Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has the DC auditor weighed in on this?

You'd like to think that all the government levers in place to deal with a situation like this would have been pulled by about now. I sense that most just want this to go away. It's up to people who believe this contract was bogus to keep up making noise.

It's pretty clear that the decision on Jelleff came from the very top - aka The Mayor's office. This is why Delano was so evasive - he had "internal conversations" with his boss (Muriel) before coming to a decision.

Bowser has a lot of campaign contributors at Maret. In addition, a lot of wealthy African-American families go to Maret as it's one of the more diverse and supposedly "progressive" independent schools in the DC area. This is Bowser's social circle calling in a favor at the expense of poor black kids who would utilize Jelleff through the BGC or Hardy athletics.

This is all about the African-American elites of DC putting their foot down on the necks of poorer African-Americans who are in DC Public/Charter Schools. That's the subtext of the entire fight but no one is willing to discuss. This has been a recurring battle in DC for generations.

Anonymous wrote:93 pages of postings and still going strong. Impressive activity but to what end?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has the DC auditor weighed in on this?

You'd like to think that all the government levers in place to deal with a situation like this would have been pulled by about now. I sense that most just want this to go away. It's up to people who believe this contract was bogus to keep up making noise.

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.

Ms. Rice was unable to testify because she was appearing at the "Most Powerful Women's Summit." No joke.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Oh, please. No one believes this. Hardy parents have a very compelling argument to make here, but you put yourself on a level with the "white savior" Maret parents when you spout this nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Oh, please. No one believes this. Hardy parents have a very compelling argument to make here, but you put yourself on a level with the "white savior" Maret parents when you spout this nonsense.

Anonymous wrote: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

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.

Anonymous wrote:Has the DC auditor weighed in on this?

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think DPR has many deals like this — a few with universities and this one.

And this one came to DPR pre-packaged by Evans.

So maybe it’s not that strange that they have no skills or process to rethink or renegotiate at renewal time.

Anonymous wrote:

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.