I listened to the live stream . . . so far, all I can see is standing around, presumably deal making.
Still, kinda, live blogging . . . so a bit abbreviated.
It’s 8:52, no one seems to be there from the public. At least not from what I can see.
Mark Clear calls the meeting to order, they have copies of Bidar-Sielaff’s amendment.
Rummel wants to add language about the citizen’s group “appointed by the Mayor and approved by the council”. Considered friendly.
Bidar-Sielaff sasy that they can either go ahead with this or if needs more discussion, realize this is last minute, they could wait until August 3 meeting to vote on it. Feels that point made about reasons behind #4 are very important to members of CCOC.
Schumacher says concerned about how they will make the decision about staff. Thinks that the other side has to sharpen their pencils. Still thinks this resolution goes too far, we’re nto ready to take it over, supports the amendments, but not supportive of the underlying resolution unless dedicate resources to get a facility inspection and find out about the long term impacts to the tax payer.
Clear says this still has to go to BOE.
Cnare says if have amendments now is the time to do it. Asks May if this just allows negotiations to go forward and we’ll see documents that come back. She asks when they can add other things like the facilities assessment.
May says you can do it when agreements come back, you can amend them then, that is the last time. You could direct people to do it now. Cnare worried that this is right around the corner. We can make this happen. She says they need to get this started, this just puts the ball in play, those are great ideas to get that information, and Schumacher should put that in the resolution now.
Clear also supports the additional language.
Bruer says this is not the Goodman Pool, we had a good understanding and it was microscoped to death, we didn’t have a gun to our head, this is the cart before the horse. The Goodman Pool was reasonable and rational and vetted. We knew everything there was to know, there was a business plan. What do we have here, he says he’s a little more comfortable, but this is about public trust and at the end of the day this will come back to this administration and the council. Talking . . . talking . . .off topic . . . if they are looking at people coming and giving us a deal and here are our terms, we got into this disaster because of the same message the same players gave us before it was constructed, nothing has changed, the only thing that changed is new alders asking what it is going to cost us. And, we need engineers and pros, we have RTA, school referendum and a wobbly economy and people look at an entity that is not transparent, 3 entities to control this, their financial house is a disaster, ask the comptroller and mayor, they don’t know what way is up. Now they have a solution, it asks more questions than it answers. How much are we spending towards the arts, we shouldn’t be rushing to judgment with a decision that will affect the city for years to come, we don’t have the info we need. They say if we don’t do this, they will go dark and close the doors. I’d like to see that happen, imagine the publicity. People can’t go out and say they city is bailing out the Overture, we don’t know what is going on over there. How do we know our commitment to labor, until . . . more cost overruns than any other project in the community, now faced with a white elephant that is not economically feasible. Are there ways we can make it more self sufficient, its a Taj Mahal, it was a great gift and people looked the other way, and when we did, we had political leprosy. The arrogance in 2005 and all those people came in and said this is what we were going to do. Gave credit to Mayor for saying no. The fundraising has been a disaster, the decisions made, the cost of construction, we don’t know what we are inheriting. Realistically can this facility support itself and if it can’t, their own arts people are divided. There is a strong sentiment in arts community that the city shouldn’t bail them out. Like an alcoholic. The banks should solve this. By December we’re being told that if we don’t take the deal, maybe we can move it a little here an there, doesn’t it disturb you, they don’t want to tell us what happened with the banks. They don’t want to go forward in a year or two ago, offered to bring in consultants at taxpayers expense and they ignored us and told us to stay out of our business. Then when they went through all the firewalls, they hand us the keys. Why are we doing this now, what we should be thinking about is doing it right, we should spend the dollars so we know at what expense, wants a business plan that is vetted, I want to know what the viability is, before we take the keys in December. Still talking . . . repeating himself, says they were supposed to present a business Ea plan for the last three months and they haven’t . . . people unemployed and can’t pay taxes why pay a couple million every year for something that was free . . . elections are coming. Ask Onken about the blow back from the constituency in the last recession, if this is a bank bailout and the city picking up the keys with the gun to our head . . . just like Chrysler, who hasn’t changed a thing. Think long and hard and bring in the experts, we need clean hands, people who know numbers, know entertainment, this is a good old boys club to the max, many of them are friends of mine, we need political courage to stand up too important to tax payers and community. What are we afraid of . . . take a couple of old Mayors together and they’ll come up with it, its the most bizarre thing I heard all week, and its only Tuesday. Talks about other projects they could put money into, when do we stop paying. . . . blah, blah, blah history, economy, jeopardize other projects . . . and he’s done.
Rummel says that agrees with much of what Bruer said, wants to make sure that the citizen’s group is not just a group of people running this, we need expertise. We want a facility and staffing study and a capital plan. She says that with number 6 that we will have the operating subsidy at the same level. Are we doing due diligence to agree, she wants to support but gets stuck. She wants referral or will have to vote against it.
Eagon says questions need to be answered, but should move it forward, its an opportunity, there is a date of expiration and we should get the info before then, this is the beginning of the process, we are interested in buying a new car, but not a commitment to the details of the vehicle, finding the detailed options and costs will give us a better understanding about if we can make a decision before the deadline of expiration. This shows good faith effort to get that information.
Kerr says she asked for the projected capital and operating budget language, she wants a 5, 10 20 year capital budget and projected operating budget with assumptions and backed up by the details, its up to you, you get to vote, but that is the most crucial piece to her. That is what they will be held accountable for.
Mayor says doesn’t want to disagree with Bruer cuz afraid he might respond. He doesn’t think 5 or 6 months is unreasonable, they put together a capital and operating budget in 3 months. They have 3 issues to figure out. 5 years ago the opposed the refinancing, it wasn’t a good deal, wishes it hadn’t been done, it was and result was at the end of the day we might have the building with $28M and city on line for $6.5M so the fact that was resolved is a very positive good step in the right direction. This is the next step, of trying to figure out the details you are talking about and then get the agreement to the council to vote up or down. Some of the things proposed tonight were good, some make it harder. We can have more discussion at BOE. Lets not lose sight of the project. Not in a good position a few weeks ago, now we are. There are a whole lot of good hard questions to ask. That’s fine, that is what should be done, but lets keep our eyes on the prize.
Schumacher has an amendment, #5 and renumber, The city staff shall conduct or arrange for a facilities study to advise council on physical nature of the facility and engage in other fact finding as necessary. Friendly. I didn’t quite get that word for word.
Schumacher says appreciates the Mayor participating, hopes Mayor not see this as critical, hopes it is strengthening the Mayor’s position. He’s a Rotarian and many are not happy with him and his position. We have to look at the long term on this. He’s the city liaison to the Visitor’s Bureau, he saw the presentation on the room tax. Convention and Visitors Bureau not involved in the study. Its our job to find out what is fact and fiction. We can buy it for $1, but the catch is upkeep, who is going to pay that final bill. He also says that the Mayor’s team, he’d love to hear him say, go and find everything we need to know so when wake up on Wednesday after the council approves this, I know that it will be successful.
Schmidt says appreciates Bruer and Schumacher eloquence and depth and he wants to add that those who made the agreement driving our “comfort resolution” understand that their deadline might have to be flexible, he hopes the message is sent to them, they have to do their due diligence.
Cnare thanks Bruer for history and zealousness to make a good decision. This is not about making the decision, but good for us to sit here tonight, is there anything else we really need to know, good to set those expectations now, strengthens negotiations, our next role is in the negotiations phase and we have to be vigilant. Hopes the other collegues get involved as well, wants it passed tonight to get the game started.
Rummel says that g “to the extent possible” language. She moves to strike the langauge “to the extent possible.”
Clear asks if its friendly, no one objects, Clear objects.
Rummel says that for her, this is a value question about what kind of employees we want to work there and if we’re telling them their jobs are in jeopardy, at least it lets them know we value union work, we can tout that around the country. It a public facility and it should be run by public workers, we can have a public private partnership, but we want to send the message this is important.
Bidar-Sielaff appreciates what Rummel is trying to do, she wanted to show the importance of union workers in the comfort resolution, some may have minds made up, but this is just a comfort resolution, she says it makes sense to have studies and information to know if it costs more but can balance that. That information needs to be presented to us. Sorry, gap in live stream . . . she says she didn’t want to separate a specific union. She appreciates AFSCME being here, some discomfort in making that decision and we can’t make it without looking at the staffing study. She says once the study is done, that will tell them what the language of this should be. She also says that she will be very adamant to see a lot of information from the comptrollers office, this is a city decision critical to us and wants to feel good about the number provided, hopes the Comptroller is involved in the data provided to us on this deal.
Schumacher says that wants to agree with the sentiment, this isn’t about unions or labor relationships, but if we are contemplating taking over the building and helping everyone in the process that made the big decision, doesn’t want to see it be done at the expense of labor. We can’t ignore the people who need to make a living and run the facility.
Cnare asks if removing the phrase doesn’t change the plans to work with people to find employment in the city. Some want to work for city and be working for Overture Center. So, does this really change anything they are thinking about doing already.
Wirtz says that it doesn’t, they will work hard to make sure people are not laid off. It is the goal going in, its just in the end, there may be a legitimate reason why one job gets eliminated. Cnare says it might be friendly now.
Clear says that he still has a concern, he said he’ll try. This council is severely constraining how we can address Alder Bruer’s 18 minutes lecture about financial responsibility. We don’t know yet, he doesn’t’ want to declare we are going to maintain same staffing level we have today. He agrees that is the goal and that is what the language says.
Maniaci asks what our agreement is to maintain wages and benefits. If people are reassigned are their wages and benefits the same.
Wirtz says that with bumping, you could end up in a lower position than in now. It does have an impact. He says ways to change number of employees in other ways besides involuntary layoffs. He says we are not saying that it will look the same, if they have the ability to work with the union.
Maniaci asks how they would have less jobs.
Wirtz says that they have attrition of 5% each year and they can fill positions with LTEs so they don’t commit to the continued employment. They are also working on incentives for employees to get other jobs with the city.
Manaici agrees with Shiva that, even tho not on the committee, she needs to see the numbers to know what she can do. Bruer’s comments about white elephant, I don’t know what we’re sitting with at staffing levels and Lauren asked what people want to see, and she wants to see comparables. She understands not good ones in Madison, needs to see comparables on wages and staffing. She needs to see the numbers, some of initial data is the non-union jobs are the higher paying jobs. Wants that information for the Council.
Eagon echos support for Clear, this could limit some of the possibilities, in decision making we should have all options presented to us, this is not a statement about represented employees, this gives us more decisions and removing the language removes possibilities, but we should get information first and then we can see if shared values match with what we can afford.
Schumacher says that his hunch is that someone already knows it is too expensive to have represented employees for the next formation of the Overture. Why not privatize the building. We need flexibility on the labor force. Streaming interruptions, I think he said he doesn’t want to balance this on the backs of the employees.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Dave Pickel representing Stagehands and AFSME, he says he does computer work and then has to go do welding, he doesn’t think he’s overpaid. He says there are only a few people in the country do what he does. He says that theatre is in his heart, he has to consider another city job, but that is not what he wants. As far as privatization, he says there may not be the savings they expect.
Maniaci asks why they can’t have comparables.
He says that people do maintenance and the shows. They cut technical staff in DiAngelo, most don’t have a full time year round department, the ones who work during the season and then do maintenance the rest of the year.
Maniaci asks if this system is preferable, what is the good and bad to the structure.
He says more responsible to needs, I don’t have to run the show in the evening, I can design something and weld it in the shop. IN most standard roadhouses, there is alot of over time during the season.
Bruer says as they peel it back and listening to what people are saying, this is beyond a healthy debate, he knows that me and the Mayor are in this together, we had spirited discussion not because not cultured or needed to put the pit bull back in the pen. What’s interesting is that they want to hand over the keys cuz you stood up to them. The reason they are negotiating with us, there is not the political tolerance to have someone operating this in exile. Not one person responsible for the financials have looked at these issues. Current structure if fatally flawed. No one who made these decisions showed up before the council. Does it make more sense to re-engineer Overture, if we don’t know all that, we should have that before us to make a decision . . . talking . . .talking . . .talking . . .I went and got another beer, filled up my water bottle and came back and he’s still talking . . . says receivership and get Bob Dunn type to run it for them and then see how fast they will come to the city with a new deal. He says he’s not sure if agrees with Rummel, there are other issues they need to look at. We need to look at what it will take to make this successful. Encouraging people to move it forward, we need to look at re engineering this and then respond to the facts.
Bidar-Sielaff says flip-flopping after hearing Brad say that it won’t change things. She amends it to say that current employees.
Clear says that has no effect. That is what is now. They work out process issues. Says they can’t amend an amendment to an amendment, wants Rummel to withdraw hers.
Rummel changes her motion, it is friendly.
Clear says not Bidar-Sielaff written amendment with changes is before them.
No further discussion.
They do a roll call, can’t hear it or see it. It passed.
Main motion is entire resolution as amended. No further discussion. Motion passes.
They adjourn at 10:07
