Lots and lots of meetings this week, most not on the schedule yet. The meetings Sunday and Monday are on the weekly schedule, without the agenda, but there are here and here. Here’s some updates on the meeting on Friday, and plans for the council to meet on Thursday. And, a few not so smart moved by Overture folks.
UPDATE FROM FRIDAY
From: Clear, Mark
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 8:02 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: First meeting of council workgroup on Overture negotiationsDear Colleagues,
This afternoon/evening was the first meeting of the Overture workgroup which was created by the council on Wednesday morning.
Committee members are Alders Bidar-Sielaff, Cnare, Rhodes-Conway, Schumacher, Verveer and myself. We spent about 3 1/2 hours together–the first hour in open session, and the remainder in closed session. The overall tenor of the discussion was very positive and very productive.
During the first hour, we discussed each member’s goals for the workgroup and established a rough timeline. We identified the big topics that are still in discussion: who is the owner, who is the operator, what is the status of employees, what is the amount of and conditions on the city financial contribution, and transition date(s). We also identified areas in which there seems to be broad agreement.
We set additional meetings for noon on Sunday and 6pm on Monday. The Overture Parties have been invited to the Monday meeting, and the goal of our workgroup is to have some type of new offer to present to them at that meeting. We also learned that the Overture Parties are working on a new offer of their own, which I find encouraging as well.
We agreed that the date of 12/9, which we had polled about, should probably be a council discussion rather than a resumption of the council meeting which was recessed on Wednesday morning.
After this discussion, we went into closed session to begin discussing the issues in depth. We will continue that discussion on Sunday.
I will continue to keep you posted. Thank you all for your support.
Mark C.
AGENDAS FOR SUNDAY AND MONDAY
Sunday, December 5, 2010
12:00 PM COMMON COUNCIL PRESIDENT’S OVERTURE CENTER WORK GROUP ROOM 201 CCB
– No agenda available. But I have it, this is what it says:
* This meeting will go into closed session. *
* Possible quorum of the Common Council exists at this meeting. *
. . . . snip regular meeting notices in various languages . . . .For more information, contact Lisa Veldran, Administrative Assistant to the Council, (608) 266-4071 or lveldran@cityofmadison.com.
Work Group Members:
Ald. Mark Clear, Common Council President
Ald. Lauren Cnare, President Pro Tem
Ald. Mike Verveer, District 4
Ald. Shiva Bidar-Sielaff, District 5
Ald. Satya Rhodes-Conway, District 12
Ald. Michael Schumacher, District 181. Call to Order
2. Disclosures and Recusals – Members of the body should make any required disclosures or recusals under the City’s Ethics Code.
When the Common Council President’s Overture Center Work Group considers the following item, they will go into closed session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(e), Wisconsin Statutes, which reads as follows:
Deliberating or negotiating the purchasing of public properties, the investing of public funds or conducting other specified business, whenever competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session.If the Common Council President’s Overture Center Work Group convenes in closed session as described above, upon completion of the closed session, notice is hereby given that it may reconvene in open session to consider the following items without waiting 12 hours, pursuant to Wis. Sec. 19.85(2).
3. Legislative File No. 20248 – ALTERNATE RESOLUTION – Acknowledging private ownership and operation of the Overture Center, Establishing a City commitment to future grants to Overture subject to annual appropriation, and setting terms and conditions for such grants.
4. Adjourment.
Monday, December 6, 2010
6:00 PM COMMON COUNCIL PRESIDENT’S OVERTURE CENTER WORK GROUP ROOM 108 CCB
– No agenda, but I have it and its the same as Sunday.
OVERTURE’S FUNDRAISING LETTER
I guess they could send out their end of the year fundraising, without a decision by the council on Tuesday.
CENSORSHIP AT OVERTURE
Ohmigod . . . bad timing. Check this out. This doesn’t seem to be the way to show that they invite the community in.
MAYOR (I)PHONES IT IN, WATCHES PACKERS INSTEAD
From: Clear, Mark
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 11:30 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: From Mayor Dave re: Overture talksThe Mayor was having some technical difficulties and asked me to send this on his behalf. –Mark C.
———————-
From: Cieslewicz, Dave
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 9:10 PM
To: Clear, Mark
Subject: FW: Overture talksDear Colleagues,
Mark has brought me up to speed on your discussions. He tells me that the tone is very pragmatic and collegial. Thank you for that.
He also tells me that I am invited to be at your next meeting on Sunday at noon. However, he also points out that my attendance is not encouraged. I also want to thank you for that, I’ll console myself with the Packer – 49ers game and maybe a beer.
The council seems intent on taking ownership and responsibility for the Overture agreement. That’s admirable. Too often today public officials run from responsibility.
Given the council’s desire to be at the center of the solution, I shouldn’t presume to dictate the details.
But as mayor and as someone who must be party to the agreement I will offer some general principles for whatever proposal is offered. I doubt that these principles will meet with much disagreement.
First, the proposal should protect taxpayers. So, Mark’s suggestion in alternative 2 to limit the city’s contribution to $2 million net adjusted for inflation is very good. It essentially means that Madison taxpayer costs for operation and capital would not exceed
that of the old Civic Center. I would not support a higher amount.Second, the proposal must be acceptable to the donors. I am not interested in playing brinksmanship nor do I think it’s necessary or helpful. The donors have generously offered to retire Overture’s debt with no taxpayer dollars. And they have offered to do this without insisting on anything that I consider to be unreasonable.
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. Under alternative 1 every union employee would be virtually guaranteed a union job either
with 201 State or with the city at the employee’s discretion.Fourth, any proposal needs to have a good chance for success in the long-run. It has been generally conceded by all parties that the current MCAD set up with its related entities does not and cannot work. With some of its appointees coming from the county, which contributes nothing to Overture despite the fact that over half of those who attend Overture shows reside outside of the city, and from the state, which also contributes nothing and which will now make appointments originating with Scott Walker, MCAD is doomed to failure. Moreover, any proposal based on the notion that the new Republican governor and legislature will expand WRS is grounded in an optimism that I find breathtaking. Governance models in alternatives 1 & 2 seem best, though I agree that more city representation and more transparency than what appeared in the original alternative 1 might be appropriate. The bottom line is that the new governing entity, whatever it is, must be capable of raising about two million more dollars per year in the private sector. Any model that isn’t likely to accomplish that won’t be acceptable to me or the donors.
In summary, it seems to me that since the council’s own expert, hired and directed exclusively by the council with no polluting contacts from either the donors or myself, has concluded that the modified focus model offered as alternative 1 is more than workable in every respect, the council could adopt that alternative with some modifications as it’s own.
Nonetheless, we need to resolve this in the next few weeks. I am prepared to support any alternative or hybrid that meets the four broad principles above.
Best wishes on your discussions.
Sincerely,
Dave Cieslewicz
MayorSent from my iPhone
I thought the whole point of these talks was to have all parties there, to avoid the problems of side talks and deals.
Censorship? At Overture?
Go figure.
Davin,
Can you imagine the $#*&storm that would result if that Playgirl-worthy photo were put on display where children could see it? Yes, I agree that it has artistic merit, and that Americans are far too puritanical when it comes to depictions of the human body. However, knowing that a good portion of Madison’s residents have those puritanical sensibilities, and knowing that Overture needs the goodwill of the taxpayers right now as it seeks a bigger city subsidy for operations, I can understand why they panicked and pulled that photo from the display. The last thing they need is a right wing call for a boycott and defunding.