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

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

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.

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.

[/quote]

Trimmed out the rest because it doesn't really matter.  I work on deals that are negotiated between partners all the time- they start with a term sheet hammered out where all the fundamental terms are negotiated.  Depending on the type they can get very specific, and certainly on something as important as a possible extension, the basics of how an extension will be requested, under what terms it will be granted, and how long a new potential term would be.  Each party has to assess its value and risk from the proposed terms.  These are then given to the attorneys to memorialize in the agreement.  That agreement was VERY SPECIFIC about the terms under which an extension would be be granted: "At the sole discretion of the District".  If they had actually negotiated what was said here ("upholding their end of the deal" and being "good partners"), then the agreement would have had very specific language, something like this:

"The District shall grant the requested Extension Period if Maret has followed the terms of this Agreement, including, but not exclusively, the maintenance of the Jelleff field, and is not in default under this Agreement.  The monetary terms of the Extension will be at the sole discretion of the District."

See how that's NOT AT ALL what was written in the agreement?  That's because a "handshake deal" or an "understanding" is not a deal.  A deal is what is negotiated in the term sheet and memorialized in the Agreement.  Everything else is essentially meaningless.

So please stop telling us what was "expected" when it was signed in 2009.  What was expected is what's in the agreement.  And that is clear- sole discretion of the District.

The best argument for Maret is that they followed the terms of the agreement, requested the extension as described, and the District government granted it, as requested.  It's not on them to determine if the Executive Branch properly followed DC disposition and contract law. [/quote]

I didn't use the word "expected" that's from your talking points.
But you're right, Maret followed the agreement. 
All the rest of this is noise.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics