Overture Part II, Live Blog

Sorry, was getting too long. Here’s part two.

Schmidt says that he has to respond to what Sensenbrenner said about having this come to them last June and they told them to focus on the focus model. So that is what we did. To say we should have proposed something different is disingenuous. Also, most of the meetings were held in closed session and the alders, at least under our rules, aren’t supposed to talk about things in closed session so they couldn’t have told us about it. We have been told that the banks don’t care who owns the building, lets get rid of the false deadline. He also takes issue with saying that Overture is critical to the city, water, police etc are critical and I think that is an open discussion.

Schumacher says there is legal ownership and community participation. We have an ownership in the latter. We are not responsible for the success, but the people who built and run it are responsibility and we as a city, we have bought into the fact that we are in the end responsible. This whole process is like don’t ask don’t tell. We have info or we don’t, he can’t speak for the whole council and they don’t all agree. It’s a messy process. If we spend $2M or $2.5M and thinks we should get something back, we can look back to the Community Services process for performance standards, he likes the alternate, its the cleanest and we should all work together to move us forward.

Kerr says this is a renegotiation of existing agreement and they are technically in default. Is the city advantaged or disadvantaged by each of the elements. She favored the public/private but thinks more that it won’t work. Owning the building is too risky. This is a complicated building, we should back up and discuss what Overture should be when it grows up, however we have a deadline and like it or not the council will be seen as at fault. You should vote your conscience. She would hate to see the council say step back and study for 2 more years, I don’t have to run, but I don’t have to look in my neighbors eyes and hear we are dithering.

They ask Clear to speak.

Clear says he proposed the alternate, he wants to explain 3 and 4. These are conditions on the grant, the resolution is a pledge but does not obligate future councils. He was envisioning that every year they provide an annual plan and tell us what they are going to do and we decide based on what they told us they are going to do what it is worth. They also say what they did and explain difference in what they said and what happens, there will be differences and they should have good explanations. We can then decide to support more or less. Rather than getting into specific performance standards, everything is on the table. Tell us everything you will do and did. Also says there is a type in last be it further resolved, it should be 2011 not 2012 in second to last paragraph.

Solomon says he thinks they are fooling themselves if they are going to go dark. CSC is not a good example if an agency goes out of service we mourn it and then look at the service.

Schumacher asks that we continue around the table.

Clear says important question but can’t be succinct.

Cnare says that Bidar-Sielaff left notes, concerns about governance, she would like to see citizen representation and city appointments and clarification of level of transparency. Staffing is the biggest issue for her. She wants concrete minimum benchmarks, not general.

Cnare asked who else do we give $2M to, she says $1.6M to Convention and Visitors Bureau and a 5 – 10 page long contract. As milestones are met, they get checks, that adds another level of assurance, that might be a better model. Contract is important to her, she wants to go to neighbor and this is what you are getting for this. Community Voices committee is important, likes where Manaici was going but still to esoteric for her, but concept is important.

Rummel says only change is more money and we don’t own for $1, but there are still all the things they don’t like in there, like privatizing the workforce. She appreciates some different things to think about, she’d like to know what professor Undercoffer things.

Bruer says people have been snarly with me cuz I keep talking about how we got here, with spending caps and basic services that are in jeopardy, even with the economic benefits, basic services and needs are placed at risk and he knows where his constituency will come down, because we are getting to the budgeting brink. We have seen delays in infrastructure and voting down increases in basic services, he loves Mayor Sensenbrenner. He has been aggressive, many of the people who argued against owning the building in 2005, we extended an olive branch to the same players, we begged them to work with us, to recognize the errors in judgment, but lets work together in the next few years to make it viable. We were told that was not on the table, they didn’t want the city to own the building. It was about power in control, they did not want to be transparent and almost overnight the resources went away. He is supportive of the Overture, but he encouraged them to work with the city to develop a models and design that supports the facility for years to come. The door was continually slammed, back in June it was take it or leave it. It wasn’t until large numbers of alders came forward that it changed. He does have staffing concerns. Ooops, missed some, got distracted. He’s concerned that Sensenbrenner thinks they did an excellent job on maintenance. He says a lot to be learned form the Monona Terrace. Having a financial commitment, they need some skin in the game, they have millions out there, they have been in financial ruins for the last 14 months. Could you imagine if any other nonprofit tried to hand us the keys, like the Boys and Girls Club. Lets all try to create community support. If you have a foundation to put in money, that just silences dissent to a certain degree. The arts community is very divided. Most of information provided to him by the arts community. A greater role by the city if asked to give millions, its insulting we are asked to have a token role. Transparency is his last issue, he respects some need for closed meetings, he can’t see how anyone who is progressive can stand by and watch a board collective that is not diverse in race or economics or segments of our community, I understand you need people to write large checks. onfidence crisis is cuz they were not trasparent, it was aobut power and control. Also some concerns about staffing but he thinks we can work that out.

Clear asks if talkign about Great Performance Fund.

He says that and 201 State funds. He says that can change if truly a community arts facility.

Verveer takes his share of the responsibility. This is deja vu, same issues 10 years ago. He has served for 15 years on Civic Center and MCAD, he wants to remind people these are all volunteers, they do the best they can. Their self interest is to serve the community. He can’t imagine being someone who put in so much time and talent, its getting kind of old, not going to deny we made mistakes. Alder Schmidt identified the state open meetings law exceptions being used liberally, always council there saying it was ok. The boards used to go into closed session for annual budgets. He thought it was bizarre. They said it was cuz of employee positions. I thought it wasn’t appropriate and that is just one example. The one reality that just suffocated the success of the Overture Center, its the debt, it has paralyzed those trying to make it a better place. Job number on is to get rid of the debt. For the banks and the donors. The donors are the ones that say we need significant changes. He would chose the focus model. He voted for it on the ad hoc committee and if think about all that has been said, his comments are matched with Alder Solomon. For maximum future success, it is critical to have public ownership, but I know that is not the majority viewpoint. Alot of that cuz of what hearing form the constituent. All he is hearing is get it done, make sure they keep their doors open. We live downtown, in part, because of the Overture Center. A lot of them volunteer there, it’s a big deal to a lot of people who live downtown and work there. Realizing the political realities, he thanks the chair and he could support private/private, concern is the employees. Concern was how we treated the employees 10 years ago. Still cherish and saved thank you notes from 10 years ago, its a big deal. Its not union vs non-union and its employees as a whole, I don’t know how we can take that likely. He says they need more specifics, they need to go through the term sheet, he is surprised about the typo, this is short on specifics. He can appreciate the multiple additions that Sensenbrenner talked about, that is to be expected, how an we approve something that is so short on specifics. Please don’t take it personally, appreciates trying to problem solve, can’t see how anyone could support this without knowing where the taxpayers $2M is going to. On the labor issues, there were labor protections that were agreed to and none of that is in the resolution, the other point is that the employees affected are not just Overture, the 23 FTEs have bumping rights and this will create chaos, they bumped to Monona Terrace and they bumped to cashiers at the Parking Utility. Other issues important to him, most likely can live with private/private, has issues with governance and transparency, doesn’t have details cuz its been said. Private/Private isn’t keep it simple, like the elegance, no details here, that is a fatal approach.

Satya Rhodes-Conway says we were handed a yes or no deal and appreciates a different option on the table. She thinks we should do what Soglin said, find a transitional model and under go a public process that should have happened when the building was built. We can’t influence structure, but we can the operations and perception in the community. Can’t support focus model as it stands. Can wrap head around taking on liability of the building and allowing operations to stay the same with the model that is not currently working. Interested in the private/private options with with caveat of concern for employees, if not for that, could support private/private. If we are going to put a large amount of money in we should be operating it or have a contractual relationship, but there is a level of control that goes with building and money put in that we would need to justify our investment. If spend $2.5M we should get back in return what we said, based on the priorities we said we had. She tried to map out top seven things. Sense of ownership from the whole community. Fair and equitable treatment for employees. Transparency, which is different if public or private. If private have to think about what should be public. Increased fundraising. Full participation of residence companies. Financial stability. Support from surrounding communities. That is a large ask and $2.5M might we able to buy that, that is where we should start talking. We should discuss what these items mean. She says we should have a contract, not really like community services, they don’t get that much money, you could say we are buying economic impact on downtown community or property values. What are we buying. If can overcome the staffing issue and come up with list of what we are buying she might be able to support it.

King says he supports Rhodes-Conway. When talk to constituent about the debate, it takes 30 minutes to get them anywhere in the conversation. Point number one, no sense of ownership in community, have to go though benefits and I told you sos. He wants to get to place where people value it. He’s not sure how we get there given how deep the hole is. Biggest sticking point is the fair and equitable treatment of the employees. On other points we will pollute it to the point where there are too many things in the agreement and no one will support it. He reiterates the staffing is what they really need to work on. He wants a process where not reinventing the wheel. At end of the day, how get a resolution, where not a sound bite, but not 30 minutes to explain. Begin with the end in mind.

Clear says 8:00, time check. Unresolved issues, sleep deprived, time scale we are dealing with. CCOC has to come to a resolution to propose to council. Is there a motion or another process.

MOTION
Schumacher doesn’t like the current wording but he proposes to move alternate forward in concept, he moves a private/private model and suggests they add to it.

Clear says that offers himself and Cnare to try to craft a second or substitute alternate that they could bring to the council that would express the sentiment of CCOC.

Schumacher says they can do more tonight, try to add friendly amendments, we could get some big blocks in there.

Clear says they could misinterpret issues.

Bruer asks if incorporate employee issues and then ask for leadership to do a revision?

They discuss process . . . and agree on how to proceed.

Rummel says we just spent $25K for consultant to give us a report, not prepared to do it, maybe we just through away 25K, still wants to see that report before she picks.

Schumacher says no recommendations and do it on the floor.

Verveer says that BOE will discuss on Monday.

More discussion on process.

Solomon says that Satya said much of what he was thinking. Whether go with public private or private private we still need to get at those issues, and that gets to Rummel’s concerns. It is not counterproductive to considering the study.

Schumacher agrees. He says the things they could cover will be in both models.

Cnare talked with City Attorney about how they could use the flip charts at the council meeting, they say they could use a projector.

They agree if they can do it in their rules.

Kerr suggests that the public/private model does not appear to have support of CCOC. Kerr suggests if they have amendment to alternate, get amendments in to clerk or Lisa and send them to the press.

Rummel wants to be clear, this is not a private/private model, it is a public/private model but we don’t own the building but we give a subsidy and it is a partnership. Don’t confuse normal use of words.

They agree it maybe should be called a partnership model.

Schumacher changes his motion, he likes idea of amendments at BOE. He moves the alternate, and asks to be added as a sponsor.

Cnare asks if we can send a cover email explaining they need to send amendments.

Kerr asks for a date, otherwise talking at 2:00 in the morning, making no sense, with no transparency. We have to put our names out there. They should submit amendments like at budget time.

Clear suggests that they should have a second sponsor. Kerr doesn’t, more discussion about process. They clarify that they need to change the date in the resolution. Monday is council agenda deadline cuz of Thanksgiving, so the need amendments by when? Discussing when they need to have them in. Close of business on Tuesday, distributed Wednesday, then 7 days to think about it. Clear says he will make the same motion at BOE.

Verveer asks Attorney May about negotiations. Will there be negotiations and who will be there, will alders be there?

May suggests that the attorney, council office or someone should talk to the other side to see what they have to say about the amendments. I think they just added that to the motion, but I kind of missed it.

Schumacher asks if came to agreement on the 30th, but need to go back to the parties, do they have December 14th as a way to confirm this. Verveer says they have to still renegotiate with the banks. He asks attorney May.

May says that they have until December 30th.

Schmidt says it would be a good faith show by the donors if they took the deadline off the table. We are setting ourselves up for marathon sessions in the next month and he wants to see it worked out. Stabilize it, the forebearance agreement is written to allow that to happen.

Kerr says that she is not in favor of kicking our amendments back to negotiating team and then have 201 State and negotiating team hammer them out. They an be submitted in writing, they can comment on them in an open process. If someone has an amendment and 201 decides it is not in their best interest, she doesn’t want that then pre-empted from coming to the floor. We should do what is right for their constituents not what is good for them.

Clear verifies that this would be the city’s last best effort.

Kerr says yes. We are accountable to a lot of people and not willing to give to negotiating team.

Schumacher says if council adopts the alternate, they don’t have a choice, we are not buying the building for $1, if they want the money they need to participate. It’s not a negotiating team, but a communications team, we can get feedback, they can lobby, but on November 30th, our decision, that is the package.

Clear says that we compile list of amendments, they are public, they give feedback and we make decision on the 30th.

Schumacher says if they can’t live with it, then go find someone else to buy the building for $1. He says not private/private but not government owned. The idea of a contract and standards gets modified, this isn’t a one time kick at the can. Right now our only risk is what will we pay for them to proceed.

Clear says resolution and list of amendments one by one.

Schumacher says they send out memo and make amendments by a drop dead deadline.

Solomon says should do what said, collect amendments and focus on best case – focus on larger issues. Not happy with certain things, and tell them they want alternatives. So if they agree to what we present, they pay off the debt on time and then we have more time for the details. If don’t agree, come back on December 14th and try to get to the point they can work with it. Play out the worst case scenarios, they don’t like one issue, Kerr says that is find, Solomon says it is not fine. We are on the hook for $6M. Would we let that happen over one or two issues, its irresponsible. He understands, we’re tired and have a timeline not of our making. We can use the process so we can get to a target we can live with.

Clear says that with advance amendments they would get feedback and people could vote.

Rummel says stuck on it, we should make the ask on the forbearance agreement. Could we also ask them to set aside the date. She says that we should ask.

Cnare says best and final answer take it or leave it stance. We had contentious negotiation and want to get past that. We attach conditions at Plan commission and then we ask the developer what they think. She thinks they should liberally suspend the rules to hear from them. Cnare asks about asking not to keep the dealine. Schmidt says it would be a good faith show by them. Cnare asks if that is a deal breaker. Schmidt says he is free on December 14th, he should have been at a conference.

Clear announces Compton won’t be there on the 30th.

[ok people, the horse is dead, stop beating it . . . seriously . . . why are they still talking . . . I think I hit the wall in my tolerance for pain after another 4 hours of meetings . . . apparently for some of the alders too, 1/3 of them have left – Bidar-Sielaff, Compton, Claussius, Rhodes-Conway and King]

Bruer talking . . . I’m not sure he has a point, just thanking people at this point . . . he talked for over 5 minutes and I hate to admit it, I totally tuned out.

Kerr apologizes about her flip comment. When the amendments come out, they can call us and they have to advocate with alders and they are capable of that. Its not brinkmanship but cognizant that this has been spun if you guys don’t accept this, the Overture goes dark. She’s off the council so its your problem, she just wants an open dialog, a fair and predictable conversation in a public setting. Alders can bring forward things they think are important.

Schumacher agrees, he has a rebellious streak and if you put a gun to me, I will react. I don’t like the fact that if we don’t do this, it will go dark on your watch. Not privy to the financial data, this is a high performing loan, banks more money when they are in default. He thinks they shouldn’t respond to that pressure. We are not that far away in getting a big deal. Big issues on staffing. Attorney May says if we don’t like something, we don’t have to pay and this will be repeated year after year. Not critical if November 30th or December 14th is the deadline. They have to decide how to move forward, if we choose not be buy the building, they decide what is next. He thinks that he is enjoying it despite the disagreements, it is remarkable how we have grown through this, for the first time we own the process instead of being told here little kids, accept it or go home. He says we all play different roles. The concilliator in Cnare, Historian in Bruer, but we didn’t exercise enough tough love. We are being tough and lovable.

Solomon responds to Bruer about skipping over the details. He doesn’t think they will accept paying off the debt, but lets ask. Instead of focusing on a last and best offer, if we have a series of things to negotiate more details that is ok. The only pressure is paying off the debt, we have time to negotiate the details.

Maniaci asks if we should bring nitty gritty detail things. How do we do it? Do we want to keep it simple?

Cnare says that we should have an amendment that says that “a contract that contains . . . .”

Solomon says we shouldn’t amend the language of the resolution.

Maniaci says that we should have a standard. She thinks that once the pay off the debt the council loses their bargaining chips.

Bruer (Clear says this is the last time you are talking right?), he talks about the confidentiality in the forbearance agreement, the banks profited greatly, there is a reason they don’t want us to know, especially with the banks. He talks about the olive branch they offered in good faith. Overture folks decided not to erase the debt, who all profited from that, the banks. The banks have been asking powerful people in the community – is this just another Edgewater where the city is going to blink. He is telling you on record, on camera, if the banks think we are going to blink, the banks need to be responsible, they profited on it, if they think they city doesn’t have the political will, you should pay attention, the city will not blink for the lobbyists out there. There could be a different model, they could try to close it but then they will have to subsidize it for millions even if it is closed and then who will want it. He hopes people in the room when they talk with the bank they should communicate they are at risk. If this becomes a public forum and the info becomes available, they have their own issues of accountability, do you want to talk about bank bailouts? That is why he has avoided referring to it as a bank bailout and I missed the rest.

Rummel is not voting for it. The only thing that changed is the buying the building. A lot of my constituents support Overture and want ti to be a public building I just couldn’t figure out how to do it. She wants more time, not two years, to get a successful facility.

Clear says motion is to advance the alternate resolution with process for compiling amendments, communicating the amendments and bringing those to council for consideration on November 30th and written guidance to alders.

Everyone but Marsha votes in support. They adjourn. 9:06.