DC Auditor Report on Duke Ellington

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems very little blame placed at the school - which doesn't surprise me. I think they are victims too.

Victims of a buttload of cash and a glorious palace of a modernization?

Well come and "victimize" my school too.

My point was the Ellington community wasn't the ones who mismanaged this or created the design any more than the students and administrators at Shepherd, Murch or any other school.

So no one on the Ellington board of directors had the political pull to squeeze this through. Well, then it must have just been some honest gosh darned mistakes that led us here. Nope, nothing to see.

I'd be willing to to believe it, but where does it say in the auditor's report that that's what happened here? I didn't see that finding. Did you?

The report doesn't say 2 + 2 = 4.

Now, is it, or is it not?

The report certainly talks about the Ellington board, and their preference for a new building built on Ellington Field, and the local ANC and city politicians vetoing that, which lots of back and forth over what would have cost more or less.

But the mismanagement of the design, contracting, failure to manage to milestones, etc -- is all on DGS and DCPS. That part isn't on the Ellington Board, who may well have messed it up even worse had they been in charge of it, but they weren't.

Why would the Ellington board have wanted to build a new building on another property in Burleith, in a location which is relatively inconvenient to the majority of Ellington students? It's not central to all areas of the city, not on the Metro and is several blocks away from what passes for a bus line. It's not located near any performing arts venue that Ellington students might leverage. Doesn't make sense.

Prestige my little one... prestige. You have much to learn about the world of the fine arts.

The Ellington board appears to equate "classy" with bling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems very little blame placed at the school - which doesn't surprise me. I think they are victims too.

Victims of a buttload of cash and a glorious palace of a modernization?

Well come and "victimize" my school too.

My point was the Ellington community wasn't the ones who mismanaged this or created the design any more than the students and administrators at Shepherd, Murch or any other school.

So no one on the Ellington board of directors had the political pull to squeeze this through. Well, then it must have just been some honest gosh darned mistakes that led us here. Nope, nothing to see.

I'd be willing to to believe it, but where does it say in the auditor's report that that's what happened here? I didn't see that finding. Did you?

The report doesn't say 2 + 2 = 4.

Now, is it, or is it not?

The report certainly talks about the Ellington board, and their preference for a new building built on Ellington Field, and the local ANC and city politicians vetoing that, which lots of back and forth over what would have cost more or less.

But the mismanagement of the design, contracting, failure to manage to milestones, etc -- is all on DGS and DCPS. That part isn't on the Ellington Board, who may well have messed it up even worse had they been in charge of it, but they weren't.

Why would the Ellington board have wanted to build a new building on another property in Burleith, in a location which is relatively inconvenient to the majority of Ellington students? It's not central to all areas of the city, not on the Metro and is several blocks away from what passes for a bus line. It's not located near any performing arts venue that Ellington students might leverage. Doesn't make sense.

Prestige my little one... prestige. You have much to learn about the world of the fine arts.

If Burleith is so "prestigious," why do the realtors take pains to call it "North Georgetown"??!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems very little blame placed at the school - which doesn't surprise me. I think they are victims too.

Victims of a buttload of cash and a glorious palace of a modernization?

Well come and "victimize" my school too.

My point was the Ellington community wasn't the ones who mismanaged this or created the design any more than the students and administrators at Shepherd, Murch or any other school.

So no one on the Ellington board of directors had the political pull to squeeze this through. Well, then it must have just been some honest gosh darned mistakes that led us here. Nope, nothing to see.

I'd be willing to to believe it, but where does it say in the auditor's report that that's what happened here? I didn't see that finding. Did you?

The report doesn't say 2 + 2 = 4.

Now, is it, or is it not?

The report certainly talks about the Ellington board, and their preference for a new building built on Ellington Field, and the local ANC and city politicians vetoing that, which lots of back and forth over what would have cost more or less.

But the mismanagement of the design, contracting, failure to manage to milestones, etc -- is all on DGS and DCPS. That part isn't on the Ellington Board, who may well have messed it up even worse had they been in charge of it, but they weren't.

Why would the Ellington board have wanted to build a new building on another property in Burleith, in a location which is relatively inconvenient to the majority of Ellington students? It's not central to all areas of the city, not on the Metro and is several blocks away from what passes for a bus line. It's not located near any performing arts venue that Ellington students might leverage. Doesn't make sense.

Prestige my little one... prestige. You have much to learn about the world of the fine arts.

The Ellington board appears to equate "classy" with bling.

Waste close to 200 million dollars to benefit 500 students...yep, that is the FINE arts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:..."Much of the cost overruns - $60M - can be attributed to the underground parking."

Underground parking changes the entire scope of a project, especially when dealing with tight neighborhood like that.

I've seen weird things get put into an ed spec document, but this takes the cake. The problem is there is no fingerprint to say exactly who asked for the change and why.

Janney got an underground parking garage but no one takes them to task.

Ellington educates about half of the DC students as Janney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All DC public schools have parking except for 4.

And yes, it's part of the teacher contract - parking access.

Given the specifics, there are a lot of reasons I support parking for teachers and staff. I know not many jobs in DC provide parking, but I think it's needed for teachers/staff.

But let's be real - blaming Duke Ellington's problems on teacher parking is a major red herring designed to deflect attention from the real problems.

Are you sure about that figure? Do you know the 4?

[Anonymous]

And a lot of those 500 students are from MD. Yes, they pay tuition, but not a lot. I think the school should only accept DC students given taxpayers have been left with this crazy bill!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And a lot of those 500 students are from MD. Yes, they pay tuition, but not a lot. I think the school should only accept DC students given taxpayers have been left with this crazy bill!

+1.

What a joke.

On us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And a lot of those 500 students are from MD. Yes, they pay tuition, but not a lot. I think the school should only accept DC students given taxpayers have been left with this crazy bill!

Any student from MD or VA should be hit with a $15,000 yearly additional bill for facilities cost to recoup the investment DC tax payers are making into a facility for them. Or even better, VA and MD could cough up the capital funds now so DC can spend on DC students.

Maybe we Grosso, Mendelson, and Bowser need to learn from Trump how to make better deals for us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parking thing isn't unique to Ellington. DCPS says they must install one at Murch because of zoning, and will be destroying a playground to do it. Doesn't Janney have one too?

Now supposedly the city is saying no more underground parking garages but in the initial waves of building they were de riguer (similar to kilns at elementary schools).

Underground parking isn't always a waste of money. It depends.

What is clear is that it is a waste of money in this case. The school should have been moved to a more central, metro accessible location.

The reason it was not is because its political backers like the prestige of the current site and saw the sensible suggestions to move it as being part of The Plan.

That's as far as I can determine. It is a total scandal, reminiscent of Barry- era DC.

Oh come on. There was every reason to leave Duke where it was, given that it had thrived there for decades. Downtown real estate and building costs would have been even more expensive than Georgetown. This continuing irrational effort to tie the location to the inexcusable cost overruns is nothing but snooty Georgetown and Burleith residents who are angry that a bunch of predominantly African American kids have the temerity to attend public school in their neighborhood.

Do you realize that you proved my point? I said that Ellington backers are conspiracy theorists about The Plan and then look at what you write, accusing the nearby neighbors of The Plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parking thing isn't unique to Ellington. DCPS says they must install one at Murch because of zoning, and will be destroying a playground to do it. Doesn't Janney have one too?

Now supposedly the city is saying no more underground parking garages but in the initial waves of building they were de riguer (similar to kilns at elementary schools).

Underground parking isn't always a waste of money. It depends.

What is clear is that it is a waste of money in this case. The school should have been moved to a more central, metro accessible location.

The reason it was not is because its political backers like the prestige of the current site and saw the sensible suggestions to move it as being part of The Plan.

That's as far as I can determine. It is a total scandal, reminiscent of Barry- era DC.

Oh come on. There was every reason to leave Duke where it was, given that it had thrived there for decades. Downtown real estate and building costs would have been even more expensive than Georgetown. This continuing irrational effort to tie the location to the inexcusable cost overruns is nothing but snooty Georgetown and Burleith residents who are angry that a bunch of predominantly African American kids have the temerity to attend public school in their neighborhood.

Do you realize that you proved my point? I said that Ellington backers are conspiracy theorists about The Plan and then look at what you write, accusing the nearby neighbors of The Plan.

+1.

The stupidity, it hurts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:..."Much of the cost overruns - $60M - can be attributed to the underground parking."

Underground parking changes the entire scope of a project, especially when dealing with tight neighborhood like that.

I've seen weird things get put into an ed spec document, but this takes the cake. The problem is there is no fingerprint to say exactly who asked for the change and why.

Janney got an underground parking garage but no one takes them to task.

It didn't cost $60 million. The whole project didn't cost much more than that and it is serving 200 more students than DE. But nice attempt at deflection.

[Anonymous]

No one is defending the debacle over this entire project. But there's not much that can be done about it now other than learning from it and make it a cautionary tale going forward and .

Whether DC should have a performing and visual arts high school, who should attend, whether that school is meeting its mission, whether it should be expanded and so forth is a separate and distinct question. Whether the board structure should be changed is a really good question and one the Council should take up as a condition of further funding.

Ellington has been without a permanent principal/HOS for 2+ years now since the sudden death of Father Payne lsat year. The current head is an interim and will only be there through 2016-17.

A search process is getting underway. If you care about the future of this institution get involved in that, or lobby the Council to get involved at that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the OP (although I'm only the OP because I saw the report and put it here first)

I think the DC Auditors office deserves praise for doing their job and not burying this under a rug, where I'm sure the Council and Administration would like it to go.

What kills me is this: It also states that students who attend the historic performing arts school have schedules atypical of most DCPS students. Consequently, significant amounts of space will go unused for extended periods of time once the building's upgrades are complete. Therefore, the auditor is also suggesting that DCPS increase the school's enrollment or open up its grounds to other educational programs.

+1.

Essentially, DC taxpayers ponied up $200 million to fund a luxury product for non-DC residents.

Hopefully someone ends in jail for misuse of public funds, if not outright corruption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the OP (although I'm only the OP because I saw the report and put it here first)

I think the DC Auditors office deserves praise for doing their job and not burying this under a rug, where I'm sure the Council and Administration would like it to go.

What kills me is this: It also states that students who attend the historic performing arts school have schedules atypical of most DCPS students. Consequently, significant amounts of space will go unused for extended periods of time once the building's upgrades are complete. Therefore, the auditor is also suggesting that DCPS increase the school's enrollment or open up its grounds to other educational programs.

+1.

Essentially, DC taxpayers ponied up $200 million to fund a luxury product for non-DC residents.

Hopefully someone ends in jail for misuse of public funds, if not outright corruption.

Who exactly would you jail? The problem the auditor's report is that literally dozens of people were involved but no one was in charge. There seems to be plenty of incompetence but no malfeasance.

[Anonymous]

The fact of the matter is that there were two viable options for relocating Ellington. 1 is the empty school on U Street by the metro station and the other would have been to co-locate, either with Cardozo or Roosevelt.

Both the U Street school and Cardozo are metro accessible locations that are at the heart of the historic epicenter of the DC Arts scene, going back to when the heroes of modern blues and jazz, like Duke Ellington himself, would play at the stages and clubs on U Street.

It is such a crime that the city and Ellington Board didn't see THAT symbolism and produce a solution that would have provided the students with a ready showcase and opportunity to be a part of the new scene on U Street.

Instead, we have this $200 fiasco that forces people to drive and students who don't drive much extra travel time to get to the campus.