Will Whittle be around next year?

[Anonymous]

In a little less than 1 year and 1 month, this thread has amassed nearly 190,000 views, or more than 20,000 more views (and growing) than the previous leading thread. And it took that one a month shy of 12 years to get to 170k! Disruptive indeed!

No wonder the die hard Whittle Kool Aid drinkers are squirming with embarrassment as the school's and CW's misdeeds have been exposed in broad daylight, where they belong. And the numbers kinda debunk their wistful hope that its just a few uninterested parties chatting among themselves

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since Washington Post is uninterested, maybe the editor of the school newspaper could ask: who is paying for security, for heat, for ac, for building maintenance, for custodial, for supplies, for computer systems email systems and platforms, for the telephone system, the Internet? Because it's against the law for any revenue coming in to be spent on anything other than salaries, and unpaid invoices the courts have ordered the entities to pay. ... They could ask: Is money being funneled into secret accounts, or is someone using an unethical loophole to get around paying contractors that filed over a year ago and are owed their due from any money coming in? They could also ask for the structure of the boards involved in managing the company, who owns what pieces of the business. While it's inconvenient to obey the law and file for bankruptcy so an orderly disposition of assets can occur, it's a whole lot worse to pose as if financial victories had been won, misrepresent insolvency, mischaracterize incoming cash, pay through side accounts and through "friends" or fake donations and fake bridge loans, and otherwise act to avoid the legal constraints placed onto the entity.

CW may have just outsmarted himself. In his email to the parent body gloating about wires received, he included the following doozy:

]We are pleased that, with those funds now in hand, today we are funding a full payroll, i.e. not just for our teachers but for all our staff and leadership team too. [b wrote:We have also set aside a portion of the received funds for our most critical suppliers including health benefits and campus security [/b]

He doesn't get to pick and choose which vendors to pay. Claims have to be paid in the order they were filed unless they had enhanced rights (e.g. secured against the building, etc.). Not doing so is completely illegal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since Washington Post is uninterested, maybe the editor of the school newspaper could ask: who is paying for security, for heat, for ac, for building maintenance, for custodial, for supplies, for computer systems email systems and platforms, for the telephone system, the Internet? Because it's against the law for any revenue coming in to be spent on anything other than salaries, and unpaid invoices the courts have ordered the entities to pay. ... They could ask: Is money being funneled into secret accounts, or is someone using an unethical loophole to get around paying contractors that filed over a year ago and are owed their due from any money coming in? They could also ask for the structure of the boards involved in managing the company, who owns what pieces of the business. While it's inconvenient to obey the law and file for bankruptcy so an orderly disposition of assets can occur, it's a whole lot worse to pose as if financial victories had been won, misrepresent insolvency, mischaracterize incoming cash, pay through side accounts and through "friends" or fake donations and fake bridge loans, and otherwise act to avoid the legal constraints placed onto the entity.

CW may have just outsmarted himself. In his email to the parent body gloating about wires received, he included the following doozy:

]We are pleased that, with those funds now in hand, today we are funding a full payroll, i.e. not just for our teachers but for all our staff and leadership team too. [b wrote:We have also set aside a portion of the received funds for our most critical suppliers including health benefits and campus security [/b]

He doesn't get to pick and choose which vendors to pay. Claims have to be paid in the order they were filed unless they had enhanced rights (e.g. secured against the building, etc.). Not doing so is completely illegal

Does he get to pay himself when there are pending claims? Are there caps to the amount others on the leadership team can receive?

[Anonymous]

I suspect the PP meant to highlight CW setting cash aside to pay "most critical suppliers including security". That is illegal.

If he's on the payroll, he is certainly able to pay himself from funds received but he cannot siphon funds for anything except staff wages and benefits - and certainly not to his preferred suppliers out of sequence.

[Anonymous]

What indeed are the legal implications of these informal arrangements? Is it compound in the problem? It seems like there isn’t much attention paid to the legal compliance, and allegedly one of the 3 working elbow to elbow with Whittle per that last email, allegedly runs a company which allegedly has these horrendous reviews from families living in their buildings—people mention mice, mold etc. 29 complaints on BBB etc. Would it be important to add a lawyer determined to do the right thing into the mix? it just seems like maybe in the light of the teachers and vendors not being paid like the rich get off scott free and it’s the little guy all around that will keep paying for the greed and all the mistakes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suspect the PP meant to highlight CW setting cash aside to pay "most critical suppliers including security". That is illegal.

If he's on the payroll, he is certainly able to pay himself from funds received but he cannot siphon funds for anything except staff wages and benefits - and certainly not to his preferred suppliers out of sequence.

Known among staff that Chris’ salary was $3M annually when the school had the money. Presumably this has been scaled back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since Washington Post is uninterested, maybe the editor of the school newspaper could ask: who is paying for security, for heat, for ac, for building maintenance, for custodial, for supplies, for computer systems email systems and platforms, for the telephone system, the Internet? Because it's against the law for any revenue coming in to be spent on anything other than salaries, and unpaid invoices the courts have ordered the entities to pay. ... They could ask: Is money being funneled into secret accounts, or is someone using an unethical loophole to get around paying contractors that filed over a year ago and are owed their due from any money coming in? They could also ask for the structure of the boards involved in managing the company, who owns what pieces of the business. While it's inconvenient to obey the law and file for bankruptcy so an orderly disposition of assets can occur, it's a whole lot worse to pose as if financial victories had been won, misrepresent insolvency, mischaracterize incoming cash, pay through side accounts and through "friends" or fake donations and fake bridge loans, and otherwise act to avoid the legal constraints placed onto the entity.

CW may have just outsmarted himself. In his email to the parent body gloating about wires received, he included the following doozy:

]We are pleased that, with those funds now in hand, today we are funding a full payroll, i.e. not just for our teachers but for all our staff and leadership team too. [b wrote:We have also set aside a portion of the received funds for our most critical suppliers including health benefits and campus security [/b]

He doesn't get to pick and choose which vendors to pay. Claims have to be paid in the order they were filed unless they had enhanced rights (e.g. secured against the building, etc.). Not doing so is completely illegal

What law says who has to be paid first? He hasn't declared bankruptcy as far as I know.

[Anonymous]

Laws will kick in, but meanwhile, what are the school values? Who are we if we leave a trail of broken promises and people behind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since Washington Post is uninterested, maybe the editor of the school newspaper could ask: who is paying for security, for heat, for ac, for building maintenance, for custodial, for supplies, for computer systems email systems and platforms, for the telephone system, the Internet? Because it's against the law for any revenue coming in to be spent on anything other than salaries, and unpaid invoices the courts have ordered the entities to pay. ... They could ask: Is money being funneled into secret accounts, or is someone using an unethical loophole to get around paying contractors that filed over a year ago and are owed their due from any money coming in? They could also ask for the structure of the boards involved in managing the company, who owns what pieces of the business. While it's inconvenient to obey the law and file for bankruptcy so an orderly disposition of assets can occur, it's a whole lot worse to pose as if financial victories had been won, misrepresent insolvency, mischaracterize incoming cash, pay through side accounts and through "friends" or fake donations and fake bridge loans, and otherwise act to avoid the legal constraints placed onto the entity.

They're probably reporters in this forum now soaking up all the free leads. It will all come out if the school closes. Like the student said previously they just want to finish the school year, whether that ends in April or June.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What law says who has to be paid first? He hasn't declared bankruptcy as far as I know.

Business Reasons for Garnishment:
If the LLC neglects to file or pay its taxes, fails to pay its creditors or has a judgment entered against it in a lawsuit, the LLC's assets may be subject to attachment. In these situations, an LLC's bank account could be garnished. Typically garnishment of business accounts only occur if the LLC fails to respond to payment requests, negotiate payment arrangements or provide alternative payment sources.


Which is exactly what Whittle has been doing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What law says who has to be paid first? He hasn't declared bankruptcy as far as I know.

Business Reasons for Garnishment:
If the LLC neglects to file or pay its taxes, fails to pay its creditors or has a judgment entered against it in a lawsuit, the LLC's assets may be subject to attachment. In these situations, an LLC's bank account could be garnished. Typically garnishment of business accounts only occur if the LLC fails to respond to payment requests, negotiate payment arrangements or provide alternative payment sources.


Which is exactly what Whittle has been doing

A garnishment is a collection tool after a judgment has been entered against a debtor in court. Outside of bankruptcy, there is no order in which creditors must be paid. Your Google law degree is failing you here.

I have been wondering if the school might end up going the bankruptcy route to avoid shutting down, but it’s not even clear the business could successfully reorganize itself at this point. Just seems there’s not enough revenue to sustain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What law says who has to be paid first? He hasn't declared bankruptcy as far as I know.

Business Reasons for Garnishment:
If the LLC neglects to file or pay its taxes, fails to pay its creditors or has a judgment entered against it in a lawsuit, the LLC's assets may be subject to attachment. In these situations, an LLC's bank account could be garnished. Typically garnishment of business accounts only occur if the LLC fails to respond to payment requests, negotiate payment arrangements or provide alternative payment sources.


Which is exactly what Whittle has been doing

But while there are judgments, I don't think there has (so far) been any effort to execute them, which is what could result in attachments. Even then, short of bankruptcy or receivership it doesn't seem likely that a court would attach all income from any source while the school is at least arguably a going concern. For now, the judgments are just a court-verified bills.

[Anonymous]

Have they been paying rent? That’s the highest priority obligation in court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have they been paying rent? That’s the highest priority obligation in court.

The building was foreclosed on because the landlord couldn't service the TI debt incurred to make Renzo's designs come to life. It would seem the answer is no

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have they been paying rent? That’s the highest priority obligation in court.

Workers comp insurance is the only obligation that can land CW in jail. Payroll taxes and fica would be next priority.