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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How dumb are you? This is language from Maret's original contact with DPR:

"The term of this Agreement (the “Term”) shall commence on the date hereof (the“Commencement Date”) and expire on June 29, 2020 (the “Expiration Date”)."

The poster isn't dumb. They're most likely someone associated with Maret who is intentionally lying and misrepresenting the facts in order to try and deflect from Maret's shady and corrupt relationship with Jack Evans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DP, I disagree. The Hardy student body has changed, so the Hardy PTO is more so "saving" their own mostly white kids.

The point of the last poster was just that Maret was able to have outsized influence a decade ago because the Hardy student body was mostly low SES, minority, and spread out around the city. Now with demographics changing and more IB kids at Hardy, Maret isn't finding it so easy to get their way.

I have nothing to do with either school, just an observer of the last few pages of this thread.

But in the articles in the post and elsewhere I keep reading about the black and brown kids locked in the detention cages below Jelleff, forced to subsist on old jock straps discarded by their bettors!
You mean they buried the lede about this being about the most affluent PTO trying to curry more favor for their kids who they didn't want to send to private school?
My Word!!!


Somebody better tell Silverman... she'll want to know about that corruption before her kids start and she joins that swamp.

I mean, the title of this sub is " DCPS students shafted again..." maybe we should call it " WARD 2 PTO lobbies for more space "

You’re bad at this. Please stop.

The PP is not bad at this. She/he is right. For the first 100 pages, the 4-5 Hardy parent trolls railed about how the poor black and brown kids have been shafted by this deal when in fact, the student body at Hardy has changed, and it is the rich white parents of Hardy that are trying to get a sweet deal for their own rich white kids. They don't actually care about the low SES student body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that the hearing video from Monday has yet to be posted. Other hearings held since have already made it online. I hope it's just because it was a long hearing and uploading is more involved. I really hope it's not because powerful people who don't want to have their testimony revealed are trying to keep it from being published.

Ian Cameron in particular made an was of himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that the hearing video from Monday has yet to be posted. Other hearings held since have already made it online. I hope it's just because it was a long hearing and uploading is more involved. I really hope it's not because powerful people who don't want to have their testimony revealed are trying to keep it from being published.

Ian Cameron in particular made an was of himself.

I wouldn't read anything into any minor delay. The Council is good overall about posting documents and videos. Give it a few more days- didn't the hearing end up being 10 hours long or something like that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The PP is not bad at this. She/he is right. For the first 100 pages, the 4-5 Hardy parent trolls railed about how the poor black and brown kids have been shafted by this deal when in fact, the student body at Hardy has changed, and it is the rich white parents of Hardy that are trying to get a sweet deal for their own rich white kids. They don't actually care about the low SES student body.

The poor black kids were given the shaft in 2009. As is so often the case in DC, unfortunately, poor black people don't get listened to by their government.

I bet you Maret boosters wish you could go back to ignoring the interests of poor black kids at Hardy and the B&GC at Jelleff. It must be really hard for you to hear "no" for once in your life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PP is not bad at this. She/he is right. For the first 100 pages, the 4-5 Hardy parent trolls railed about how the poor black and brown kids have been shafted by this deal when in fact, the student body at Hardy has changed, and it is the rich white parents of Hardy that are trying to get a sweet deal for their own rich white kids. They don't actually care about the low SES student body.

The poor black kids were given the shaft in 2009. As is so often the case in DC, unfortunately, poor black people don't get listened to by their government.

I bet you Maret boosters wish you could go back to ignoring the interests of poor black kids at Hardy and the B&GC at Jelleff. It must be really hard for you to hear "no" for once in your life.

+1, it seems the families back in 2009 didn't have the resources or pull to launch an effective campaign against the Maret deal. Now that Maret faces a more formidable opponent, looks like they're throwing every argument out there and hoping something sticks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DP, I disagree. The Hardy student body has changed, so the Hardy PTO is more so "saving" their own mostly white kids.

The point of the last poster was just that Maret was able to have outsized influence a decade ago because the Hardy student body was mostly low SES, minority, and spread out around the city. Now with demographics changing and more IB kids at Hardy, Maret isn't finding it so easy to get their way.

I have nothing to do with either school, just an observer of the last few pages of this thread.

But in the articles in the post and elsewhere I keep reading about the black and brown kids locked in the detention cages below Jelleff, forced to subsist on old jock straps discarded by their bettors!
You mean they buried the lede about this being about the most affluent PTO trying to curry more favor for their kids who they didn't want to send to private school?
My Word!!!


Somebody better tell Silverman... she'll want to know about that corruption before her kids start and she joins that swamp.

I mean, the title of this sub is " DCPS students shafted again..." maybe we should call it " WARD 2 PTO lobbies for more space "

You’re bad at this. Please stop.

The PP is not bad at this. She/he is right. For the first 100 pages, the 4-5 Hardy parent trolls railed about how the poor black and brown kids have been shafted by this deal when in fact, the student body at Hardy has changed, and it is the rich white parents of Hardy that are trying to get a sweet deal for their own rich white kids. They don't actually care about the low SES student body.

Taxpayers own the city fields and taxpayers pay for city schools. It is absurd and wasteful for taxpayers to lease away that land to a private school. You are free to send your kid to the public school and have them play on the city fields we ALL PAY FOR but my kid can’t even look on the fields at the gated maret. Don’t be greedy.

[Anonymous]

Don't be greedy. LMAO. Too late for that from the Maret crew and especially Muriel Bowser and Jack Evans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

1. Here are the rules that were in place for PPPs when Maret and DPR negotiated the original deal. They didn't adhere to the laws, particularly as it relates to public disclosure and annual audit: https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/sections/2-273.06.html

That's as of 2014. Try again.

Anonymous wrote:
2. The renewal WOULD be subject to the new regs applied to the PPPs. Maret does not get to continue their original 10 year agreement under the old rules on PPPs. The renewal should have been open to a public RFP process to see if DC could get a better deal. Further, the renewal should include a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis.

You seem so certain. DPR seems to disagree. Maybe you should discuss that with them. They are not here, and I am not them.

Anonymous wrote:
4. The Elllington field has never been "slated for Hardy." It is owned and controlled by Ellington at this time; funds for maintenance comes out of the Ellington budget. Bowser is trying to transfer the property to DPR. There is no guarantee at this time that Hardy will get access to Ellington. Further, no monies have been allocated by the DC government for a renovation of Ellington field.

DPR seems to disagree on that point too. Gordon Jr High used to occupy that building and used that field. It seems like a DCPS -DCPS deal would have a much lower hurdle though. I wonder how much Georgetown University has invested and still cares about it.

Anonymous wrote:
5. The DC government paid over $15 million for the Jelleff land using debt. Taxpayer funds are used annually to service that debt. I'm not sure why you are conflating DPR with "paying for Jelleff." It doesn't matter. Taxpayers are paying so Maret can use the field - the debt service plus the costs to transport Hardy, SWW, and other public/charter students around the city for practices and games at the cost of $800/bus ride. That's insane.

Using your numbers, DC made a sweet investment. They still own the land, and make generous use of it.
If taxpayers are concerned about the rates the DPR charges, to see a higher ROI, then they should adjust their rates across the board. Just explain that and I'm sure everyone will agree.
If DCPS wants to buy and maintain athletic fields, they can go and do it. Just have the Hardy PTO talk to them.
Bus rates are not material to this either. If every school in every ward pays that rate, then that sounds like a legitimate complaint. who has that sweetheart contract?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maret followed the agreement as did the District.

That agreement has now expired and Maret was expecting a wink-wink deal for an extension due to corrupt politicians like Jack Evans.

They will probably get their way and are now mad that we are pointing out the corruption and that Maret is screwing over DC students.

That agreement doesn't expire until 2029.
The agreement had an extension clause. An extension is not a new agreement.

"The term of this Agreement (the “Term”) shall commence on the date hereof (the“Commencement Date”) and expire on June 29, 2020 (the “Expiration Date”)."

Oh snap. But by all means, PP above, don't let facts and actual contract language inconveniently derail your fictional spin act.

Where is the link to the contract? I don't have the time that you apparently do.

"Oh snap"? lol.. I hope there was a neck swivel too...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PP is not bad at this. She/he is right. For the first 100 pages, the 4-5 Hardy parent trolls railed about how the poor black and brown kids have been shafted by this deal when in fact, the student body at Hardy has changed, and it is the rich white parents of Hardy that are trying to get a sweet deal for their own rich white kids. They don't actually care about the low SES student body.

The poor black kids were given the shaft in 2009. As is so often the case in DC, unfortunately, poor black people don't get listened to by their government.

I bet you Maret boosters wish you could go back to ignoring the interests of poor black kids at Hardy and the B&GC at Jelleff. It must be really hard for you to hear "no" for once in your life.

+1, it seems the families back in 2009 didn't have the resources or pull to launch an effective campaign against the Maret deal. Now that Maret faces a more formidable opponent, looks like they're throwing every argument out there and hoping something sticks.

You sound like the true hero of this story. Do you also do this for children that aren't your own and don't look like you?
We really need to make sure that the Nobel committee is aware of Silverman's efforts.
Has anyone contacted the Vatican too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maret followed the agreement as did the District.

That agreement has now expired and Maret was expecting a wink-wink deal for an extension due to corrupt politicians like Jack Evans.

They will probably get their way and are now mad that we are pointing out the corruption and that Maret is screwing over DC students.

That agreement doesn't expire until 2029.
The agreement had an extension clause. An extension is not a new agreement.

"The term of this Agreement (the “Term”) shall commence on the date hereof (the“Commencement Date”) and expire on June 29, 2020 (the “Expiration Date”)."

Oh snap. But by all means, PP above, don't let facts and actual contract language inconveniently derail your fictional spin act.

Where is the link to the contract? I don't have the time that you apparently do.

"Oh snap"? lol.. I hope there was a neck swivel too...

Has been posted multiple times in this thread. This is not the full, final agreement- it's the initial MOA, but the term language is the same- page 4 of 17.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ycNlJMWbHeYHXEp05bI--O3JMLhAflAT/view

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. Here are the rules that were in place for PPPs when Maret and DPR negotiated the original deal. They didn't adhere to the laws, particularly as it relates to public disclosure and annual audit: https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/sections/2-273.06.html

That's as of 2014. Try again.

Anonymous wrote:
2. The renewal WOULD be subject to the new regs applied to the PPPs. Maret does not get to continue their original 10 year agreement under the old rules on PPPs. The renewal should have been open to a public RFP process to see if DC could get a better deal. Further, the renewal should include a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis.

You seem so certain. DPR seems to disagree. Maybe you should discuss that with them. They are not here, and I am not them.

Anonymous wrote:
4. The Elllington field has never been "slated for Hardy." It is owned and controlled by Ellington at this time; funds for maintenance comes out of the Ellington budget. Bowser is trying to transfer the property to DPR. There is no guarantee at this time that Hardy will get access to Ellington. Further, no monies have been allocated by the DC government for a renovation of Ellington field.

DPR seems to disagree on that point too. Gordon Jr High used to occupy that building and used that field. It seems like a DCPS -DCPS deal would have a much lower hurdle though. I wonder how much Georgetown University has invested and still cares about it.

Anonymous wrote:
5. The DC government paid over $15 million for the Jelleff land using debt. Taxpayer funds are used annually to service that debt. I'm not sure why you are conflating DPR with "paying for Jelleff." It doesn't matter. Taxpayers are paying so Maret can use the field - the debt service plus the costs to transport Hardy, SWW, and other public/charter students around the city for practices and games at the cost of $800/bus ride. That's insane.

Using your numbers, DC made a sweet investment. They still own the land, and make generous use of it.
If taxpayers are concerned about the rates the DPR charges, to see a higher ROI, then they should adjust their rates across the board. Just explain that and I'm sure everyone will agree.
If DCPS wants to buy and maintain athletic fields, they can go and do it. Just have the Hardy PTO talk to them.
Bus rates are not material to this either. If every school in every ward pays that rate, then that sounds like a legitimate complaint. who has that sweetheart contract?

If Maret would like to pay the subsidized rate and have the same rights to the field as every other DC resident then that is fine. But if they want exclusivity then they have to cover all the costs associated with this deal, $7.5+ million.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PP is not bad at this. She/he is right. For the first 100 pages, the 4-5 Hardy parent trolls railed about how the poor black and brown kids have been shafted by this deal when in fact, the student body at Hardy has changed, and it is the rich white parents of Hardy that are trying to get a sweet deal for their own rich white kids. They don't actually care about the low SES student body.

The poor black kids were given the shaft in 2009. As is so often the case in DC, unfortunately, poor black people don't get listened to by their government.

I bet you Maret boosters wish you could go back to ignoring the interests of poor black kids at Hardy and the B&GC at Jelleff. It must be really hard for you to hear "no" for once in your life.

+1, it seems the families back in 2009 didn't have the resources or pull to launch an effective campaign against the Maret deal. Now that Maret faces a more formidable opponent, looks like they're throwing every argument out there and hoping something sticks.

You sound like the true hero of this story. Do you also do this for children that aren't your own and don't look like you?
We really need to make sure that the Nobel committee is aware of Silverman's efforts.
Has anyone contacted the Vatican too?

PP here. Your comments are bizarre. I'm just a bystander and have no dog in this particular fight. You're not really helping Maret's case, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
According to the testimony by DPR, the timeline was more like:

2008: BGC was broke and needed to be bailed out. No one would buy them. So DC bought them. The facilities were unusable for any regulation sports, and largely derelict.

2009: DC struck a deal with Maret to renovate and maintain the facilities for 10 years with a further 10 year option if Maret proved to be "Good Partners" Silverman asked DPR what defined a "good partner" and DPR responded "If they upheld their end of the deal" I understood that to mean that if Maret let the field go to blight, DPR could end the contract.

The only witness from DPR was the director, Delano Hunter. He did not testify anything of the kind.

There were lots of Maret affiliates who repeated these talking points, but with no support.

Anonymous wrote:
2019: In the agreed upon time frame, Maret basically went to DPR and DPR agreed that they had been "good partners" and signed the papers to extend to the originally agreed 2029 date if Maret put in a little more money to redo the fields and help renovate the clubhouse.

If the deal was as you said, why was DC able to insist that Maret "put in a little more money?" That wasn't part of the deal. And if DC can ask Maret to put in a little more, why can't they ask for a lot more? Wouldn't it benefit the taxpayers to get as much as possible? Isn't that their duty?