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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They can watch via video back in their offices. Often councilmembers do that when they want to keep tabs but also get other work done.

[Anonymous]

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

Yup. How do you know which number they are on? Is there a list of speakers available online?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Possibly, but is there any evidence the District didn't respond within 30 days? Even if they didn't, you can't generally extend an agreement beyond its term unless you do so under explicit terms- in this case it would have said something like "if the District does not respond within 30 days, the extension shall be deemed approved, and the term of the agreement shall be extended for the length of the requested extension, but in no circumstances any longer than nine additional years from the original termination date". Of course nothing like that is in there.

Note- not a lawyer, but work with agreements like this a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They can watch via video back in their offices. Often councilmembers do that when they want to keep tabs but also get other work done.

This is very common for long hearings. Often times there is only the chair of the committee for long stretches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yup. How do you know which number they are on? Is there a list of speakers available online?

Trayon just mentioned it.

[Anonymous]

Why do the Maret witnesses keep reciting their long resumes and personal accolades? It's so self-congratulatory.

[Anonymous]

I'd love to know the average household income of Maret's students. A million plus? Juxtaposing that with the repeated claims that this school is somehow not "an elite private school" would provide some fantastic comedy. These people live entirely in their own ridiculous reality . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to know the average household income of Maret's students. A million plus? Juxtaposing that with the repeated claims that this school is somehow not "an elite private school" would provide some fantastic comedy. These people live entirely in their own ridiculous reality . . .

And multiple Maret witnesses have tried to claim Hardy is a school for privileged! It's absolutely Trumpian in their projection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do the Maret witnesses keep reciting their long resumes and personal accolades? It's so self-congratulatory.

They also definitely got a set of talking points- the word "misinformation" has been used by every one of the 4 people I happened to listen to. Of course the key piece of information is the original contract, and they continue to point to the "expectation" that it would be renewed, when it was clearly at the discretion of the District.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to know the average household income of Maret's students. A million plus? Juxtaposing that with the repeated claims that this school is somehow not "an elite private school" would provide some fantastic comedy. These people live entirely in their own ridiculous reality . . .

Cutoff for financial aid is over $200K. Three quarters of families don't qualify.

[Anonymous]

"The integrity of the District of Columbia is on the line". Yes, it is. But for the exact opposite reason that the Maret boosters believe.

[Anonymous]

Marjo is now citing legal analysis related to the contract. This is actually the interesting part of the hearing. Her argument is that if the City backs out of the contract, the Council will be signaling that the city can not be relied to hold up other contracts.

Marjo claims that since the extension has been signed, it's a done deal. And yet they plead for the Council to not take action.

[Anonymous]

Multiple speakers mention Elizabeth Miller's WaPo op-ed. I can't find it online. Are they referring to the article in which she was quoted or did she really write an op-ed that has for some reason now disappeared?

[Anonymous]

The more the Maret folks talk the less I believe them or like them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Multiple speakers mention Elizabeth Miller's WaPo op-ed. I can't find it online. Are they referring to the article in which she was quoted or did she really write an op-ed that has for some reason now disappeared?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/local-opinions/dcs-parks-department-is-playing-for-the-wrong-team/2019/09/06/884e41c2-c808-11e9-be05-f76ac4ec618c_story.html

Miller is an excellent speaker. I kinda wish she was running for Jack Evans' seat instead of Kishan.