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

[Anonymous]

The windbag above trying to compare #s (and Marjo Talbott at Monday’s hearing) keep including K-12 in Maret’s numbers. At a minimum, K-5 should be left out, and probably K-8 since Maret only uses Jelleff for high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So according the their website, Maret wants the city to spend millions of dollars upgrading the ellington field so they can use jelleff? Is that a joke? Yes, ellington needs to be redone but that shouldn't be a subsitute. It will take lots of money and several years before that field is ready to use. And lots of other DCPS schools, such as School without walls, will need to use it. Can't believe Maret decided to post the update on the website and can't believe they seem so committed to their own crazy version of the truth.

Even Elissa Silverman talked about bringing Ellington online for more school children to use. But precious neighbors want to keep it for their giant dog park instead of having it as a usable safe place for children. As a matter of fact, the Hardy PTO reps there also agreed that Ellington would be a great place for Hardy.

The Hardy reps said it would be useful, not “great.” But it was noted that it still has deficiencies— no parking, no locker rooms, (no bathrooms?), not regulation size currently. Ellington Field is needed, but that doesn’t change the fact that DPR had no business renewing the Maret deal for Jelleff.

There’s plenty of space to make that field regulation size, with parking, and probably a little dog park as well. It’s a large plot of land that was designed for athletic use for children, as noted by many during the round table. The infrastructure is already there, it could probably be online by the Spring of 2021 at the latest. Council member Silverman asked DPR about getting money in the budget for that.

What is the solution for the 100 kids in Jellef after school that have no access to the field that is literally steps away?

Well it’s certainly not going to be giving the field to Hardy, Walls, Burke and Field and every other school that wants to use it. Do you propose exclusive use from 3-8 pm every day for Boys and Girls Club? Have the BGC ever even tried to submit permitting for the space?

Well since they currently have zero access to outdoor space on the field, a 50' X 50' cut of the farthest reach of the field would be an improvement over nothing.

Get rid of the pool and put green space in for jelleff boys and girls club

Or invalidate the Maret deal and use the existing space.

[Anonymous]

At 8:58 they start talking about Ellington, and it comes out that Georgetown University has an exclusive use agreement there weekday afternoons. So Hardy couldn't use it if they wanted to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At 8:58 they start talking about Ellington, and it comes out that Georgetown University has an exclusive use agreement there weekday afternoons. So Hardy couldn't use it if they wanted to.

The truth is that they said they have to check if Georgetown even uses the track anymore. Did you not listen closely or just run here to post misinformation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

More smokescreen.

Not at all. It was a talking point being screamed out that Maret had only 62 percent DC residents. But that total is more than the whole population of Hardy. It seems like Maret haters keep trying to throw as much mud to the walls to see what will stick and then change the topic when their hypocrisy is brought to light. If it’s important that certain areas in DC are used for DC residents only as Hardy boosters or Kishan boosters or Elizabeth Miller boosters or crack election staffs have insisted, then it’s a fair question about Hardy. Unless that talking point that was SOOOO IMPORTANT last week to the argument against Maret no longer matters?

You're being a troll.

Nah. Just pointing out a talking point being used to smear a school that now magically doesn’t matter! It’s a miracle! So to summarize, it doesn’t matter if kids are DC residents who use Jelleff. Glad to know that talking point of extraordinary importance has vanished.

It’s a question. Remember that up to 4O percent of Ellington kids may be fraudulently enrolled from Maryland. Add to that number the out of state kids who are there officially because their parents are supposed to be paying tuition, and we’re lucky if 50 percent of Ellington students even live in DC. Although the picture at Hardy is likely to be better, there are still a lot of Maryland kids getting a free education on the DC taxpayers’ dime.

Just goes to show that people who live in glass houses ....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At 8:58 they start talking about Ellington, and it comes out that Georgetown University has an exclusive use agreement there weekday afternoons. So Hardy couldn't use it if they wanted to.

The truth is that they said they have to check if Georgetown even uses the track anymore. Did you not listen closely or just run here to post misinformation?

Considering that Hunter responded "I'll have to get back to you on that" every time he was asked a hard question, I assumed that he knew the answer and it wasn't good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

More smokescreen.

Not at all. It was a talking point being screamed out that Maret had only 62 percent DC residents. But that total is more than the whole population of Hardy. It seems like Maret haters keep trying to throw as much mud to the walls to see what will stick and then change the topic when their hypocrisy is brought to light. If it’s important that certain areas in DC are used for DC residents only as Hardy boosters or Kishan boosters or Elizabeth Miller boosters or crack election staffs have insisted, then it’s a fair question about Hardy. Unless that talking point that was SOOOO IMPORTANT last week to the argument against Maret no longer matters?

You're being a troll.

Nah. Just pointing out a talking point being used to smear a school that now magically doesn’t matter! It’s a miracle! So to summarize, it doesn’t matter if kids are DC residents who use Jelleff. Glad to know that talking point of extraordinary importance has vanished.

It’s a question. Remember that up to 4O percent of Ellington kids may be fraudulently enrolled from Maryland. Add to that number the out of state kids who are there officially because their parents are supposed to be paying tuition, and we’re lucky if 50 percent of Ellington students even live in DC. Although the picture at Hardy is likely to be better, there are still a lot of Maryland kids getting a free education on the DC taxpayers’ dime.

Just goes to show that people who live in glass houses ....

So two wrongs make a right? Since some families commit enrollment fraud, it's OK for DC to betray the public trust and make sweetheart deals to give away public assets? Is that what they're teaching at Maret these days?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At 8:58 they start talking about Ellington, and it comes out that Georgetown University has an exclusive use agreement there weekday afternoons. So Hardy couldn't use it if they wanted to.

The truth is that they said they have to check if Georgetown even uses the track anymore. Did you not listen closely or just run here to post misinformation?

Considering that Hunter responded "I'll have to get back to you on that" every time he was asked a hard question, I assumed that he knew the answer and it wasn't good.

Well, I’m sure the dog walkers who want to keep that entire space a toilet for their Pookies would know if Georgetown track uses it. Surely someone here can clear that up.

[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.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

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

Maybe you were distracted at 7:52:00.. so this is just an FYI

[Anonymous]

7:54 ...
"An extension of an existing agreement"

[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.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

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

Maybe you were distracted at 7:52:00.. so this is just an FYI

The option was not written to be contingent on Maret being a good partner. It was at DPR's sole discretion. They could renew or not renew for any reason, or for no reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a question. Remember that up to 4O percent of Ellington kids may be fraudulently enrolled from Maryland. Add to that number the out of state kids who are there officially because their parents are supposed to be paying tuition, and we’re lucky if 50 percent of Ellington students even live in DC. Although the picture at Hardy is likely to be better, there are still a lot of Maryland kids getting a free education on the DC taxpayers’ dime.

Just goes to show that people who live in glass houses ....

Are you smoking crack or just that desperate to find a new canard for which to distract the discussion. It pains me to indulge you, but D.C. has been suing the pants off anyone (even its own public safety employees) it can find who engaged in residency fraud. If you have any better ideas on how to identify people engaging in it, please send these to O.S.S.E.. Everyone else with kids in DCPS will thank you. But it has next to nothing to do with the topic of this thread. There are plenty of threads on DCUM about it, so feel free to go and play there if you feel like you need some company.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s a question. Remember that up to 4O percent of Ellington kids may be fraudulently enrolled from Maryland. Add to that number the out of state kids who are there officially because their parents are supposed to be paying tuition, and we’re lucky if 50 percent of Ellington students even live in DC. Although the picture at Hardy is likely to be better, there are still a lot of Maryland kids getting a free education on the DC taxpayers’ dime.

Just goes to show that people who live in glass houses ....

Are you smoking crack or just that desperate to find a new canard for which to distract the discussion. It pains me to indulge you, but D.C. has been suing the pants off anyone (even its own public safety employees) it can find who engaged in residency fraud. If you have any better ideas on how to identify people engaging in it, please send these to O.S.S.E.. Everyone else with kids in DCPS will thank you. But it has next to nothing to do with the topic of this thread. There are plenty of threads on DCUM about it, so feel free to go and play there if you feel like you need some company.

[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.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

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

Maybe you were distracted at 7:52:00.. so this is just an FYI

I stand corrected.. It was the Chair who asked him to define a "good" partner first ~7:58:30.. but the answer "They did what they said they were going to do" is fairly accurate.
You don't *have* to admit that you may be wrong, but I know your heart, and you're forgiven.
Can we drop this ridiculous charade of righteous outrage now?
Trump's still in office, and our DC votes may not matter, but maybe we should focus on fixing that somehow?

[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.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

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

Maybe you were distracted at 7:52:00.. so this is just an FYI

I stand corrected.. It was the Chair who asked him to define a "good" partner first ~7:58:30.. but the answer "They did what they said they were going to do" is fairly accurate.
You don't *have* to admit that you may be wrong, but I know your heart, and you're forgiven.
Can we drop this ridiculous charade of righteous outrage now?
Trump's still in office, and our DC votes may not matter, but maybe we should focus on fixing that somehow?

“Good partner” or not, there is nothing about that in the renewal language in the contract.