Fiscal Sponsorship meeting with Aspiration Tech 2024.08.02

Attendees

April, Jonathan, Gunner (from Aspiration Tech)

Background

• After meeting with SuperBloom, we determined that they would be expecting more of us than we can commit to right now - they prioritize larger projects and small projects that are actively growing. They would want monthly check-ins. We've barely kept up with the annual updates that were required by OCF.
• SuperBloom recommended a few other fiscal sponsors and Aspiration Tech is the only one that actually seemed like a good fit (others had high minimum balances).
• We've disbursed all Language Justice funds. We can put all the money in the tech fund toward future hosting fees. Then we just have to decide what to do with the ~160 in the general account.
• We were accepted by Open Source Collective, so we have a backup option. Downsides to OSC: Because they are a 501c6 instead of a 501c3, we cannot transfer funds from OCF to OSC and donations made while hosted by OSC aren't tax deductible. Also, they won't host any funds for conferences, just tech.

April's Notes

• Aspiration Tech currently has about 20 projects. They're adding 6-10 projects per year.
• There are 7 projects in the queue ahead of us. It seems unlikely they'll be able to onboard us before the end of September. We certainly shouldn't count on it.
• If we do want to apply for AT, they recommend focusing on the digital side of things in our application, e.g. "We are using digital community spaces to [do whatever]" since that aligns best with their mission.
• A new California law (AB5) intended to protect contract workers like Uber drivers has also forced nonprofits to be much more particular about distinguishing contractors from employees. Some of the people who have done translation and interpretation for B!B!E! as contractors in the past would probably be counted as employees now, which means more paperwork and fees for us and for AT.
• Gunner will forward their handbook and application in case we want to move forward, but note that the employment & contracting sections of the handbook are out of date.
• Gunner highly recommends Open Source Collective.
• We are encouraged to look into Aspiration Tech's annual conference about tech and social change. It does cost money, but we can contact Gunner for a discount if anyone wants to go.
• The only other fiscal sponsor they recommend that we haven't heard of is https://fjc.org/
• AT's online financial management portal (CommitChange) isn't as full-featured as Open Collective. It does allow us to embed donation forms in pretty much the same way, though, so I think we could make do.

Conclusions and Action Items

• Open Source Collective and Aspiration Tech both charge a 10% sponsorship fee. The advantages of applying to AT are:
  • They're a 501c3 so donations would be tax deductible. OSC is a 501c6, so donors can't claim tax deductions or get matched by employers. Not a huge thing, but it might be worthwhile.
  • AT would sponsor conferences, where OSC will only sponsor tech stuff. This may not be as big a benefit as I'd have hoped, since AB5 makes it harder to pay interpreters (well, if our sponsor or the interpreters are based in California, and AT is based here).
• I guess we can take a look at AT's application process and handbook and decide from there whether we want to apply to them or just work with OSC for now.
• Gunner recommends we go ahead and spend down all remaining B!B!E! funds by paying our bills in advance. I agree that it seems like our best option now. Jonathan, are you still able to take care of that?