DCPS students shafted again - sign petition to keep Jelleff field public

[Anonymous]

What would happen to any Maret student that signed up to speak for the other side? I think we all know. Agree this is a truly sickening display that encapsulates everything is wrong with elite private schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Silverman:

"This isn't a contract, it's an easement. You couldn't get a 20 year contract because that would trigger a Council review. You've structured an easement with a 10 year period and a potential 9 year renewal in order to evade Council oversight.

My issue here is with the government and how they are handling this. We will get to that when DPR testifies."

When are they testifying?

I think they may be required to speak today.

[Anonymous]

We are just supposed to take Maret's word for it that they had a 19 year agreement? Where the heck is the documentation? This is laughable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are just supposed to take Maret's word for it that they had a 19 year agreement? Where the heck is the documentation? This is laughable.

That's a lie and they know it. The documentation has been available for months- the original contract. The contract made it clear that it was a 10 year agreement, and that it could be renewed in the last year of the agreement if Maret requested it, "solely at the discretion of the District". The District was under no contractual obligation to grant the renewal.

[Anonymous]

If you can't sign a contract for 19 years with the city because the city won't allow you to (or because you don't want to try because it would trigger scrutiny that would scuttle even a 10 year deal) and then you try to manufacture a de facto 19 year agreement through a backroom deal, you look rather silly then trying to claim the moral high ground.

[Anonymous]

What the hell is being smoked by these people complaining about a "dire shortage" of baseball fields in DC? The city is absolutely littered with them and they are barely used. Try to find a field to play soccer, football, lacrosse, rugby, or cricket and you'll know about a shortage!

I feel sorry for our elected officials who have to sit through hours of this inane garbage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are just supposed to take Maret's word for it that they had a 19 year agreement? Where the heck is the documentation? This is laughable.

That's a lie and they know it. The documentation has been available for months- the original contract. The contract made it clear that it was a 10 year agreement, and that it could be renewed in the last year of the agreement if Maret requested it, "solely at the discretion of the District". The District was under no contractual obligation to grant the renewal.

Here is the key part of the agreement where it refers to the possibility of extension:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/360/824200.page (22:33 post):

"6. Extension of the Term. In the event Grantee desires to extend the Term for an additional period of no more than nine (9) years (the "Renewal Term"), Grantee shall request such extension by giving written notice ("Extension Request") to the District not earlier than three hundred sixty-five (365) days or later than one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the initial Term. Within thirty (30) days following the District's receipt of the Extension Request, the District shall advise Grantee in writing whether it consents to such Renewal Term, which consent may be withheld or conditioned in the sole discretion of the District."

Emphasis added.

[Anonymous]

Snotty Maret parents complaining about DC not being ready for statehood or council members being double-booked really aren't making their side look good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Snotty Maret parents complaining about DC not being ready for statehood or council members being double-booked really aren't making their side look good.

Lots of Can I Speak to Your Manager energy here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are just supposed to take Maret's word for it that they had a 19 year agreement? Where the heck is the documentation? This is laughable.

That's a lie and they know it. The documentation has been available for months- the original contract. The contract made it clear that it was a 10 year agreement, and that it could be renewed in the last year of the agreement if Maret requested it, "solely at the discretion of the District". The District was under no contractual obligation to grant the renewal.

Here is the key part of the agreement where it refers to the possibility of extension:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/360/824200.page (22:33 post):

"6. Extension of the Term. In the event Grantee desires to extend the Term for an additional period of no more than nine (9) years (the "Renewal Term"), Grantee shall request such extension by giving written notice ("Extension Request") to the District not earlier than three hundred sixty-five (365) days or later than one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the initial Term. Within thirty (30) days following the District's receipt of the Extension Request, the District shall advise Grantee in writing whether it consents to such Renewal Term, which consent may be withheld or conditioned in the sole discretion of the District."

Emphasis added.

And what then happens if the city does it respond to the request for extension as required. It’s quite possible that the remainder of the contract provides an answer or, more likely, applicable government contract law. Is it possible that Maret has grounds to argue that, if the city failed to notify them that the city did not wish to renew the contract, that the renewal goes into effect?

[Anonymous]

FFS, can Elissa please just read these shills (like the current speaker) the damn contract and please ask them to specify where in that contract the city is obligated to renew the agreement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are just supposed to take Maret's word for it that they had a 19 year agreement? Where the heck is the documentation? This is laughable.

That's a lie and they know it. The documentation has been available for months- the original contract. The contract made it clear that it was a 10 year agreement, and that it could be renewed in the last year of the agreement if Maret requested it, "solely at the discretion of the District". The District was under no contractual obligation to grant the renewal.

Here is the key part of the agreement where it refers to the possibility of extension:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/360/824200.page (22:33 post):

"6. Extension of the Term. In the event Grantee desires to extend the Term for an additional period of no more than nine (9) years (the "Renewal Term"), Grantee shall request such extension by giving written notice ("Extension Request") to the District not earlier than three hundred sixty-five (365) days or later than one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the initial Term. Within thirty (30) days following the District's receipt of the Extension Request, the District shall advise Grantee in writing whether it consents to such Renewal Term, which consent may be withheld or conditioned in the sole discretion of the District."

Emphasis added.

And what then happens if the city does it respond to the request for extension as required. It’s quite possible that the remainder of the contract provides an answer or, more likely, applicable government contract law. Is it possible that Maret has grounds to argue that, if the city failed to notify them that the city did not wish to renew the contract, that the renewal goes into effect?

Possible, but unlikely. The idea of a one way option is normally clearly spelled out- if the requesting party meets a certain set of requirements (paid on time, not in default, etc) and requests the extension, the other party has to approve it. This is not that way at all. This is a two way option- both parties have to agree, and if they don't, the agreement expires on the previously agreed upon expiration date, in this case I believe June 30, 2020.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FFS, can Elissa please just read these shills (like the current speaker) the damn contract and please ask them to specify where in that contract the city is obligated to renew the agreement?

If you read between the lines with the pro-Maret witnesses, they are basically begging the city to not to overturn the agreement. They know they are in a precarious position, hence whey they are appealing

Also interesting: Jack Evans and Mary Cheh left the proceeding a while ago. Only White and Silverman remain as far as I can tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are just supposed to take Maret's word for it that they had a 19 year agreement? Where the heck is the documentation? This is laughable.

That's a lie and they know it. The documentation has been available for months- the original contract. The contract made it clear that it was a 10 year agreement, and that it could be renewed in the last year of the agreement if Maret requested it, "solely at the discretion of the District". The District was under no contractual obligation to grant the renewal.

Here is the key part of the agreement where it refers to the possibility of extension:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/360/824200.page (22:33 post):

"6. Extension of the Term. In the event Grantee desires to extend the Term for an additional period of no more than nine (9) years (the "Renewal Term"), Grantee shall request such extension by giving written notice ("Extension Request") to the District not earlier than three hundred sixty-five (365) days or later than one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the initial Term. Within thirty (30) days following the District's receipt of the Extension Request, the District shall advise Grantee in writing whether it consents to such Renewal Term, which consent may be withheld or conditioned in the sole discretion of the District."

Emphasis added.

And what then happens if the city does it respond to the request for extension as required. It’s quite possible that the remainder of the contract provides an answer or, more likely, applicable government contract law. Is it possible that Maret has grounds to argue that, if the city failed to notify them that the city did not wish to renew the contract, that the renewal goes into effect?

Possible, but unlikely. The idea of a one way option is normally clearly spelled out- if the requesting party meets a certain set of requirements (paid on time, not in default, etc) and requests the extension, the other party has to approve it. This is not that way at all. This is a two way option- both parties have to agree, and if they don't, the agreement expires on the previously agreed upon expiration date, in this case I believe June 30, 2020.

Actually, I don’t see that in the language. The city is given a fixed number of date to respond “whether” it wants the extension. It’s not like a clause with an explicit default resumption (for example, that there is no extension unless the city expressly agrees within a certain number of days). All to say it’s possible Maret may argue that the city failed to provide the required notice in response to Maret’s extension request, and that thus failure waived the city’s right to decline the extension request.

[Anonymous]

They are at 39 out of 121 speakers? This is going to go on all night . . .