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

[Anonymous]

http://dc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=5189

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://dc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=5189

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Cameron complains about the lack of field space in NW DC. Go and have a look at a satellite image (via, say, Google Maps) of the area around Maret. WIS has a full size field just over 1,000 feet from Maret. Beauvoir / NCS has no less than three full-size fields just 1,500 feet away. Sidwell Friends has one a mile away. AU has multiple fields under 2 miles away.

Yet Maret opts that it’s best option to “stay competitive” with the other DC elite schools - all the whole keeping K-12 on a common campus - is to crowd DCPS and B&GC kids out of what should be their space.

Once again, Cameron complains about the lack of field space. In a city facing a climate, transportation and affordable housing crisis. I wonder whose homes Cameron thinks should be bulldozed to provide those fields? What trees should go? Does he think that this city needs more SUVs shuttling kids to and from games and practices?

[Anonymous]

People are energized by this issue. I’ll bet if the same network now demanded that the DC Council eliminated the property tax exemption for Maret and other private schools, there would be Council support. Think of the added tax revenue raised that could fund more equity and inclusion through DCPS.

[Anonymous]

I really do think a lawsuit is the way to go here because I think this Jelleff situation is the tip of the iceberg. I suspect that if you look closely across the city, you'll find variations of this same situation in lots of places. Let's look at Guy Mason, Wilson Pool, the field around UDC, etc. This thing is begging for an investigation, whether its by the Feds, the District or a news outfit.

Come on, FBI. Please look for the links to Evans and add it to your case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really do think a lawsuit is the way to go here because I think this Jelleff situation is the tip of the iceberg. I suspect that if you look closely across the city, you'll find variations of this same situation in lots of places. Let's look at Guy Mason, Wilson Pool, the field around UDC, etc. This thing is begging for an investigation, whether its by the Feds, the District or a news outfit.

Come on, FBI. Please look for the links to Evans and add it to your case.

Payments for BZA approvals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Robert White: "I don't know how we resolve this without a lawsuit." And so we go . . .

The question is who would have standing to sue? It would have to be someone directly impacted. So a member of an organization that should have been given higher priority than Maret who applied for a permit and was denied in favor of Maret. It's not going to be a DC agency because the city can't sue itself, it's unlikely to be a programmatic partner, so it would have to be a youth non-profit benefiting principally DC residents. I would say a PTA/PTO would qualify for that.

[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

Maret is not a DPR partner. A list of DPR partners is on the DPR website at:
https://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/publication/attachments/dpr_CurrentPartnerships.pdf

Maret is not on it.

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:Robert White: "I don't know how we resolve this without a lawsuit." And so we go . . .

The question is who would have standing to sue? It would have to be someone directly impacted. So a member of an organization that should have been given higher priority than Maret who applied for a permit and was denied in favor of Maret. It's not going to be a DC agency because the city can't sue itself, it's unlikely to be a programmatic partner, so it would have to be a youth non-profit benefiting principally DC residents. I would say a PTA/PTO would qualify for that.

An individual Hardy or SWW family would have standing.

Does the District's OIG have grounds to investigate?

[Anonymous]

Maret is not a DPR partner. A list of DPR partners is on the DPR website at:
https://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dp...ts/dpr_CurrentPartnerships.pdf

Maret is not on it.

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

[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"

Ha, yes. I should have said “above Maret, except Maret cheated.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Robert White: "I don't know how we resolve this without a lawsuit." And so we go . . .

The question is who would have standing to sue? It would have to be someone directly impacted. So a member of an organization that should have been given higher priority than Maret who applied for a permit and was denied in favor of Maret. It's not going to be a DC agency because the city can't sue itself, it's unlikely to be a programmatic partner, so it would have to be a youth non-profit benefiting principally DC residents. I would say a PTA/PTO would qualify for that.

An individual Hardy or SWW family would have standing.

Does the District's OIG have grounds to investigate?

Can Hardy students sue to have the staff parking lot converted to athletic space? To have DC fix up the “Ellington” field?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Robert White: "I don't know how we resolve this without a lawsuit." And so we go . . .

The question is who would have standing to sue? It would have to be someone directly impacted. So a member of an organization that should have been given higher priority than Maret who applied for a permit and was denied in favor of Maret. It's not going to be a DC agency because the city can't sue itself, it's unlikely to be a programmatic partner, so it would have to be a youth non-profit benefiting principally DC residents. I would say a PTA/PTO would qualify for that.

An individual Hardy or SWW family would have standing.

Does the District's OIG have grounds to investigate?

I’d love to see the OIG on behalf of DCPS Washington DC-resident families sue all of the Maryland students and their parents for theft of services for fraudulently enrolling in DC schools. Imagine the $$$ damages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Robert White: "I don't know how we resolve this without a lawsuit." And so we go . . .

The question is who would have standing to sue? It would have to be someone directly impacted. So a member of an organization that should have been given higher priority than Maret who applied for a permit and was denied in favor of Maret. It's not going to be a DC agency because the city can't sue itself, it's unlikely to be a programmatic partner, so it would have to be a youth non-profit benefiting principally DC residents. I would say a PTA/PTO would qualify for that.

An individual Hardy or SWW family would have standing.

Does the District's OIG have grounds to investigate?

I’d love to see the OIG on behalf of DCPS Washington DC-resident families sue all of the Maryland students and their parents for theft of services for fraudulently enrolling in DC schools. Imagine the $$$ damages.

Do we know how many Hardy students aren’t just out of boundary, but residents of outside DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Robert White: "I don't know how we resolve this without a lawsuit." And so we go . . .

The question is who would have standing to sue? It would have to be someone directly impacted. So a member of an organization that should have been given higher priority than Maret who applied for a permit and was denied in favor of Maret. It's not going to be a DC agency because the city can't sue itself, it's unlikely to be a programmatic partner, so it would have to be a youth non-profit benefiting principally DC residents. I would say a PTA/PTO would qualify for that.

An individual Hardy or SWW family would have standing.

Does the District's OIG have grounds to investigate?

I’d love to see the OIG on behalf of DCPS Washington DC-resident families sue all of the Maryland students and their parents for theft of services for fraudulently enrolling in DC schools. Imagine the $$$ damages.

Do we know how many Hardy students aren’t just out of boundary, but residents of outside DC?

No. Why don’t you do a survey? In the interests of assuring compliance with standard protocols of ethics when collecting information from human subjects, please be sure to fully disclose your affiliation with Maret and the intended uses of the data collected.