ESIP and MOUs

[relphj]

Mark Parsons wrote in Slack:

I drafted some language on MoUs:

ESIP may establish memoranda of understanding (MoUs) with related organizations that describe areas of collaboration between the organizations. The Executive Director shall negotiate the MoU with the other organization in consultation with the Board. The president and ED shall approve the final MoU language and the ED shall sign. If the MoU involves any financial considerations, the Finance Committee Chair and Operations Director, shall also review and approve the final MoU. If the MoU provides for formal reciprocal partnership or membership, the external organization shall still go through the regular ESIP Partnership application and approval process.

I assume that Mark wishes that this language be reviewed and then the final language added to the P&P. Possibly at the end of 2.4 -- Fundraising and Proposal Development.

[relphj]

Patty says that she doesn't think the Operations Director needs to be involved in a financial review, because that is implied by "in consultation with the Board" above.

[relphj]

Patty says, "Here is the paragraph from the minutes. It has to do specifically with CODATA."

Mark asked the board for approval of a reciprocal membership with CODATA through a MoU. After discussion the board suggested that CODATA should go through our partnership application to become a voting partner of ESIP and that an MOU can be done for ESIP to become a partner in CODATA. Mark will put together a draft procedure for this for future reference and run it through the Governance Committee. The Board President will review the MOU when it is completed.

[relphj]

See the language in ESIP P&P 3.5B Complimentary Registration Fee Policy: "In general, ESIP will not charge full registration fees to the following: ... g. Organizations that have reciprocal event fee MOUs in place with ESIP..."

[BenGalewsky]

Maybe this belongs more in the partnership policy

[relphj]

In the code, it looks like 1.10 is after 1.1 and before 1.2. Is there something we need to do about this?

[BenGalewsky]

In the code, it looks like 1.10 is after 1.1 and before 1.2. Is there something we need to do about this?

See discussion in the PR #48