I missed the meeting where they discussed all this . . . but here’s the documents that were discussed.
From: Mayor
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 3:54 PM
To: ALL ALDERS
Cc: D’Costa, Laila; Mendoza, Mario; Piraino, Janet; Statz, Andrew; Strauch-Nelson, Rachel; Veldran, Lisa
Subject: Information provided to Overture Ad Hoc CommitteeDear Colleagues,
I want to take this opportunity to share information that was distributed at, and subsequent to, last week’s first Overture Ad Hoc Committee meeting. I am attaching several documents:
* Overture Consultant Steven Wolff’s PowerPoint presentation to the Committee
* The proposed business model that the Committee is charged with vetting
* Additional support schedules to accompany the proposed business model
* My remarks to the Committee communicating my charge to the group
* The timeline and workplan for the CommitteeConcerns have been expressed that the proposed business model – sometimes referred to as the Focus Model – is a done deal and that the Committee’s role is only to rubberstamp the plan already in existence. I would like to clarify my and the Council’s intent. If our goal was to put together a group that would do nothing more than bless a pre-ordained outcome, we would have appointed a very different committee. While it makes sense to use as a starting point the business model designed by Overture officials and consultants, it is the feasibility of that model that is precisely what we are asking the Committee to closely review and ask tough questions about.
I will continue to share the information provided to Committee members with all of you. I also encourage you to attend as many Committee meetings as your schedule will allow. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 2, 2010 at 7:00P. The room location has not been finalized. We are close to finalizing the future meeting dates and will send it around when finalized.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me or Janet Piraino if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Dave
Note, no mention of making this information available to the public. If this was all discussed at the meeting, it should have been attached to the agenda prior to the meeting.
And funny, I requested some of this information, and never received it.
Here’s their schedule.
From: “Piraino, Janet”
To: “Veldran, Lisa”
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 21:57:52 -0500
Subject: Overture Ad Hoc Committee WorkplanHi Lisa,
Based on Chairman Bugher’s comments at last week’s meeting, here’s the timeline and workplan for the Overture Ad Hoc Committee:
Deadline for the report: (working backwards from other deadlines)
· November 9th Council Meeting: the Council will need to adopt the Committee’s report along with a resolution transferring title and committing to some conditions by the November 9th Council meeting. That will allow the City Attorney time to draft up the agreements and allow the donors to assemble the necessary pledges in time to meet the forbearance agreement’s December 31st deadline.
· November 1st BOE Meeting: consideration of committee report and resolution.
· Special Council Discussion: Council Leadership would like to schedule a special meeting of the Council to discuss all issues relating to Overture sometime between introduction on October 19th and adoption on November 9th.
· October 19th Council Meeting: Introduction of report and resolution.
· October 13th : Report entered into Legistar for introduction.
· Mid-September – Capital budget and staffing study presented to the committee.
Committee Work Plan:
· Meeting #1: Welcome and charge to the Committee. Steven Wolff presentation on various models, discuss needs for additional info, discuss committee work plan and deadlines, set next meetings.
· Meeting #2: Briefing and discussion on Focus Model.
· Meeting #3: Discuss capital costs report.
· Meeting #4: Discuss staffing study.
· Meeting #5: Discuss governance models.
· Meetings #6 and #7: Additional meetings as needed for wrap-up discussion and report approval.
The PowerPoint Presentation that was at the actual meeting is slightly different than the one now being provided. At the meeting slide #26 had some specific numbers that are questionable (they reference 10 custodians, 18 engineers & maintenance and 1 security) and those figures have been removed from the presentation now being provided.