Maybe. We’ll consider it.
Here’s Clear’s “plan B” email sent early this morning to the alders:
From: Clear, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 6:50 AM
To: ALL ALDERS
Cc: Cieslewicz, Dave; Piraino, Janet; May, Michael; Brasser, Dean; Carto, Thomas; ‘Joe Sensenbrenner’; baldwinohern@gmail.com; Chappell, Robert
Subject: A “Plan B” for OvertureDear Colleagues,
Like most of us, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the Overture decision that is soon to be before us. For weeks now I’ve been looking for a way to avoid a divisive, contentions debate on November 30th that, regardless of outcome, will leave Overture as an institution scarred and the community divided.
After some sleepless nights, I have come to the conclusion that the city should not buy the Overture Center, and that it should be owned and operated privately. I believe this model is in the best interests of the city and of Overture, and based on several of you with whom I’ve had a chance to speak, I believe that there is broad agreement across the council on this concept.
Until now, the private/private model has not been on the table. Nonetheless, on Friday I floated this “Plan B” to representatives of 201 State/MCAD and the donors, and after much discussion over the past few days, they are willing to work with us on such an alternative.
I am drafting a substitute resolution which I will introduce at CCOC on Thursday to reflect this change of plan. Briefly, I’m proposing that we decline the option to purchase, and instead offer a $2M grant each year, subject to appropriation. (This amount is the same as the estimated total cost to taxpayers that Dean Brasser calculated for “Plan A.”)
This is a significant change from “Plan A,” and we can use our time at CCOC on Thursday to discuss further how it might be structured.
I will forward the substitute resolution as soon as it’s available.
Thank you all for considering this during an already busy time.
Mark C.
And this is MCAD’s response, which I wonder how they had time to come up with a response in just an hour:
From: Chappell, Robert
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 7:43 AM
To: Carto, Thomas; Sanborn, Jed; Maniaci, Bridget; Cnare, Lauren; Verveer, Mike; Bidar-Sielaff, Shiva; Rummel, Marsha; King, Steve; Eagon, Bryon; Skidmore, Paul; Solomon, Brian; Schmidt, Chris; Rhodes-Conway,Satya; Kerr, Julia; Bruer, Tim; Palm, Larry; Compton, Judy; Clausius, Joe; Schumacher, Michael; Clear, Mark; Pham-Remmele, Thuy
Cc: lbo@isthmus.com; deirdrewgarton@yahoo.com; Piraino, Janet
Subject: MCAD response to Ald. Clear’s “Plan B for Overture”Alders:
Linda Baldwin, Chair of the Board of Madison Cultural Arts District, asked that I forward the following statement to you regarding Alder Clear’s substitute resolution on Overture Center.
Robert Chappell
Overture CenterWe appreciate Council’s leadership in bringing forward a new proposal to provide a sustainable future for the Overture Center. We will work with the city to consider this proposal as a potential resolution. Because the time constraints in the debt settlement still apply, we pledge to provide a timely examination of the issues with the council in order to come to a decision on November 30.
We continue to support the Focus Model as a comprehensive way forward, but understand that this is a complicated consideration for the city.
We share a mutual goal of providing a framework for the Overture Center to accomplish its mission of engaging the community in the arts.
-Linda Baldwin
Chair, MCAD
I really hate these carefully publicly orchestrated “deals” cooked behind closed doors.
I agree, Plan B could do a really rockin’ night club at Overture.
Hah! Well if they have to turn it over to someone, why not a place that knows how to put on a party?
I couldn’t care less if Alder Clear can’t get his beauty sleep.
I’m concerned about how this privatization he’s proposing – subsidized at $2 M/year by all of us – is going to affect the city employees at Overture.
And when the private entity fails – which it will because its interests are art for the few and private development for rich indivduals’ personal gain of the downtown area surrounding Overture and do not include art for everyone – who will be holding the bag to keep Overture from closing? Of course, the City of Madison – you and I – will.
The City – you and I – would be much better off biting the bullet, kicking private parties with their anti-labor and private-gain agendas out of control of Overture, and transforming the place into a vibrant art center attractive to everyone in Madison and the surrounding region. I’d much rather pay for that than subsidize private interests – like Clear wants to – to screw labor, leverage their control of Overture to develop the surrounding area for their personal gain, and maintain Overture to primarily satisfy their elitist interest in faux art.