
> sounded like a good “after hours” event separate from the Reception.
>
> a. In October, the SFC weighed in on the idea of a PINES birthday
> party when it was brought up again. In essence, the SFC stated that the
> conference should add a specific sponsorship for the “Evergreen birthday
> party” and allow all sponsors to participate, inviting members from PINES
> to assist in the planning. I echoed the concerns the SFC had about the
> birthday party and gave my support to the SFC’s plan.
>
> b. In January, the Hosts stated that GPLS would be sponsoring “cake,
> champagne, and a band” for the reception. In email I asked Tanya not to
> make statements of this nature since sponsors do not get to dictate exactly
> how their contributions are spent. I also expressed concern over two issues.
>
> i. The conference was
> in the red and the Hosts were committing funds to non-essentials. For
> those who have never done a conference of this size, there is a food and
> beverage minimum of tens of thousands of dollars that must be satisfied in
> house. I suggested that it was irresponsible to spend money on bands and
> cake from outside sources instead of satisfying the food and beverage
> minimum.
>
> ii. GPLS wanted to
> support the party monetarily; however, they were unable to provide a
> sponsorship. They emailed the SFC in February, restating the intent to
> provide “cake, champagne, and a band” for the “birthday party” with a plan
> to sell PINES t-shirts and have the proceeds go toward the “extras” at the
> reception. Tony at the SFC and I both voiced concerns over earmarked
> donations for the conference that wasn’t part of the offered conference
> sponsorships.
>
> 1. To paraphrase something we have heard from the SFC in the past
> regarding conferences, “…allowing sponsors to circumvent the project's
> budget would prevent the project from using sponsorship income to guard
> against shortfalls.”
>
> iii. My suggestion at
> this point to the Hosts was to offer a special Birthday Party sponsorship
> to ALL sponsors. The Host committee chose not to pursue that option but
> agreed on March 3 to strike the cake and champagne. The Host proposed that
> the EOB or NC Cardinal recognize the ten years of Evergreen at the
> Reception and invite someone from GPLS to say a few words. I agreed with
> that approach.
>
> 1. Note that the cake was later ordered without any notification to
> the conference committee.
>
> iv. The Host later stated
> that Emerald Data, who was the actual sponsor of the Reception, would
> provide a “welcome speech” before introducing someone from GPLS. I stated
> that it was inappropriate for a vendor to receive a platform of this nature
> when other vendors did not. The Breakfast sponsors and the Hackfest
> sponsors did not get to speak at their sponsored events so I suggested
> (strongly) that NC Cardinal provide the welcome and introduction for GPLS
> to speak.
>
> c. Emerald Data then requested to provide a “giveaway” at the
> reception. The conference committee was not informed as to what the nature
> of this giveaway was and so my recommendation was to not provide that
> option. The conference provides space in the exhibits area for giveaways
> and we traditionally don’t allow sponsors to use their sponsored event as
> advertising. Also, the SFC needs the opportunity to “vet” giveaways.
>
> 2.) There was an issue that was not well understood regarding tote bag
> inserts.
>
> a. I did not specifically cover tote bag inserts with the Hosts until
> February when I sent a reminder of ‘Phase Three things to do before the
> conference’. There was confusion over a previous email that listed the
> SFC constraints on “swag” that is given out at the conference and swag was
> conflated with tote bag inserts. The official position of the conference
> (both the conference committee and the SFC) is that we do not allow
> non-conference inserts into the official bags/packets.
>
> b. Unfortunately, the Hosts had already accepted some tote bag
> inserts form a local organization NC Live and the NC Library for the
> Blind. To further complicate matters, representatives from that NC Live
> were being given complimentary registrations to the conference. I
> suggested removing the inserts and making them freely available on a
> table. The SFC agreed with the solution.
>
> i. I also requested
> that the free registrations be rescinded and offered to “be the bad guy”
> and explain it to the registrants. The Host assured me that they would
> handle correcting this.
>
> ii. One NC Live free
> registration was never corrected.
>
> 3.) Free registrations
>
> a. There were two complimentary registrations provided by the Hosts
> to two presenters – David Singleton (Charlotte Mecklenburg) and Julie
> Walker (GPLS). I notified the Hosts that presenters were not provided free
> registrations (with the exception of keynote speakers) and asked the Host
> to correct it or to allow me to correct it.
>
> i. The Host indicated
> in email that it was corrected, however, these were never corrected and
> these registrants did not pay registration fees.
>
> 4.) Emerald Data “wrote in” a sponsorship for $500 for Tote Bags on
> their Sponsorship form. This wasn’t a sponsorship that was offered on the
> official form that went to all the potential sponsors and it wasn’t on the
> Conference web site. Tanya stated that Emerald received an outdated form
> with a Tote Bag sponsorship on it, however, tote bags were never discussed
> as an official sponsorship.
>
> a. I asked Tanya to remove that sponsorship because we don’t offer
> special sponsorships outside the official list lest we (the Project or the
> Host) be accused of vendor bias.
>
> b. Tony Sebro, the SFC counsel also advocated for this course of
> action.
>
> c. The sponsorship was removed.
>
> 5.) Due to issues with inclusion of “extras” in a budget that was in the
> red, I sent a request on February 24 to the Hosts to strike the Band from
> the budget until such time as we could prove enough profit to pay for the
> extra expense. The Hosts responded, “ Right now the Band expense is in
> the budget and I’m confident that we will be able to meet all expenses.
> Since we are using the Conservancy to pay bills, I would assume that the
> Conservancy will pay the band bill out of the Band lineitem. I thought
> that general sponsorships paid for items like this.”
>
> My response stated, “The funds that are brought in to cover the costs of
> the conference are not to be spent at the discretion of the local
> conference committee. Those funds belong to the SFC who directs them to
> our project. Our project expenditures are directed by the EOB, not the
> local conference committee. We allow the local committees a lot of leeway
> in conference planning since they know their area and the venue best.
> However, the final decision on any budgetary matters rests with the EOB and
> SFC, not the local committee. As of now, with the budget still in the red
> and the matter of how certain sponsorships are being handled, please put
> the entertainment on hold until we can resolve this matter.”
>
> 6.) Tanya stated in her clarification, “This conflict created a need for
> another contact point very late in the planning process.”
>
> a. On February 17, I was notified by the Board Secretary, Chris
> Sharp, that Tanya had been going to him privately to resolve issues for the
> conference and to deal with the SFC, excluding the conference committee
> altogether.
>
> b. If the issues discussed between Tanya, Chris, and the SFC included
> the PINES sponsorship issues or anything regarding the Emerald Data
> sponsorships, I would point out that there is a potential conflict of
> interest in that involvement since GPLS is Chris’ employer and Emerald Data
> is their vendor.
>
> 7.) Lastly, it is clear that the EOB needs to be more transparent about
> issues surrounding past conferences. This is not the first year that a
> conference committee has been asked by Emerald Data to make concessions or
> provide changes to sponsorships. The reason my responses were so firm on
> these issues was because of past problems with this vendor at the Vancouver
> conference, the Cambridge conference, and the Hood River conference. The
> EOB has not discussed these issues openly in order to preserve community
> harmony; however, it seems it’s past time to bring more transparency to the
> process.
>
> 8.) The conference ultimately had a slim margin of profit, roughly
> $1,023.00. In my role as conference committee chair, I felt that I did my
> best to uphold the conference values and structure in accordance with past
> precedent, Project guidelines, and the SFC rules. The conference money is
> Project money and utmost care should be taken by the Hosts to ensure each
> conference is adding, rather than subtracting from the Evergreen Project’s
> coffers. Should, heaven forbid, we end up in some kind of a legal battle
> over the Evergreen name or Trademark, we would need every dime the Project
> has and then some.
>
> I hope this clarifies any vendor/sponsor related issues that I
> managed as the chair of the conference committee. I am, of course,
> available for questions and clarifications.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Grace
>
> I
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Ruth Frasur <
> director at hagerstownlibrary.org> wrote:
>
>> Tanya Prokrym has sent this Statement of Clarification regarding comments
>> made during the Evergreen Oversight Board meeting at the 2016 Evergreen
>> International Conference in Raleigh, N.C. This statement will be discussed
>> during the next EOB meeting in the #evergreen channel of IRC on Thursday,
>> May 19 at 2:00 p.m.
>>
>> --
>> 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 <http://hagerstownlibrary.org>, Our Rockin'
>> Facebook Page <http://facebook.com/hjtplibrary>, and The Nettle Creek
>> Players <http://nettlecreekplayers.com>*
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> eg-oversight-board mailing list
>> eg-oversight-board at list.evergreen-ils.org
>> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/eg-oversight-board
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Grace Dunbar, Vice President
> Equinox - Open Your Library
> gdunbar at esilibrary.com
> 1-877-OPEN-ILS | <http://www.esilibrary.com>www.esilibrary.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eg-oversight-board mailing listeg-oversight-board at list.evergreen-ils.orghttp://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/eg-oversight-board
>
>
> --
> Kathy Lussier
> Project Coordinator
> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative(508) 343-0128klussier at masslnc.org
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eg-oversight-board mailing list
> eg-oversight-board at list.evergreen-ils.org
> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/eg-oversight-board
>
>
--
Tim Spindler
tjspindler at gmail.com
*P** Go Green - **Save a tree! Please don't print this e-mail unless it's
really necessary.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.evergreen-ils.org/pipermail/eg-oversight-board/attachments/20160518/bba733eb/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the eg-oversight-board
mailing list