They like the Mark Clear/Lauren Cnare version, with some amendments. They don’t like the labor supported Chris Schmidt/Shiva Bidar-Sielaff version. This is getting confusing . . .
Here’s the Clear/Cnare version or here. Also sponsored by Tim Bruer, Michael Schumacher and Joseph
R. Clausius. And the 11/18 version.
And the amendments. Also here.
And the Bidar-Sielaff/Schmidt version.
Lauren Cnare and Mike Verveer Shiva Bidar-Sielaff will be on WORT with me today at noon to hopefully further clarify what’s going on and answer your questions. 256-2001.
I bolded a few comments of interest. The original document is here.
November 29, 2010
Friends:
Let us begin by thanking the members of the Common Council for their commitment to the arts in the region. A willingness to make a financial commitment recognizes the importance of Overture Center to the economic and creative health of our remarkable community.
As operating and fundraising boards for Overture Center for ten years, we know that the current model is fatally flawed. We continue to support the Focus Model as having the best chance for the sustainability of Overture Center. The City as the owner and caretaker of the building with its ability to finance capital improvements creates a solid base from which the nonprofit can operate Overture in a way that is responsive to the community both in terms of programming and accountability.
We understand that the Common Council has concerns about the risks associated with ownership. Our primary motivation is to find a secure future for Overture Center. The preliminary financial analysis of the Clear/Cnare model as compared to the Focus Model imposes greater fundraising goals on Overture that will compete with other worthy community causes. Nevertheless, with the changes that we have outlined in the attached Responses to the Amendments to the Clear/Cnare model, we believe we could manage to success with it.
The Overture boards are unable to support the most recent Alternate Resolution proffering a public authority model. It continues the current flawed model. Having leadership and staff that isn’t hired, fired, directed, and evaluated by the operating entity’s governing board leads back into the many challenges we now experience with the MCAD/201/City Employee arrangement. The cost of the option is therefore dramatically high, and does not provide much return. An ability to change Wisconsin Statutes to solve the WRS problem is speculative and would be a long term task. MCAD and 201 State do not have the underlying reserves to continue the current operation. Furthermore, without the finality of a decision, the ability of the organization to fundraise and drive increased activity is significantly compromised.
Attached please find specific responses that the Overture Boards (Madison Cultural Arts District and 201 State Foundation) have crafted to the Amendments to the Alternate Resolution offered by Alders Clear and Cnare.
In responding to the amendments, the boards have recommitted themselves to three important concepts. The first is to community programming and input. In 2008, Overture refused to cut free and low cost programming as advocated by some. That part of the mission was, is and will be fundamental to our legitimacy in Madison and the region.
We welcome the opportunity to engage the community more deeply in a strategic planning process. We commit to completing such a plan with broad community input by December 31, 2011. We also commit to create a Community Advisory Board that will regularly meet and report to the Board on recommendations for further community engagement.
The second is to transparency. The Boards will follow the example of our local non-profits such as the Goodman Center and the Children’s Museum and adopt by laws that require public meetings of the Board and public notice of those meetings through Overture’s communication network. (See responses to Amendment 12.) We also support having two mayoral appointees to the Board and an appointee from the resident companies. (See responses to Amendments 5.3.)
In addition, Overture will publish broadly to the city and the community an annual plan for programming and fundraising as reflected in the budget. Overture will also publish an Annual Report that describes and explains our successes and challenges. (See responses to Amendment 4, 5.4, and 10.)
The third is financial responsibility. If the Common Council decides to put the economic burden of Overture on the non-profit, then Overture needs the flexibility to manage its economic affairs in the context of the larger, shifting market. We plan to use industry best practices and industry standards including programming flexibility (See response to Amendment 16.) as well as industry standards for wages and benefits. (See response to Amendment 20.) If the City seeks to defer the risks and variable costs associated with ownership, it must also pass along the authority and autonomy to the entity or entities that take on those risks.
One issue that has not been raised but is critical to the Overture parties including donors is concurrence by the City and the Overture boards with the recorded Deed Restriction (Document # 4123848) placing restrictions on the naming or identifying of areas within Overture Center for the Arts and an agreement to not seek an amendment to such deed restriction in the future.
In their meeting tonight, the Boards agreed that they would not oppose an extension of the Common Council discussion until December 14, 2010 if the donors of the debt retirement funds do not object.
In conclusion, the Boards have appreciated the evolution of this debate over the last six months. Lines of communication have opened that must stay open. Greater appreciation of the constraints and goals for the City, the Common Council and Overture helps to create a platform to create a sustainable future for Overture Center for the Arts. That is the goal that all can support.
Sincerely,
Linda Baldwin O’Hern
Chair, MCAD BoardDierdre Wilson Garton
Chair, 201 State Foundation BoardMembers of the MCAD Board
Members of the 201 State Foundation Board
Amendment responses are in the next post.
