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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If the facts were on their side, the Maret boosters would be pounding the facts. Instead they're throwing mud everywhere trying to obscure what's going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

"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

And the easement (which is the recorded document that controls) can be found on the Recorder of Deeds site.

https://otr.cfo.dc.gov/service/recorder-deeds-document-images

Document # 2010001187
Can also search by square and lot: square 1299, lot 0041

That's where the extension language is listed.

Not an attorney, but do work with them a good amount on these types of agreements. I am pretty sure an extension under a new set of terms would be functionally considered a new contract, and thus fall under the purview of DC laws in effect as of August 2019 when the extension was executed. So the various contracting rules enacted in 2014 would apply. But again, not a lawyer, not a full contracts or DC law expert. It will be up to OAG and possibly DC Superior Court to determine that if the Council challenges the validity of the extension contract. Would very much like to see the OAG or MOLC (Mayor's Office of Legal Counsel) legal review memo that should have been drafted before this extension was executed, and if it speaks to this point. It will likely be a (the?) major point of discussion as to the validity of the District's signature on the extension- if they didn't go through the proper procedures in sourcing and approving the contract/extension, then they didn't have the legal authority to execute it on the District's behalf, and it is void.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Selective hearing. I heard that. you didn't.... let the recording clarify.
Can we agree that if he said it, then it is true? I'm guessing that won't satisfy you though.

DPR does not have a duty to maximize revenue. They'd raise their rates if they did.
They also don't have a duty to provide space for DCPS above all other concerns, which seems to bother everyone here.

[Anonymous]

^^ DPR has zero, nada, zip responsibility to provide space for Maret sports teams.

The city does have responsibility to provide adequate facilities for public schools, and DPR is part of city government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Selective hearing. I heard that. you didn't.... let the recording clarify.
Can we agree that if he said it, then it is true? I'm guessing that won't satisfy you though.

DPR does not have a duty to maximize revenue. They'd raise their rates if they did.
They also don't have a duty to provide space for DCPS above all other concerns, which seems to bother everyone here.

According to DPR's rules, they do have a duty to provide space for DCPS above all other concerns (see except from permit handbook below for its priority list). The only reason Maret has a "written agreement" is that it and DPR violated the rules for establishing public/private partnerships in actions this summer. Otherwise it would be next on the list, under "Youth non-profit organizations, including schools, principally serving District residents".

• DPR sponsored activities;
• Partners with written agreements;
• Athletic programs organized by DCPS, District Public Charter Schools, or the DCSAA for competitive league play (games only);
• Youth non-profit organizations, including schools, principally serving District residents
• Adult non-profit organizations principally serving District residents;
• Other organizations, groups, or individuals for private use that are based in the District; and then others; and
• Organizations that “principally serve District residents” are defined as organizations with over 75% of participants residing in DC. Rosters or other proof of residency may be required to obtain permit.

https://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/page_content/attachments/DPR%20Permit%20Handbook%20Final%20.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Selective hearing. I heard that. you didn't.... let the recording clarify.
Can we agree that if he said it, then it is true? I'm guessing that won't satisfy you though.

DPR does not have a duty to maximize revenue. They'd raise their rates if they did.
They also don't have a duty to provide space for DCPS above all other concerns, which seems to bother everyone here.

According to DPR's rules, they do have a duty to provide space for DCPS above all other concerns (see except from permit handbook below for its priority list). The only reason Maret has a "written agreement" is that it and DPR violated the rules for establishing public/private partnerships in actions this summer. Otherwise it would be next on the list, under "Youth non-profit organizations, including schools, principally serving District residents".

• DPR sponsored activities;
• Partners with written agreements;
• Athletic programs organized by DCPS, District Public Charter Schools, or the DCSAA for competitive league play (games only);
• Youth non-profit organizations, including schools, principally serving District residents
• Adult non-profit organizations principally serving District residents;
• Other organizations, groups, or individuals for private use that are based in the District; and then others; and
• Organizations that “principally serve District residents” are defined as organizations with over 75% of participants residing in DC. Rosters or other proof of residency may be required to obtain permit.

https://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/page_content/attachments/DPR%20Permit%20Handbook%20Final%20.pdf

Actually they'd be under "other organizations" because they don't "principally serve district residents".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Selective hearing. I heard that. you didn't.... let the recording clarify.
Can we agree that if he said it, then it is true? I'm guessing that won't satisfy you though.

DPR does not have a duty to maximize revenue. They'd raise their rates if they did.
They also don't have a duty to provide space for DCPS above all other concerns, which seems to bother everyone here.

According to DPR's rules, they do have a duty to provide space for DCPS above all other concerns (see except from permit handbook below for its priority list). The only reason Maret has a "written agreement" is that it and DPR violated the rules for establishing public/private partnerships in actions this summer. Otherwise it would be next on the list, under "Youth non-profit organizations, including schools, principally serving District residents".

• DPR sponsored activities;
• Partners with written agreements;
• Athletic programs organized by DCPS, District Public Charter Schools, or the DCSAA for competitive league play (games only);
• Youth non-profit organizations, including schools, principally serving District residents
• Adult non-profit organizations principally serving District residents;
• Other organizations, groups, or individuals for private use that are based in the District; and then others; and
• Organizations that “principally serve District residents” are defined as organizations with over 75% of participants residing in DC. Rosters or other proof of residency may be required to obtain permit.

https://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/page_content/attachments/DPR%20Permit%20Handbook%20Final%20.pdf

Actually they'd be under "other organizations" because they don't "principally serve district residents".

Good point!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

According to DPR's rules, they do have a duty to provide space for DCPS above all other concerns (see except from permit handbook below for its priority list). The only reason Maret has a "written agreement" is that it and DPR violated the rules for establishing public/private partnerships in actions this summer. Otherwise it would be next on the list, under "Youth non-profit organizations, including schools, principally serving District residents".

• DPR sponsored activities;
• Partners with written agreements;
• Athletic programs organized by DCPS, District Public Charter Schools, or the DCSAA for competitive league play (games only);
• Youth non-profit organizations, including schools, principally serving District residents
• Adult non-profit organizations principally serving District residents;
• Other organizations, groups, or individuals for private use that are based in the District; and then others; and
• Organizations that “principally serve District residents” are defined as organizations with over 75% of participants residing in DC. Rosters or other proof of residency may be required to obtain permit.

https://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/page_content/attachments/DPR%20Permit%20Handbook%20Final%20.pdf

Actually they'd be under "other organizations" because they don't "principally serve district residents".

Good point!

Um.. let's talk about how numbers work. #3 is not "above all concerns"
And By your own admission Maret would be #2.

I think you mean the British School when you refer to falling under "Other"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

According to DPR's rules, they do have a duty to provide space for DCPS above all other concerns (see except from permit handbook below for its priority list). The only reason Maret has a "written agreement" is that it and DPR violated the rules for establishing public/private partnerships in actions this summer. Otherwise it would be next on the list, under "Youth non-profit organizations, including schools, principally serving District residents".

• DPR sponsored activities;
• Partners with written agreements;
• Athletic programs organized by DCPS, District Public Charter Schools, or the DCSAA for competitive league play (games only);
• Youth non-profit organizations, including schools, principally serving District residents
• Adult non-profit organizations principally serving District residents;
• Other organizations, groups, or individuals for private use that are based in the District; and then others; and
• Organizations that “principally serve District residents” are defined as organizations with over 75% of participants residing in DC. Rosters or other proof of residency may be required to obtain permit.

https://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/page_content/attachments/DPR%20Permit%20Handbook%20Final%20.pdf

Actually they'd be under "other organizations" because they don't "principally serve district residents".

Good point!

Um.. let's talk about how numbers work. #3 is not "above all concerns"
And By your own admission Maret would be #2.

I think you mean the British School when you refer to falling under "Other"

I believe it was posted somewhere (in this thread? article?) that the Maret director testified that DC residents make up around 400 of the 600 kids at Maret? Can't find the exact number, just remember that sticking out. If so, that would be 66.67% and thus not meet the 75% standard listed as the definition of "principally serving District residents".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ DPR has zero, nada, zip responsibility to provide space for Maret sports teams.

The city does have responsibility to provide adequate facilities for public schools, and DPR is part of city government.

That's not how agencies work. By that logic, MPD should provide security, the CTO should provide the tech, and DDoT should handle the busing..

That's not how any of this works

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ DPR has zero, nada, zip responsibility to provide space for Maret sports teams.

The city does have responsibility to provide adequate facilities for public schools, and DPR is part of city government.

That's not how agencies work. By that logic, MPD should provide security, the CTO should provide the tech, and DDoT should handle the busing..

That's not how any of this works

Sounds to me like a lot of Hardy PTO privilege getting frustrated. If it doesn't work the way the want, th system MUST be broken

[Anonymous]

so you're standing up for Maret over Hardy, flat out? That's a little surprising.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ DPR has zero, nada, zip responsibility to provide space for Maret sports teams.

The city does have responsibility to provide adequate facilities for public schools, and DPR is part of city government.

That's not how agencies work. By that logic, MPD should provide security, the CTO should provide the tech, and DDoT should handle the busing..

That's not how any of this works

I think you're intentionally missing the point. DC as a while has responsibilities to it's residents and to it's taxpayers. Providing athletic responsibilities to private schools is not among those overarching resonsibilities. Providing facilities to it's public schools is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ DPR has zero, nada, zip responsibility to provide space for Maret sports teams.

The city does have responsibility to provide adequate facilities for public schools, and DPR is part of city government.

That's not how agencies work. By that logic, MPD should provide security, the CTO should provide the tech, and DDoT should handle the busing..

That's not how any of this works

I think you're intentionally missing the point. DC as a while has responsibilities to it's residents and to it's taxpayers. Providing athletic responsibilities to private schools is not among those overarching resonsibilities. Providing facilities to it's public schools is.

I think you're the one that is obtuse. Per the PP above, DC public schools come in 3rd under DPR's priorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ DPR has zero, nada, zip responsibility to provide space for Maret sports teams.

The city does have responsibility to provide adequate facilities for public schools, and DPR is part of city government.

That's not how agencies work. By that logic, MPD should provide security, the CTO should provide the tech, and DDoT should handle the busing..

That's not how any of this works

I think you're intentionally missing the point. DC as a while has responsibilities to it's residents and to it's taxpayers. Providing athletic responsibilities to private schools is not among those overarching resonsibilities. Providing facilities to it's public schools is.

I think you're the one that is obtuse. Per the PP above, DC public schools come in 3rd under DPR's priorities.

Then that puts the after school kids at Jellef first in line for the field.