Also, live blogged. Heavy skepticism about the city’s role.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Larry Rodenstein, Local 60, current amendment “to the extent possible” does not protect current city workers. Need strong language. That language does not ensure that local 60 members will have good paying city jobs at the end of the process.
Lori Kief – left. Opposed, please remove language “to the extent possible”.
Many others registered not wishing to speak. 4 in opposition. Joe Sensenbrenner and Deidre Garton available to answer questions.
MOTION
Lauren Cnare moves approval. No one seconds. Shiva Bidar-Sielaff seconds for purposes of discussion.
QUESTIONS OF SPEAKERS
Asks Rodenstein, Cnare asks if they have language.
Rodenstein says they want stronger guarantees that they will remain employees of the city with the benefits they currently have.
Cnare clarifies that this is about city employment.
Marsha Rummel asks Rodenstein if there are other unions, he says yes, the stagehands.
EXPLANATION OF FOREBEARANCE AGREEMENT
Mark Clear asks for a explanation from the City Attorney.
Michael May says that the “comfort resolution” is about the forebearance agreement. Outstanding debt was a major hurdle to a resolution to this matter. That barrier has been removed by lenders, the plan involves several people paying $15.1M to the banks by December 30 of this year, if the payments made, the full debt will be considered paid. Those contributions come from local folks, but conditioned on city taking title to the facility and paying for maintenance then leasing it back to the Overture or some entity.
Michael Schumacher says the agreement was made by parties that do not involve the city. To what degree was your office involved. May says not involved, informed along the way. When completed, they were informed.
Schumacher asks the Mayor’s office about who was involved in these discussions. Who represented the city that these parties made this agreement.
Mayor Dave Cieslewicz says it was him, through Janet Piraino. He says they were just outside the room. He said we would not be at the table to settle the debt, but we understood that they had to be comfortable about what might happen next. Understanding that we would be there to put together an agreement about the long term future. We were part of those negotiations one step removed and understanding that come back here to start the superstructure of the agreement.
Schumacher says the gag order on page 10, number 7, that the various parties have to go through a joint coordinated effort. So how will we be involved.
Mayor isn’t sure, says May should explain. He will come back to council leadership and BOE.
Schumacher asks May if he has concerns about the document.
May says he can’t say there are no concerns, says it is reasonable and it gives city an opportunity and the city has to look at it to see if they can take the opportunity. There was limited involvement, he doesn’t have serious concerns with the agreement.
Clear says the city is not a party, not subject to the gag order. Right?
May says that we are not a party.
Clear asks if it is unusual that they parties agreed to something that is dependent upon a third party not involved in the agreement.
May says not that unusual, but not the norm.
Tim Bruer says most extra-ordinarily agreement other people decided what we should do. He says a lot of words. If we approve this, are we agreeing to the terms that they thrust upon us.
May says if city doesn’t agree, then maybe they might agree to something new.
Bruer asks about the capital maintenance of the Overture of $500,000K to $3M per year. He says they give us a facility, all we know about the building is they were way off on budget, we don’t have facilities management oversight that looked at the facility at an expert level, but asked to carte blanche to take the keys. Its like getting a Ferrari and we don’t look at the engine and have to pay $12 – 18K per year to maintain it.
May says Andrew Statz has done some of the numbers on this, and we’d have to examine the facility and see what type of shape it is in.
Bruer agrees but that is not what they have before them, it is not addressed.
May says hasn’t talked about the resolution yet.
Bruer says that they need that comprehensive review and that this has been cloaked in secrecy and we need more information. On their end they cut the deal, we have a resolution before us that sentences the tax payers of Madison.
May says that it clearly is intent of Mayor’s office to do that, they have lists of legal documents they have to review. The comfort resolution tells them to go forward and do that and come back and tell them what they found.
Bruer says intentionally baiting the Mayor. (Mayor busy talking to Cnare and doesn’t know what Bruer wants)
Bruer asks the Mayor what he sees on the table, what does he hope to address.
Mayor says he wants the council to tell him. On-going operating subsidy goal is to keep near where it is now, long term maintenance costs (Andrew Statz has numbers but need scrutiny and good questions) and third issue is employees. It’s his guess that is what the three big issues are.
Bruer asks if by Decmeber 30th we will be obligated to take the keys, is that your intent.
Mayor says ask the city attorney. His understanding is keys not passed over, but Council does have to pass an agreement outlining the details of how that will happen, is that correct?
May says yes.
Bruer talking, Mayor talking to Janet, he asked something I didn’t understand. He says x million project and we learn that construction operations issues, says “Andy” doesn’t have expertise to look at short term and long term implications of this. Still talking . . . generous opportunity with liabilities and if we don’t accept their framework they go back to drawing board. We have a gun to our head to act by December.
May says that forbearance agreement has the three things that it is conditioned on. City take title, provide financial support and city enter into lease agreement with non-profit to operate Overture Center. Lots of room to negotiate. We can reject it and agreement falls apart, or they sit down and agree to change the conditions, those are the options.
Bruer says that we can negotiate over terms that can be radically different than what they provided to us.
Missed a bunch of back and forth with Bruer and May.
Clear says that he takes exception to the gun to the head. They
Mayor says it can be characterized as gun to head or opportunity. If Council won’t accept the agreement, we aren’t any worse off than we were. $28M in debt remain and significant potential for city to take a piece of that. A great opportunity to clear the debt at 50 cents on the dollar and no city involvement, city gets building free and clear and we take on long term care of the building. That is our opportunity.
Clear tries to get them back to the forbearance agreement.
Rummel says last page, all in bold and very loud.
May says that we won’t sue on other things, released each other from claims they might have had against each other. It doesn’t involved the city.
Rummel asks about 8(b) on page 10, will we know if they failed to do things if parts of their agreement are under a gag order. If some of the agreements are not public, how will we know.
May says that they were going to have a joint statement, they just agreed not to call each other names.
Bruer talking . . . I’m having a side conversation . . . sorry, its my birthday and I don’t have much patience.
May says we do have information about interest paid, we don’t have information on the write off amount, did they dumb something on their books, I don’t know and I don’t think they will tell us.
Bruer says the $13M out there was to say that city could not establish a relationship, could the city benefit from the $13M.
May says doesn’t think city can insert ourselves in there on their deal.
Bruer says if we don’t buy what they are selling, then the banks would be in the primary position to decide what happens to Overture and could that include an agreement with the City that would absorb that $13M or provide city with funds and capital reserve.
May says it could include anything, but not likely. From his position, you have this agreement, the resolution (that is what is before you) and if you want to examine other ideas going forward, but its all speculation.
Bruer says that we don’t agree to the terms if we pass this tonight.
May says just going down road to negotiations.
“COMFORT RESOLUTION”
He says this outlines what is subject to negotiations, there will be agreements, in section 3 it takes about the terms to be negotiated, it just gets the council to say yes, go forward and get agreements and then we’ll decide if we agree.
Rummel says there are gaping holes in the resolution. He is the committee, who will be on it, will it just be the Mayor’s office. Language in title very broad here too. We also need language that will be more assuring to the employees. We need to say that, maybe the Mayor will say if that is his goal, she wants to hear that, wants worker to have benefits. Also, “from time to time” report, should be regular weekly reports, shouldn’t be by the way we figured it all out now vote for it. Do we have an overview of the budget, is this independent citizens group and does the non-profit have a strategy. She still has a lot of questions.
Clear says council leadership and Mayor has discussed this, the only thing they know about the independent group is that Mark Bugher will lead it, beyond that no decisions. Clear says he’s open to input and anyone who wants to participate, they would vet the business plan and inform council about if financially feasible or it there are holes in it. “From time to time” is as often as necessary when new information to discuss. In the Mayor’s best interest to do that, can’t just present a project in December cuz would get different result than keeping people informed.
May says shouldn’t get too involved in details now. Would guess Mayor would not be opposed to “from time to time” to “regularly”.
Shiva asks if they can make an amendment on the issue all the people are here on.
#1 last sentence, the details of any plan for the future of the Overture, including op and cap budget, shall be presented to the common council for approval. Considered friendly
#4 to #5 strike “from time to time”, to advise CCOC and BOE on monthly basis starting with first meeting in September 2010.
Clear asks why CCOC too.
Bidar-Sielaff says cuz we’re discussing it here and there are other issues besides the budget.
Clear argues they don’t need the information twice. Bidar Sielaff says that alders are discerning and can decide where they get their information.
Judy Compton says should limit it to just committee members, wants to get the info.
Bidar-Sielaff says that some could be closed session.
May says that they will need to have many of the meeting in closed session.
Bidar-Sielaff says that she wants it as a standing agreement.
Clear still doesn’t like it, but it was friendly.
Bidar-Sielaff says that #4 will be . . . the city shall not enter into negotiations with labor unions, until a staffing study with models and costs has been presented to the council, study done by city staff in consultation with outside consultant and they should get the results by October first meeting.
Bidar-Sielaff says operating and capital costs are important to her and union staffing for the facilities are very important and the staffing study will let us have a discussion about costs.
Clear says that won’t talk to them until staffing study is done, this will impact them and we won’t talk to them?
Bidar-Sielaff says that if the city starts negotiations, we are not involved in the policy decisions. Already been a M.O.U presented and I haven’t had an opportunity to look at financial implications of one model over another and haven’t been able to think about moving away from union employees, that is a big decision.
Clear asks about cost and time line for a study.
Brad Wirtz, Human Resources says not sure what a staffing study would include, sounds like looking for cost analysis for various models and not sure could do that by October, even an outside entity, would have to put out a request for proposals and would need money to do that. Couldn’t meet the time line. Not sure how long it will take non-profit to put together their compensation package. He can’t imagine getting it done.
Bidar-Sielaff asks what they are making the decision on? If no staffing study, how will we make the decision. Just that it costs more for represented employees. We need information to make these big decisions.
Wirtz says know how it would impact our employees, and how it would impact our represented employees without a M.O.U. is not(?) known, they would have a right to bump into other city jobs. We understand the impact, they want to keep negotiating, once the non-profit has a compensation package, we would want to make sure they would all get a job, there would be a transition period so they would have an opportunity to apply or there may be turnover through retirement or incentives. Ultimately we will protect our employees and make sure they have employment opportunity if there is nothing with the city.
Bidar-Sielaff says that already decided certain things, there are other possibilities, nonprofit could be union, we need something besides attrition, we need to have a discussion about this. Understands that staffing study will take resources, I would be happy to allocate budget resources. This is a critical piece.
Cnare says staffing study is a good idea, she says that Bolz School is a possible outside source to use. That would be an excellent place, smart graduate students might be able to help.
Mayor Dave Cieslewicz, supports this, maybe its a term of art that is a problem, he can commit to work on it and work with alders on scoping of what it will look like to keep costs to a minimum and get it done on time. He asks the first sentence to be read again.
Clear re-reads the language.
Mayor asks why no discussions or negotiations? Wouldn’t they want to wait for the study before they agree.
Bidar-Sielaff says that her thinking is that, well, you’re correct, the unions wouldn’t want to do that. She says what if already negotiated things away before we can make an overall decision about the staffing model for Overture.
Mayor says not a huge problem, takes two to negotiate, if unions don’t want to negotiate, they don’t have too.
Michael Schumacher asks about the “discomfort” resolution. He has concerns about “staff resources” to make an agreement. If this is about Mayor’s office and city staff have to move forward to get information, that’s ok. If they are going to make agreements, that is something different. He wants to change language about making agreements, just wants people to be involved in negotiations. He jsut wantst to staff to get involved, get information and come back.
Clear says he interprets it as he just described. He says when an agreement let us know and we will bless it or not.
Clear and Schumacher go back an forth about what this means.
May says if we want agreements by the end of the year, we need to get started know.
Schumacher says they want agreements.
May says that if want agreements, then we need this.
Schumacher says that we want fact finding, why do all these negotiations if we don’t have the facts. He wants to know why not take a step prior to this, this is not a comfort resolution, this says go ahead. This is an assertive step in a direction. His question is to Mayor and Council Leadership about why not take another step. Schumacher says this is the agreement. He thinks there are agreement more than we see, he says Clear just said it. We are already indicating what happens to city, hearing there are negotiations and agreements. Why not just collect facts, invest in facilities or staffing study, but beyond that, not a party and not make commitments to be part of the deal.
Clear says that is a different resolution than is before us.
Schumacher says has more concerns than when walked in.
(I missed a little back and forth between Clear and Schumacher.)
Clear says can recess CCOC or schedule a special meeting.
Recess til after the council meeting is the motion on the table. Looked like 4 votes, Bidar-Sielaff and Cnare voted no.
Meeting recessed until after council meeting.
NOTE: The end got a little hectic and I missed a bit, so I hope it makes sense. It was getting a little heated and it was a bummer that they had to break. I would have liked to have heard a response to Schumacher’s concerns. My understanding is that the rest of the CCOC meeting, after the council meeting, will be streamed, but not on-line. Apparently, the whole meeting will be streamed so you can catch it on-line in a few days if you want to check out the fireworks yourself.
