Subject: Fwd: Points for Memo I am writing tonight
From: Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:57:18 -0500

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 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Points for Memo I am writing tonight
To: Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>

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 <[email-masked]>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, [email-masked] <[email-masked]> 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.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>
> > Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 17:36:02
> > To: Anna James<[email-masked]>
> > 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
>