More live blogging.
Convene as committee of the whole. Clear takes the chair. They decide to go around the council.
Sanborn: Big question for him is how much of the backstop is the city responsible for, if they can answer that with clarity, it helps them move forward. If we take a tough stand on our commitment and this is it. Right now, $2.5 indexed to inflation, plus PILOT increasing, that is psychologically leaves too much wiggle room. He wants that number frozen. That is how we send the message we will not bail you out. If we send that message, they need the freedom to operate as they see fit. We can’t tell them what to do with their employees. There should be transition period for employees to get what they earned. But if we don’t want to send the message, then whatever option we choose doesn’t matter, city will come to the rescue anyways.
Clear asks what he would choose.
Sanborn says option two, with subsidy chosen.
Maniaci: says she is less sure than she was coming in. Wants to see some wages and benefits kept, to extent they can, whether city employees or something else, she is open ot it, its about end result to her. She is hearing that there is alot in version three she likes, but we don’t have a good home for the building. She is struck that everyone thinks it will end up in the city hands “what the hell are we doing”, we had all these discussions, what is the core essential business of the city, the sheer size of the facility is limiting, would not like to handicap future councils who have to choose between streets, police, etc and Overture. She is interested in hearing where people are. She wants what is best. There is a lot we need to do to make sure things are open. We can’t legislate the culture. Cautious of the strings but upset with the boards, so I want to hear what you have to say, I need help making my decision. She kinds supports version 3, version 2 is worst for employees.
Cnare: Says there is a 5th option out there, a blended option. She has clear instructions to not buy the building, but I think there are attractive things about that option. There are good protections for city and employees and some agreement about that. While we think we have the last say, the people over there have the last say too. If we want to be partners we need to keep that in mind as we make demands. They need us, we need them. She likes option 2 with terms from option 1, also willing to look at the subsidy, if we have to buy more, we should look at that. The other thing is she is asking them about buying our employees whole, its an unaffordable thing. But we need to look again at grandfathering. Throw ourselves on mercy of labor lawyers and help us. She likes things in three two, she doesn’t like some of the whereas clauses. That is probably the appropriate transition period, but would like to do something new, pull the trigger, get surity for donors, find out what the donors will or will not accept. Tell us now. Hopeful there is a hybrid. Is comfortable with a year of transition, likes a transition team that is independent. Maybe a council member as observer.
Pizza is here, half the council out of their seats.
Verveer says hasn’t asked questions, so asks for leeway. He says he feels like he lived through this many times, there were many I told you so moments, Soglin and Agard had them. Serve on committee 10 years ago. You all know this is in my district, I served on MCAD since it was formed and before that Civic Center Commission. He’s invested. My downtown constituents treasure the Overture. That is why they live downtown. We don’t do enough for the arts in city hall. Our arts budget is meager. Our main support is through the 200 block of State St. The building is critical to economic well being of the downtown. Hard to hear all the criticism of MCAD and 201 State, he takes responsibility and blame, there are decisions over last 10 years he would like to take back. These are all volunteers. They care deeply. Yes, we made mistakes, wishes criticism could come down a little. He is in a minority on some of the issues, mostly the public employees issue. He talked about it at CCOC. 10 years ago one of good decisions we made was the public employees. Many of them worked there almost their entire careers. Issues of wages and benefits need to be resolved. It pains him that earlier incarnations supported by MCAD colleagues were not fair to the employees. He was sponsor and voted for version 1 at MCAD. All options need to be amended. He thinks that is the only option. Version 2 voted and spoke against at CCOC and BOE. It’s heartless towards the employees, it has to be amended. Version 3, now that it has been amended, he would vote for it, cuz the employees are so important. There is no understating this, the debt issue is the real issue. We have to settle it. She doesn’t want to play chicken with the donors and banks. Hopes we can come to a solution to get rid of the debt, it paralyzes other progress, we need to get the job done. We need to meld the versions to get that done.
Bidar-Sielaff says she is sharing issues she shared with constituents. Overture is important to everyone and we are working towards the same goal. That is the world peace goal, some have tried for many years, but she would liek to make this shorter. This community has been having this discussion a number of times already, that is why this is the time to get it right, that is why it has been so intense. Thanks the donors, hopes they can stick with us. Overture is a public treasure. Professor called her a utopic realistic. It will come back to us, we have to try to prevent that from happening and we need to be one of the shoulders, but if that will be successful or not, she cannot say absolutely never again, no more, because you did that and here we are. Can’t accept a structure that is fatally flawed, needs structure with transparency and accountability, can’t not have clear performance standards, they have to be clear and measurable. She is not willing to give our public employees away cuz management is difficult. Management is always difficult. Right now employees are one side, management on the other (literally in the room), where there is a will there is a way. Where there are laws, there are ways around them. With the grandfathering process or different management structure, we can be creative. Why not try the state legislature, why not try. thanks members of MCAD and 201 State and realizes some of the discussions have been harmful to trust building, wherever this discussion goes, it is critical for us to build a good working relationship, coming closer, but not there, it will take effort on both sides. Past 6 months have been difficult under these circumstances. We couldn’t make good decisions with timeframe and conditions placed on this. Supports 3.
Rummel says her fear in the beginning was getting the building and we would take the piece of art and not take care of it. She thanks people for their discussion tonight. Thanks Agard. Thanks Clear for 2nd cuz it helped her think about the building, she is not opposed to buying it, but how we get there. She’s been taking notes. Her constituents are supportive, she thinks of her district as the arts district. There was a poll, it was kind of unfair, but it was a little extreme. Some support focus model, some don’t go or don’t care, public authority got the most votes. Has working artists in her district, so she wants to do the right thing. We didn’t really talk about art. We are missing something. What could this facility be? She sees it as an under utilized space. I can’t name the resident companies. Where is that sign on the building? All the people who talked to me about doing a better job telling the story. She was skeptical when we got the gift. Some we shouldn’t get. Some might be like a car and we might always be fixing it cuz it is so nice. Mary said one other thing, the bad will of privatizing is not worth the benefit of it. And the public is a donor too. We need to find what works. Signed on to version three, but her amendment 21 is a little different. She added what she thought was a committee process. Shiva talked to the guy at Kennedy Center, there’s a 142 page document i can’t wait to read. We need a committee to do that work. I don’t support AMS model, cuz of privatization, same with version 2. Idea of a Public Authority is going in the right direction. Lets meet with people. Pay the debt and lets start from there. 9 months is risky, but you’ve been there for 2 years.
King is thankful for the gift, wants to protect it. It is clear we are not ready to make a long term decision, he favors a transitional model, the only one before us is three. He wants it labeled and marketed as transitional model and we need to consider that risk. There could be consequences, also doesn’t think it has to take 2 years, can do it in one. Can make decision in 2011. If keep city employment, who would run it for the next year. We need to think about the details, but shouldn’t micromanage, that is what the transitional year is for. He lives on the fringe, 25% of his district goes to Overture, they pay taxes and he doesn’t have tax exempt properties. His constituents go downtown, but we have community and trust building to do. We need a transitional model so not doing this again and making a bad decision for our successors.
Eagon says that we have a lot of agreement, it might surprise people. There are more commonalities than we may have thought. There are divisions and ideas that conflict, but on 85% of the issues we agree, a few but significant. Mostly aligned with Cnare, take elements from 1, 2, 3 and 4 and come up with a 5th. He appreciates the grandfathering issue. Combine 3 and 2, rather than one on labor issues. Deadlines are real, I deal with them every day, can’t always get an extension, sometimes have to buckle down and stay up late and will be, its just life, you can only ask for so many extensions.
Skidmore says 9 years ago asked if Skidmore’s district is in Dane County. He says that his district has highest valuation in the city. Downtown has a lot of the tax exempt properties, that’s ok, it has the jewels, State St is Wisconsin’s Main St, it has the capitol, the university, Peace Park, Civic Center and Overture. It’s special, the fat that they don’t make money doesn’t bother him, it attracts people from all over the world, it doesn’t have to be a profit center. He wants it to be a a world class center, run by competent employees. He supports 3. We can talk about amendments when we get to it.
Solomon says we need more time, most of us agree on that. Almost every speaker said that, including MCAD and 201 State. This is what happens when there is an unmeetable deadline. He is not embarrassed, we did everything in our power to go to meetings, ask questions, he’s never been prouder, we learned a lot tonight. 15 of us signed a letter 6 weeks ago that argued for more time. 15 of us! What happened, why did we walk away from that statement. We have former mayors saying public-public is best option. We have a private-public model a week ago, at the last minute got a private-private model with no information cuz Mayor said no. It will cost $4M more. Do we want to have them raise $4M we could save. How could we conceive of the option. Private-private doesn’t address staffing, we are the back stop no matter what, I don’t see how private-private we can move forward with. Public Authority sounds good, not enough language on accountability and if we pass three, its the only one 201 State said is a non-starter for them. Are we really doing our jobs if doing something that doesn’t address the debt. If they don’t pay off the debt, what then. He says there is no option except more time. In an ideal world, we’d have more time. We shouldn’t make a decision based on the debt, but we still need to deal with the other issues. We can’t make an intelligent decision, can’t make a long term decision on short term need. We don’t have enough information. Look how much we learned tonight, while we were trying to make a decision. Dierdre said not more studying, you need to decide. I’m scared we won’t pass any and punt. He sent them his version. We will give them increased resources, so donors know city standing behind them and know what we want. This is what Soglin and Agard said, we need the performance measures, the geographic ticket purchasers needs to be addressed. Talks about other performance measures . . . . I missed some . . . well, a lot . . .took a break, he’s talking too fast . . . He supports transition plan. He supports option 4, he sent it out. Still talking too fast. Gives us time to make good long term decision, second choice is focus model with staffing, governance model, clear performance standards, leave staff in place for three years and do a staffing model, if not city employees maintains pay and benefits, resident company input, community input. We need an option that gives us more time but lets give 201 certainty, they need that. He thinks we an do it by 12/14, but we can’t do it tonight. Preference to come up with transition team and come up with an agreement.
Schmidt says that it would be silly if he didn’t support three since he helped write it. He didn’t see anything that is working, sorry Dierdre, sorry Joe. This isn’t working. Hasn’t worked for 10 years. MCAD almost works, except WRS language is a problem, it gives us a framework. I hear why people want more detail, debt has to be resolved, forbearance agreement never had us pick up the Overture Center, if the donors are looking for commitment if this meeting and the hours of other meetings isn’t that, I don’t know what it is. He says there is deep seated skepticism on the issues. The current model needs to be simplified. Employee benefit package is not breaking the bank, but when talk about multi-million shortfalls, that won’t make up the shortfall, there are other problems. They are incremental costs, that is why we need an endowment. It’s hard to give it to the same people who have been running it, I wouldn’t be hired in the private sector. Going along to get along is most dangerous thing we can do, and we have already done that.
Rhodes-Conway wants to keep lights on, protect employees, end crisis cycle, we should use advice we bought and we need to do so without micromanaging. Either we are leasing a facility or buying a contract and we should strive for metrics with reasonable reporting. We need to balance the cost, primary thing she hears about from the constituents. Most importantly need to build trust. The actual model isn’t the most important thing, we are dancing around it. We are trying to hang things on the model that get to whether or not we have sufficient amount of trust. She doesn’t have suggestions about how to get there as a governmental body. It’s hard to do, and yet trust between individuals is insufficient, but a good place to start. Stop the madness, and if had to vote now, first preference is three followed by 2 then 1. With amendments.
Kerr says she agrees with Satya on the trust, the way this came to the council, here’s the deal if you don’t take it lights will go off, I found it insulting and unproductive so it is hard to trust. But she’s on her way out so maybe it doesn’t matter. We have shared interest, but the way we communicate, esp 201 State, is not effective. The amendments that we proposed were given with great through, understand why you objected, it deserved a discussion before brought ot board so you understood intent and it needed conversation when came to conclusion, that is how trust is built. Sending us a spreadsheet is not effective. Model 1, she is fundamentally opposed to public ownership, it has too much risk, she will never support it no matter how many amendments. Agrees with Soglin, we just don’t know enough about it. Version 3 has some merits, some punitive/mean things in there that need to be taken out. That is a structure in which we could move forward, but favorite is number 2 with amendment to protect the employees. 3 with more discussion and figure out how to come together. Absent that number 2 ad never vote for 1.
Bruer thanks the council, says he agrees with Verveer on many things. Lots of discussion over the year. Says there has been a pattern since day one. If try to track any one of the entities and go back to the foundation, its hard to follow. And Tim is hard to follow this late at night, it’s 2:30 and my brain is shutting off. Gift came at a big price. They operated in secrecy and made bad financial decisions and don’t id who made the decisions, we don’t know who is responsible for the decisions. Doesn’t think council will be duped. Model one dead on arrival, told take it or leave it, lots of unanswered questions. We have been trying to save Overture from itself. Clear should be thanked for courage to come through with model 2. He says he has respect for Mayor 2. If the structure has little or no people of color cuz not money or influence, and not accountability, that is disturbing. He has railed and railed as the spin excelled. No one taking responsibility for the financial decisions. Sorry history lesson, fingers tired. It would help if he talked in complete sentences or at least complete thoughts. He talked for 10 minutes, option 2 with amendments is the option is next best to three.
Palm is sick. Surprised no one has said it is not soup yet. We don’t get serious until we have to vote, we have had many meetings where discussing things. We don’t get to brass tax until it is on the agenda, that is partly cultural, we can have info sessions, the decisions get made on the floor at the last minute. We have to vote. Came in thinking 3 was the best option. 1 & 2 were something he could not swallow. We have control of building and have our employees. We have a poor track record of preserving our buildings, but we are getting better. If its a boiler or police officer, that is probably why we haven’t taken are of our buildings. Not sure if we should buy the building. A couple years ago Mayor asked us to vote to buy the building, he did. At the time, he couldn’t believe the numbers, but must have been naive. It was a hybrid model, the 8% and numbers were not there, they had proven the bad decisions were made and said they can still make it. It’s a tasty cracker keep eating it, but its a saltine and I need some water. That is why the council needs to get the transition model moving. We need more players, partners, public trust. The complexity of structure, dual allegiances, staff who don’t know what is going on, understands why groups represent other groups. Came in tonight to vote for three.
Claussius agrees with Sanborn that we need to know what the backstop is, we need to accept we are the backstop. Agrees with Soglin, he is credible, it was on his watches Civic Center and MOnona Terrace were built. Constituents don’t care who owns it, don’t want it to affect pocketbook too much but want it open. Leans towards 3 as transitional model, we have two years to work it out. Likely will be blended, would like to see best parts of 2 and 3. [Missed important point about concerns are resident groups and???]
Schumacher says that he thought he’d have little to say going last, but now has lots to say. He respects unions, but we are not throwing them out on the street and saying you are fired and Merry Christmas. To make this into a labor or union issue, there are jobs lined up, they just aren’t city employees. We did this with the Mallards recently. They wanted flexibility, that is the reality. His bottom line is that he is mindful of unions role to protect city jobs, we are not firing people, council getting restless, he pauses . . . comments on floor I missed . . . if just privatizing the labor source, that is an inconsistency. Option 1 was never an option. It would cost too much. Option 2 was the break through option, every year they could decide. Option 3 is a non-started. His amendment would be to declare ourselves the new MCAD. We are micromanaging, its our nature to get involved. He never liked the way the Overture started out. Amazed Frautschi didn’t show up. He doesn’t see a world class facility, he sees it squeezed on the block. He has same concerns as Bruer and Schmidt on history. He says if donors are watching tonight, they might get out of dodge, they won’t come through just because we don’t want to make a decision, cuz sounds nicer or election coming up. He wants to ask Carto what budget looks like with no fundraising so we have a realistic understanding. Respects Soglin, but why would we take on more responsibility, it comes down to, do we want to give them money. He supported number 2, finite amount of money and could adjust with economic times, this will only get tougher, we will have same issues as federal deficit. Containing cost is only reasonable thing short of saying its yours and figure it out. But we are all in it together, and he wants limits to it. He just wants them to perform, if they don’t perform, then no money. Missed a bunch, but I don’t think I missed a salient point.
Clear wants them to think about why they are here. We all have a problem, we have an offer, if you buy the building, make one of our organizations the operator and gave us a deadline. 6 months ago the deadline probably seemed reasonable. That is still the offer in front of us. We will fail to act to night. Fail is the operative statement, the take away is we failed to save the Overture. When Bidar-Sielaff talked to me about version 3, I was intrigued, the problem is its a fantasy, doesn’t work, donors won’t accept it, won’t pay off the debt, we can’t change the state law. There is no magic bullet. We are faced with choices none of us are happy with, that is what we have in front of us, he thinks we need to act before the sun comes up. Grandfathering doesn’t work legally, that was on the table til WRS rules uncovered. Can’t have mix of city and private employees in one organization. That is where we are, he thinks option 2 with amendments donors will accept. Option 1 might be ok, to give protections to employees.
Clear calls on Kerr, then Maniaci instead. She’d like to hear from Solomon on his proposal.
Kerr called on.
Solomon says straw poll didn’t get them to 11 on any options, could roll through them, could talk for three more hours, it would be difficult between 3 and 6 am to get to 11 votes. The only one even close is 3, that is the one Overture has said no to, that won’t get us to the deadline. Option one and two not even close. We don’t get to a vote tonight that gets us any closer, if vote down 1, 2 and 3 they doesn’t get us any closer. He understands the failing, but we need to figure out a strategy to get to 11 votes. Working twoards the 14th is our only strategy.
Clear asks what if the donors walk tomorrow.
Kerr says its on them.
Solomon says passing 3 means they will walk, voting down everything before us or get closer in next two weeks, we can bring them up and ask them, but taking two weeks.
Schmidt six months we worked, talked, did due diligence, we have been talking, we will not be the one that failed, we have been doing our job. If it goes dark, it is cuz of the conditions placed upon it, the cynic in me would say it was deliberate that we would fail, I said in July we would give it our best shot, none of 18 of us left have done nothing but burn itself out. If it gets reported as a failure, its a failure of the media and our ability to make our point. It’s a problem cuz we spent 5 months looking at one model. We are not fools, we have been working hard, we have been doing our job, our job is to find something that will work, not just 10 years but 50. We have a lot of things that have failed. We haven’t come to a conclusion, the other side can give us more time or let it go dark.
Bidar-Sielaff says she knew coming in tonight we would not make it. She says she knew that would happen. We thought if we got pushed into a corner we would figure it out. We can’t have a good discussion any more. We have alot of agreement, maybe you can’t see it sitting up there (Clear). If we could have 2 of us to be responsible for what we have heard, then 201 can talk to those, to try to get to agreement and we could have a discussion. Governance, staffing, performance standards (community engagement and participation) and ownership/capital costs. Those are the issues that need to be dealt with, the last one might be city contribution. That is the methodology she proposes. She will take staffing.
Maniaci says she would like to have before she leaves tonight, we have some things that are not legit or legal, she’d like to know what we need to be aware of moving forward, she doesn’t want to spend time on good sounding ideas that run us into a brick wall. If we’re not going to vote, she would like a refesher or good sense of parameters.
May says if there is something new he an write another memo, you have several memos before you. He hasn’t seen Solomon proposal, not in a position to do it tonight.
Maniaci asks Cnare about her ideas she found out were not legit.
Cnare asked HR staff if they could give funds to compensate the employees at the same amount for the benefits, because smaller groups are harder to buy benefits for, it would cost millions more, it would be far too expensive, was hoping it was $50K per year. She knows the grandfather plan doesn’t work, cuz of who the employer is, we need to be creative, if anyone has ideas, she would work on it.
Cnare says that we tried to lump the amendments, if work in small groups, there are 6 areas for the amendments (she talked too fast), she thought that would work for the clumping groups. The 14th is a long time to wait, can we meet in the next week, we can’t make a good decision tonight, we need ot get on the stick right away.
Clear was looking at it, later today is a potential. Clear asks about weekend, they all say now.
King asks how we avoid doing public testimony again.
May says need to come out of committee of the whole, council can then vote on it, then recess to a meeting at another date. You still have to close the public hearing.
Kerr likes working on the clumps. Kerr reprimands alders for talking. She suggests Clear and Cnare and Mayor meet with 201 State and discuss 3 since that has traction, lets have a direct conversation about why version 3 is objectionable, an honest discussion, then go through amendments and see if there is any agreement.
May says that can be a motion, or make it when get out of committee of the whole, whatever motions made are recommendations back to full council.
Kerr attempts to make a motion. And . . . my computer shuts down, with only 20 – 25 minutes left to go! I guess 9 hours if ignoring that little request to restart my computer was just too much . . . 7 pages of notes yet to be typed . . .
I think I’m going to take a nap, before going to work. The short story on what happened is they decided to send a delegation to talk face to face with MCAD/201 and the donors. The told them what to address, then recessed the meeting so they don’t have to listen to public comment again, and the council president will determine when the meeting will be. It’s about 4:30, this is when I normally get up, so I’m done for the evening, will type the rest of the notes hopefully by noon. It shouldn’t take more than a half hour.
