Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm waiting for the video to become available to see what Delano Hunter had to say.

One of the oft-repeated Maret talking points was that there was an expectation of renewal, and that the city would lose credibility in future partnerships if it backed out on that expectation. If that were in fact the case, I would expect Delano Hunter to make that point emphatically: "Our lawyers reviewed the transaction, and felt that the city had an ethical obligation to renew the agreement." Case closed. But to date Hunter has not made that claim, he's danced around with vague language that the renewal was in the best interests of the city.

Hunter's silence speaks volumes.

From what I heard, Hunter was fairly clear that they have no rubric or methodology to determine the benefits and costs of these agreements. It’s a matter of subjective judgment. Trayvon and Elissa were both clearly tired by the time Hunter got to speak and their questioning was a bit soft. They should have gone after this. It’s unacceptable for an agency like DPR to be doing deals of this magnitude on a whim and without a very long paper trail.

Here's the PPP regulations: https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/titles/2/chapters/2A/

It's crazy that DPR isn't following the rules related to private-public procurement. DPR is required to conduct the following:

(a) A public-private partnership shall be solicited by the Office only through a competitive bid process in which a request for proposals is issued.

(b) A request for proposals shall contain, at a minimum, the following:

(1) A detailed description of the scope of the proposed public-private partnership project;

(2) The material terms and conditions applicable to the procurement and any resulting contract; and

(3) The criteria for evaluation and selection of a proposal, which shall indicate the relative weight given to each criterion set forth in subsection (c) of this section.

(c) The evaluation and selection criteria in a request for proposals shall include the following, each of which shall be given a relative weight:

(1) Cost;

(2) Delivery time;

(3) Financial commitment required of public entities;

(4) Capabilities, related experience, facilities, or techniques of the proposer or unique combinations of these qualities that are integral factors for achieving the proposal objectives;

(5) Value-for-money and public sector comparator analysis of the proposal;

(6) Novel methods, approaches, or concepts demonstrated by the proposal;

(7) Scientific, technical, or socioeconomic merits of the proposal;

(8) Potential contribution of the proposal to the mission of the District;

(9) How the proposal benefits the public; and

(10) Other factors as the Office deems appropriate to obtain the best value for the District.

(d) The Office shall provide public notice of a request for proposals for no less than 30 days, unless the Office makes a reasonable written determination at the time of the initial notice that a lesser time period is appropriate and will preserve the competitive nature of the procurement.

(e) The Office shall evaluate each proposal that satisfies the minimum requirements of the request for proposals according to the evaluation and selection criteria contained in the request for proposals.

(f) The Office shall make available to the public the executive summary of each responsive proposal including the scoring for each proposal and the identity of the proposer upon the closing of the evaluation period as part of the report submitted to the Council pursuant to § 2-273.09(a)(1); provided, that the Office shall not disclose any information which has been designated as confidential or proprietary by a proposer, if the Office determines the designation is proper.

Maret didn't prove much yesterday beyond they are a powerful, moneyed machine with very little self-awareness. Stacking the witness list with a rotation of administrators, graduates, Board members, students and parents, repeated again and again only showed me that they are all rich and powerful enough to skip work with no penalty.

Anonymous wrote:I'm waiting for the video to become available to see what Delano Hunter had to say.

One of the oft-repeated Maret talking points was that there was an expectation of renewal, and that the city would lose credibility in future partnerships if it backed out on that expectation. If that were in fact the case, I would expect Delano Hunter to make that point emphatically: "Our lawyers reviewed the transaction, and felt that the city had an ethical obligation to renew the agreement." Case closed. But to date Hunter has not made that claim, he's danced around with vague language that the renewal was in the best interests of the city.

Hunter's silence speaks volumes.

From what I heard, Hunter was fairly clear that they have no rubric or methodology to determine the benefits and costs of these agreements. It’s a matter of subjective judgment. Trayvon and Elissa were both clearly tired by the time Hunter got to speak and their questioning was a bit soft. They should have gone after this. It’s unacceptable for an agency like DPR to be doing deals of this magnitude on a whim and without a very long paper trail.

At the hearing, another bullet point all the Maret people kept repeating from their talking points was that they’re only out there two hours a day. So first of all, they consciously and collectively round down. Second of all they don’t address what happens when they host baseball games there which surely are not completed within a two hour period particularly when you add in things like warm up. What they don’t want to say is that the contract allows them to stay as long as they need on game days. And since it’s where they play all their home games for baseball and soccer (right?) that adds up to a lot of additional time beyond “two hours“ each school day. And for me, someone who has a hearty student in another child who will be going to Hardy in a couple years, it’s not about access high school teams. I want to see those aftercare kids and Jelleff being able to run around on a gorgeous day after sitting in classrooms all day long And for me, someone who has a Hardy student Athlete and another child who will be going to Hardy in a couple years, it’s not about access by school teams. I want to see those aftercare kids at Jelleff being able to run around on a gorgeous day after sitting in classrooms all day long. I’ve seen them looking through the fence. Maret wants to dismiss that visual because it’s so ugly but it is accurate

I'm waiting for the video to become available to see what Delano Hunter had to say.

One of the oft-repeated Maret talking points was that there was an expectation of renewal, and that the city would lose credibility in future partnerships if it backed out on that expectation. If that were in fact the case, I would expect Delano Hunter to make that point emphatically: "Our lawyers reviewed the transaction, and felt that the city had an ethical obligation to renew the agreement." Case closed. But to date Hunter has not made that claim, he's danced around with vague language that the renewal was in the best interests of the city.

Hunter's silence speaks volumes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The advisory neighborhood committee guy at the end was the most effective. Clear and cutting through all the BS to get to the points that matter. It was a persuasive presentation.

What was his argument?

Also that it is clear that the deal was structured to avoid Council scrutiny.

From what I remember:

Not about parents and their character. It's about the kids.
Rehabbing the pool was not generosity. It was the terms of the deal.
Giving Hardy access for 2 hours some Wednesdays was not because they had a right to use a public resource, or even a need, but because Maret dismissed early and so didn't use the field then.
It was always a ten year deal with DC having the decision to extend.
Not too late to reopen the contract.
If i''s weren't dotted or t's weren't crossed, then need to reopen the contract.
If you suspect the contract was structured to avoid council oversight, then you need to reopen the contract.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The advisory neighborhood committee guy at the end was the most effective. Clear and cutting through all the BS to get to the points that matter. It was a persuasive presentation.

What was his argument?

That corruption sucks.

Anonymous wrote:The advisory neighborhood committee guy at the end was the most effective. Clear and cutting through all the BS to get to the points that matter. It was a persuasive presentation.

What was his argument?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Maret people talked so much about charity and diversity and community.

But this contract renewal was an opportunity for them to show that they truly live their belief in equity, not just that they espouse it when it’s easy.

Their character was tested, and they failed the test.

I'm a former Maret teacher. The irony is that they make everyone go through a week-long diversity training in the summer where things like "white savior syndrome" are directly called out as verboten. I didn't get to watch much of the hearing but what I did see was almost exclusively Maret parents & staff engaging in the very behavior we were warned against in training.

Any insights into how they organized this? What is the quid pro quo for affiliates to testify on behalf of the school?

Anonymous wrote:The advisory neighborhood committee guy at the end was the most effective. Clear and cutting through all the BS to get to the points that matter. It was a persuasive presentation.

Troy Kravitz of ANC3D. He's infuriating if you're on the other side of an issue from him, but no better ally if you agree.

The advisory neighborhood committee guy at the end was the most effective. Clear and cutting through all the BS to get to the points that matter. It was a persuasive presentation.

I was really stunned by all the white savior testimonies combined with the AA Maret folks who came to support Maret. To an outsider (I live in the neighborhood but my kids go to dcps) it really felt like the AA people were there for display "see how inclusive we are? Just look at these success stories that we made happen."
And also, is there a point where there are enough people saying the same thing? Council members left the room after they heard enough of the same.
Seems like a bad pr strategy all around.

Anonymous wrote:The Maret people talked so much about charity and diversity and community.

But this contract renewal was an opportunity for them to show that they truly live their belief in equity, not just that they espouse it when it’s easy.

Their character was tested, and they failed the test.

I'm a former Maret teacher. The irony is that they make everyone go through a week-long diversity training in the summer where things like "white savior syndrome" are directly called out as verboten. I didn't get to watch much of the hearing but what I did see was almost exclusively Maret parents & staff engaging in the very behavior we were warned against in training.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo has an article up: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/a-private-school-saved-a-public-dc-field-should-it-get-preference-for-play-time/2019/10/21/7030f9c8-f412-11e9-a285-882a8e386a96_story.html

I didn't expect much from the Post and it didn't disappoint.

Although I did like this bit:

“They accused our children of being the quote, ‘Children of the powerful’ and denied quote, ‘black and brown kids’ access to the field,” said Ian Cameron, who leads the school’s board of trustees.

His wife is Susan Rice.

The lack of self-awareness of many of the Maret witnesses was breathtaking. They sure talk the talk. Their crisis PR guy, who is very likely a Maret parent, had them all singing from the same sheet music. “Misinformation” “social media” “the media” “back room deal” “race and privilege.” Were any of them able to look at how this so-called contract extension was handled and see how slimy it was? So many of them loved to wax poetic about how community minded Maret is and took offense to Silverman reminding everyone That Maret did what it did with Jelleff for Maret, first the foremost. The requirements added to the easement contract (ie the swimming pool) was the cost of doing business, not stuff Maret desired to pay for because they are good citizens. But they want to claim it now. Rewriting history.

What’s even crazier is that some of them believe this stuff. They took offense to being called “elite” and they think that “Maret saved Jelleff” when it was DC that saved Jelleff. DC bought the land for millions of dollars, and then Maret threw up a fence. Maybe it would have taken a year or two and been shabbier, but DC could have found the money to do renovations.

Threw up a fence? Really now. Who knew redoing an entire field from essentially scratch, redoing a pool, putting up lights and protective fencing was so simple. So simple, in fact, that NO ONE stepped up 9 years ago when approached to help redo the field. Not British School, not other organizations, but Maret did. That’s the actual history and fact. And to ignore that is to be willfully ignorant.

No one else was offered the deal Maret got, and DC could have done it all themselves despite what Jack Evans claims.

Actually. You’re wrong. Other groups were approached to help redo the field and they all said no. That’s literally fact. Just because it doesn’t fit into your misguided narrative doesn’t mean it’s not true. You don’t get to rewrite history because you don’t like a decision that was made.

That doesn't square with my recollection. Maret was in negotiations with B&GC when B&GC ran out of cash and threw itself on the mercy of the city. Maret asked the city to keep the deal that Maret had worked out with B&GC, and the city did. There was never any open bidding.

You can see the press release that was done at the time here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ycNlJMWbHeYHXEp05bI--O3JMLhAflAT

The Maret deal and the B&GC deal were announced at the same time.

That actually makes a lot of sense. Jack Evans version — “DC didn’t have money for the improvements so we made a deal with Maret — has never made sense to me. DC could find $20 million to buy land but couldn’t find $1 million (or even a few hundred thousand) for core repairs? That sounds like just an easier way to explain it after the fact.