Re: Points for Memo I am writing tonight

From:john.podesta@gmail.com To: cheryl.mills@gmail.com Date: 2012-01-04 18:25 Subject: Re: Points for Memo I am writing tonight

Anything new? On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com> wrote: > John > > Happy Christmas! > > I am going to rry you today -- below is traffic in which CVC shares her > reaction to a set of points I did that will be the basis for the memo > paradigm. I will forward you the points separately so you have both her > thoughts/reactions as well as the outline. > > best. > > cdm > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Anna James <aj66@nyu.edu> > Date: Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 9:40 AM > Subject: Re: Points for Memo I am writing tonight > To: Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com> > > > Thank you Cheryl. I agree with the below. I think the initial announcement > and behavior in the first couple of months is critical to instituting new > norms - and protecting my father and the non-profit status of the > foundation. In some ways this being 2012 and Justin/ Doug perhaps supporting > Dad more in his political work and not at all in his Foundation work, may > make it an easier transition. The transition itself is contingent on having > the right policies / protocols and people following them (and their being > consequences - even rebuking - when not). I think given the respect John > has engendered at the Foundation already and the fact he is 'new' would > position him to deliver the messaging credibly, particularly if Bruce is > there as well (in person, on the email, on the signature of the memo > -whatever the right mechanisms are) - both to the 'senior' team (as defined > and those who see themselves as such) and to the broader Foundation/ CGI/ > AHG/ CHAI etc. > Before that happens, I think its important the corporate audit feedback > happen - it would be great if in the first week or two of January John could > have another meeting - with or without Victoria and Jennifer - with both the > senior team and the whole staff of the Foundation (and however best to > incorporate CGI etc too) to announce the high level results and > recommendations .I think it is crucial that happen first. > Separately, do you think its worth me reaching out to Doug and Justin > (distinctly)? I really want to have a good relationship with both for all > the reasons we've discussed - and I certainly want it to be clear, if > helpful, why I thought a professional process was so important (ie to > disintermediate myself so I wasn't just hearing crazy stuff). If you do > think that's a good idea, do you think its something that would be more > appropriate (and with a higher degree of success) before or after all of the > above? > Thanks Cheryl. Hope you're having a good holiday week - its beautiful here. > Chelsea > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Yes >> >> This frame basically requires a new strong COS as point of input for >> their advice/action (besides your father) -- it then is role of that >> COS to translate that advice if relevant to any other activity. >> >> Most importantly, it separates the non-profit activity from having >> blended employees w/ divided loyalties - non-profit activity would be >> driven by those with dedicated foundation accountability. >> >> Other activity (political, for-profit, personal) is activity for which >> the president needs support and for which he would need to pay >> personally; a dedicated PO team/infrastructure will be most >> cost-efficient as he spend more than half of his allocated time in >> these activities if you recall the pie chart (likely more this coming >> year w/ the campaign). >> >> This structure would - as all changes would - require associated >> rollout of announcement of their transition/moving on from serving as >> consultants/employees of foundation - w/ as we discussed clear >> guidance as to whom foundation and other folks direct those ques they >> used to direct to them. >> >> What else do you think might help address the overlapping >> accountabilities that exist now (or muddle) in a transparent fashion? >> I would welcome other thoughts you have to help drive the >> organizational and behavior modifications necessary to create clean >> clear lines, recognizing this memo will focus on ways of dealing w/ >> all the president's activity (and when and where doug/justin provide >> needed input) - the Foundation entity itself will have to have >> internal organizational changes to get the leadership support and >> structure it needs for the future. >> >> Thoughts? >> Cdm >> >> On 12/29/11, aj66@nyu.edu <aj66@nyu.edu> wrote: >> > Thank you Cheryl. Just back from card playing so I am sorry to be >> > responding >> > so belatedly. I worry the below recreates the existing muddle unless >> > there >> > is a strong chief of staff for whom Doug and Justin would work as >> > consultants and who would be (ie the chief of stAff) the only >> > authoritative >> > voice to the CF, CGI, AHG etc. >> > >> > ----- >> > From: Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com> >> > Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 17:36:02 >> > To: Anna James<aj66@nyu.edu> >> > Subject: Points for Memo I am writing tonight >> > >> > Chelsea >> > >> > Hope DR is warm and sunny! >> > >> > Attached are key points I think for the memo I am going to try to draft >> > tonight and tomorrow using this frame as a reference. >> > >> > Welcome your comments and edits. >> > >> > cdm >> > >> > >> >> -- >> Sent from my mobile device > > >