Aloha OER lists-
Replying back on this thread to provide a summary of responses.
Thanks to all that replied! As I assumed, the topic of costs and processes for bringing in motivational speakers in Open Education is a gray area, the movement would be better with clarity around norms and expectations. In the absence of universal rules, preferred practices can help leadership in the movement shine and let the outliers or undesirable/unsustainable practices be placed to the side.
Each of the replies I received on this thread came off-list, which points to the sensitive nature of the topic. I'm going to generalize the points here, and leave out specific names of those who chimed in. If they wish to clarify what I've synthesized, they are welcome to reach out to me or do so on the main thread.
Troubled Budgets
Several responses indicated that their budgets for OER activities including putting on events and hiring speakers have changed during the first few years of the COVID pandemic. Funding designated for specific initiatives often shrinks when the money goes unspent, and the inability to host in-person events (or events at all) meant that OER budgets at many institutions changed significantly.
Costs
The anecdote I shared about a top earner/speaker in Open Education requesting $5,000 seems to have been an outlier. While I can't say the responses I received were a representative sample of what happens broadly across the movement, the speaking fees shared with me ranged from $300 to $2,000 per speaker. The notoriety of the speaker, the scope of work, and the structure/level of the hosting institution were all factors in how the honorarium was decided. Travel costs are typically added on top of the speaking fee, and some responses indicated that speakers had to decline the invitation if the costs of travel/hotel/roof-overhead were not covered, or expected to be deducted from the honorarium. All this said, more than one respondent indicated that they significantly reduced or waived their speaking fee entirely if the perceived benefit to the movement was very high, or the "lift" to offer a talk were low, or an add-on to another speaking engagement they were already being compensated for.
Process
Some level of negotiation seems to be common, and this is an area that might be the most sensitive part. In my experience (yes, I have been an invited keynote and workshop facilitator) these negotiations, when done in good faith, usually result in a workable fee and process. Some institutions are more involved in assisting with booking travel and accomodations, and others simply cut a check and expect the speaker to handle the rest. Both seem acceptable, and there doesn't seem to be a common expectation here. Regarding direct payment to the speaker, multiple responses indicated that a check was written directly to the speaker at the time of service, or shortly thereafter.
Leadership
Part of my inquiry had to do with expectations and norms for "leaders" in Open Education. I heard from one person at the director level of a non-profit in this space who offered a really useful take. They indicated that for their staff who are invited to speak on Open Education, the expectation is that the honorarium is routed through the parent organization or institution as opposed to a direct payment to the person for their talk. While this is impossible to track 100% of the time, the person indicated that speaking on Open Education fulfills part of their organization's mission and so the preferred option is to support this mission, not the individual. Again, the leading organizations are often already working off a large grant to do this work.
Diversity
One interesting comment I received had to do with the lack of diversity, or the "same folks on the speaking circuit" for Open Education. From my personal experience, there are many speakers from lesser-known institutions who do incredible work in Open Education that might actually be more easily transferred to comparable institutions or initiatives than high-level "leaders" whose work is notably abstracted from the work being done on the ground. I would encourage you to bring in speakers who are not only the loudest voices in the movement, but rather those whose work is tangible (OER published, new processes established, policy initiated, etc). Unlike a fine wine, recycled slide decks with aged talking points do not get better with time.
A big mahalo to everyone who chimed in. This was useful to me for my programming and planning, and I hope it is useful to other folks as well.
Cheers,
Billy