Banneker and Shaw to co-locate at Shaw?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to wrap this thread up, several votes today with the following result.

Co-locate at Shaw MS - failed.

Banneker renovation to proceed at the SHAW MS site - passed.

Shaw MS to locate and renovate at current Banneker site (Euclid St) - passed.

Someone is going to sue the Council over this last point. It's clear that Grosso, White^2, and McDuffie got campaign contributions to prevent Shaw MS from claiming the Euclid Street campus. Mendelson used a 50-50 voice vote to make the decision. The anti-Shaw MS council members realized they made a mistake and tried to retroactively call a roll call vote. Mendelson told him they were too late per parliamentary rules and he gave it to the Yea's for Shaw MS to move to Euclid Street. The anti-Shaw MS council members started freaking out and yelling at Mendelson. Trayvon White said "Man, this is abuse of power!"

Total idiots.

Sorry, first day back after a long weekend.

Can someone explain a little more what happened here? Shaw could move to the Banneker site? So this basically means that Shaw MS will happen at some point and this keeps a building from being available to sell off. Is that it?

[Anonymous]

What isa "roll call vote" and how would it have changed the result? sorry new to the US.

[Anonymous]

Council changed location of Shaw to Euclid St so the $1mil is now appropriated for planning there. It’s just appropriations language. Nothing compels the Mayor to build it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What isa "roll call vote" and how would it have changed the result? sorry new to the US.

In a roll call vote the votes are registered and counted. On a voice vote the Chair calls the vote based on what he headed.

[Anonymous]

*heard*

[Anonymous]

I don't know who is paying who, or what typical procedure is, but after watching that I really wonder why a "roll call" vote wasn't taken. By not taking the roll call, it seems like the Chair was afraid that the numbers wouldn't support his call. It seemed shady. And for something with this much attention and emotion, I am surprised he didn't want to make the result of the vote very clear.

[Anonymous]

There was a procedural response to the Chairman’s decision to award the amendment on a voice vote. A motion to challenge the decision of the chair. Surprised nobody used it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Council changed location of Shaw to Euclid St so the $1mil is now appropriated for planning there. It’s just appropriations language. Nothing compels the Mayor to build it.

True. But now she can't give it away to a developer or a charter school. Which is really what this sneaky game by the Mayor was all about.

So this is the final outcome:
1. There will be a "study" to co-locate Banneker and Shaw MS at Rhode Island Ave. The study will inevitable say that both can't exist and only Banneker will remain. $140m will go to Banneker at RI Avenue.
2. The Council - via a contentious voice vote - reserved the Euclid Street campus for Shaw MS. The Mayor is not compelled to move forward, but now she can't give away the site to her cronies. I don't believe the full renovation funds were appropriated, but it keeps hope alive for Shaw MS supporters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know who is paying who, or what typical procedure is, but after watching that I really wonder why a "roll call" vote wasn't taken. By not taking the roll call, it seems like the Chair was afraid that the numbers wouldn't support his call. It seemed shady. And for something with this much attention and emotion, I am surprised he didn't want to make the result of the vote very clear.

A roll call vote has to be specifically requested; a voice vote is the SOP. The Anti-Shaw MS council members didn't ask for one, so Mendelson moved forward with a voice vote. After the voice vote, the Anti-Shaw MS council members freaked the f#ck out and demanded a re-vote.

They made it seem like they forgot to ask for one. Who knows what the real story is. But I'm inclined to think it was actual stupidity on their part.

[Anonymous]

As I understood. The $1 mil. planning money is now for shaw at Euclid not RI Ave.

[Anonymous]

I actually think the study will say that the schools CAN co-locate at RIA. That's now the only path forward to freeing the Banneker building for whatever the back-room plan is for it. And then Shaw will take the bird in hand offered by the study outcome, and it'll move forward as a co-location. Probably delayed by a year (at least based on the Banneker construction/move timeline).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the study will say that the schools CAN co-locate at RIA. That's now the only path forward to freeing the Banneker building for whatever the back-room plan is for it. And then Shaw will take the bird in hand offered by the study outcome, and it'll move forward as a co-location. Probably delayed by a year (at least based on the Banneker construction/move timeline).

I don't think so. Shaw appears to be shovel ready. They are going to start building Banneker later this year. Shaw MS won't happen at that site, it would have to be planned all at once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the study will say that the schools CAN co-locate at RIA. That's now the only path forward to freeing the Banneker building for whatever the back-room plan is for it. And then Shaw will take the bird in hand offered by the study outcome, and it'll move forward as a co-location. Probably delayed by a year (at least based on the Banneker construction/move timeline).

I don't think so. Shaw appears to be shovel ready. They are going to start building Banneker later this year. Shaw MS won't happen at that site, it would have to be planned all at once.

Agreed. The Mayor won't delay Banneker construction.

The "study" is pre-ordained to rule against Shaw MS, regardless of outcome:
1. If Shaw MS did not get Euclid Street: study says there's not enough room at RI Ave for Shaw MS
2. If Shaw MS is given Euclid Street: study says Shaw MS can be co-located at Euclid. Mayor then uses the "study" to battle against the City Council and then begins the blame game. Mayor will say Shaw MS parents waited too long to compromise.

The whole game is so transparent. Bowser's optimal outcome is Banneker gets RI Ave, Shaw MS dies a tragic death, the Euclid Street site is given to a crony. The Mayor told our ANC meeting last November that she wants an all-city MS (aka charter) at the Euclid Street site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the study will say that the schools CAN co-locate at RIA. That's now the only path forward to freeing the Banneker building for whatever the back-room plan is for it. And then Shaw will take the bird in hand offered by the study outcome, and it'll move forward as a co-location. Probably delayed by a year (at least based on the Banneker construction/move timeline).

I don't think so. Shaw appears to be shovel ready. They are going to start building Banneker later this year. Shaw MS won't happen at that site, it would have to be planned all at once.

Agreed. The Mayor won't delay Banneker construction.

The "study" is pre-ordained to rule against Shaw MS, regardless of outcome:
1. If Shaw MS did not get Euclid Street: study says there's not enough room at RI Ave for Shaw MS
2. If Shaw MS is given Euclid Street: study says Shaw MS can be co-located at Euclid. Mayor then uses the "study" to battle against the City Council and then begins the blame game. Mayor will say Shaw MS parents waited too long to compromise.

The whole game is so transparent. Bowser's optimal outcome is Banneker gets RI Ave, Shaw MS dies a tragic death, the Euclid Street site is given to a crony. The Mayor told our ANC meeting last November that she wants an all-city MS (aka charter) at the Euclid Street site.

*edit*

2. If Shaw MS is given Euclid Street: study says Shaw MS can be co-located at Rhode Island Ave

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As I understood. The $1 mil. planning money is now for shaw at Euclid not RI Ave.

+1