Council Workgroup still meeting, but not ready to meet with Overture parties yet . . . Thuy Pham-Remmele’s Boogey Man and more.
From: Clear, Mark
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 11:09 PM
To: ALL ALDERS
Cc: Cieslewicz, Dave; Piraino, Janet; Strauch-Nelson, Rachel; May, Michael; ‘Joe Sensenbrenner’; baldwinohern@gmail.com; jmcculley@afscmecouncil40.org; Kief, Lori; deirdre garton; Chris Gauthier; Carto, Thomas
Subject: Overture workgroup meeting #2Dear Colleagues,
This afternoon (Sunday), the council workgroup met for a second time. We spent about 2 1/2 hours continuing our work from Friday. The discussion continues to be positive and productive. However, we did not have enough time to work through all of the issues, and we also have questions for staff whom were not able to be with us on Sunday.
For those reasons, we are not ready to meet with the Overture Parties at our next scheduled meeting, Monday at 6pm. Instead, we will use that time to continue to work amongst ourselves. We should be able to get our staff questions answered by then as well. We also set another meeting date of Tuesday at 3:45.
I will continue to keep you posted on our progress. Thanks again to all.
Mark C.
THUY TEARS INTO THE MAYOR
She write in response to the email below, which you may want to read first.
From: Pham-Remmele, Thuy
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 3:16 PM
To: davin pickell; Mayor; ALL ALDERS
Cc: 4mosimandean; jtarr@isthmus.com; vicki@wiba.com; dstaahl@wkowtv.com
Subject: RE: Overture talks ?!!!Hi Mr. Pickell,
Thank you very much for having the guts to speak “the unspeakable”.
Although I don’t know you, I am very pleased now that at last there is someone else in Madison who can see through this mess.I raised exactly the same issues during the Special Council Meeting at the Overture last November. 4th, after the Mayor pushed for a Common Council’s rushed decision with his scare tactics of mentioning ” the $6 million the City would still be liable for FOR NOTHING” if the Council failed to accept the Focus Model Deal. I am glad that City Attorney Michael May refuted that myth.
What a Boogey Man! Now, the Mayor is pouting and threatening to take the ball away just because sensible elected officials declined “His orders” to play the game “His way”.
So much for transparency & what a spectacular fiasco to present Madison as a freak sideshow!We all treasure & are proud of the Overture, the regional jewel of a gift that has also been enjoyed by many people from surrounding areas.
However, Madison taxpayers should NOT be burdened with a lion’s share of the Overture’s operation & maintenance responsibilities.Since the OH-SO-SCARY December 31st deadline is dangling over everyone’s head like the Damocles’ sword and Council has only December 14th session scheduled to wrap up 2010, may I please suggest that we back up a bit to have a clear view of this picture. In fact, between now and April 2011, the transitional period at all levels of City, County, and State governments, it may be best to continue exploring options then allow incoming policy-makers to move forward on the proper track.
It is unwise to repeat the same mistake yet expect better results.
This is a major task that impacts all of us for decades to come, let’s take the proper time to work out the right solution.Sincerely,
Alder Thuy
DAVIN PICKELL RESPONDS TO MAYOR DAVE’S COMMENTS
From: davin pickell [davinpickell@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 5:43 AM
To: Mayor
Subject: Re: Overture talksMr. Mayor,
I’d like to take a moment to comment on some of your ‘general principles’ you’ve been so kind to share with the Council.
“Second, the proposal must be acceptable to the donors.”
Can you help me out with why that is terribly important? Couldn’t a very solid case be made for the fact that the ‘donors’ have mismanaged Overture into $28 million dollars of debt, and that their willingness to clean up their mess is perhaps responsible, but isn’t necessarily all that laudable, all things considered?
If my 16-year-old kid crashed his car, and volunteered to pay for the damages, I would respect my kid. I don’t know, however, as that I would give that same kid full control of the car, while buying from him the future liability for $1. I also don’t know as that I would let my kid have trumping authority on the repair work, or the color of the paint-job necessary to fix the damage. At the very least, I’m pretty sure my kid would be put in time-out, if necessary.
We can finger-point all we want at the economy, and how it just didn’t match the outrageous predictions that were necessary for the hair-brained scheme to work, but we could also point fingers at the hair-brained scheme, because some smart investors have done well, despite the flailing economy (the WRS comes to mind, for one).
The fact of the matter is that a bunch of rich people paid millions of dollars in investment fees to lose a whole bunch of money. All the while, I know a stagehand here in town, who lives in my house, who was out-investing the Overture investment portfolio consistently.
How in the world do you explain investment returns that underperformed the market every single year (as best as I recall)?? In hindsight, it really is beginning to look like it was all designed to fail, with the ultimate goal of selling the liability to the City, and with some wealthy folks turning a profit, via real estate dealings, by forcing the city’s hand in terms of increased future arts subsidies.
Only time will tell, and it makes you kind of wonder what the rush is.
Oh yeah, it’s those bank mortgages, disputed liquidation amounts, and the links to the Madoff money. If we can only sell the liability to the City before the claw-backs happen, then the banks and ODC will be off the hook, and when the Madofff lawsuits happen in earnest, the City is on the hook. I’m guessing you’d play naive at that point, and put up your teflon shield again. Who knows.
“Third, the proposal should treat all the employees fairly. In this regard alternative 1 is, I believe, the best agreement possible that is also acceptable to the donors and protective of the taxpayers.”
Are you familiar with the concept of political double-speak?
If you want to talk about treating the employees fairly, then let’s keep that discussion grounded on the employees. Alternative 1 is disrespectful and unfair, and I won’t even mention the age-discrimination lawsuits the City would face due to your ‘negotiated’ 52-year-old cut-off for keeping or losing sick leave.
It’s awfully cute of you to try to discount this reality by blanketing your encouragement of alternative 1 by talking about how it is palatable to the donors and the taxpayers. Unfortunately, only some really dumb folks wouldn’t see through your linguistic tricks.
Can I ask why you didn’t qualify your ‘must satisfy the donors’ criteria with any reference to the employees’ concerns, or the taxpayers’?? Why didn’t the Taxpayers’ concerns criteria get blanketed with references to the employees and the donors?
Clearly, you’re selling the employees down the river for your own political gains, as you’ve clearly put them at the bottom of your list of priorities. I’m sure the donors will send you a thank-you note, and maybe some cash, but the employees won’t, and the taxpayers won’t when they see the full extent of the financial mess you’ve been advocating for. I’m guessing the fact that Year1 doesn’t start until after the next Mayor election might not be a coincidence, after all, huh?
“…the modified focus model offered as alternative 1 is more than workable in every respect…”
It seems awfully striking to me that there has been a lot of discussion since July, and most of it has been fact-based, and well-researched, and everybody who has been paying full attention seems to be running as fast as they can from the Focus Model, but yet only you seem to still be smitten with it. Love can sometimes be blind, Dave, just so as that you know.
Also, one other linguistic clarification…I don’t know how much you know about some of the words that you choose to use, but I think accusing the Madison Common Council of ‘brinksmanship’ is a wee bit disingenuous.
Saying no to a door-to-door salesman who is trying to sell you a scam, and rushing your decision is something that I would consider ‘prudence’ or ‘responsible decision-making.’ The City is not in the line of fire for $28 million in debt, and according to your own attorney, the City isn’t in the line of fire for anything. The need to rush is non-existent, sir.
We’ve discussed countless times over the past few months that Overture will not be closing on Jan. 1, 2011. The abyss is a myth. The fact that you have joined forces with the other ‘side’ to use the same scare tactic that they use is awfully telling, don’t you think?? For you, and them, to use this empty threat as a weapon, and to try to force a hasty decision when there is absolutely no reason to do so is the ultimate form of brinksmanship.
Saying no to brinksmanship is not the same thing. The latter, in my humble opinion, is much more admirable than the former. Unfortunately, you and the ‘Angel Donors’ are the ones who are guilty of brinksmanship, and, again, it’s awfully cute of you to try to put your name-tag on the council, but it just isn’t cutting it, buddy.
brink·man·ship/ˈbrɪŋkmənˌʃɪp/ Show Spelled[bringk-muhn-ship] Show IPA
–noun
the technique or practice of maneuvering a dangerous situation to the limits of tolerance or safety in order to secure the greatest advantage, esp. by creating diplomatic crises.Enjoy the game today. If my dad naps long enough, maybe I can fly up for the game. Where are your seats?
DHP
