Anonymous wrote:

The way I read the contract is it was $2.4 million for the first ten years, at the time all parties agreed that in ten years if things worked out they'd renew under similar terms; i.e. DPR would come up with new needs at the time of the renewal. The way they've done it essentially the second ten years are free.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: From the recorded easement in the DC land records (Instrument No. 2010001187):

6. Extension of the Term. In the event Grantee desires to extend the Term for an additional period of no more than nine (9) years (the "Renewal Term"), Grantee shall request such extension by giving written notice ("Extension Request") to the District not earlier than three hundred sixty-five (365) days or later than one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the initial Term. Within thirty (30) days following the District's receipt of the Extension Request, the District shall advise Grantee in writing whether it consents to such Renewal Term, which consent may be withheld or conditioned in the sole discretion of the District.

Initial Term ends on June 29, 2020. So the earliest Maret could give notice of a desire to extend was June 30, 2019 (or July 1st, since June 30th was a Sunday). When did Maret give notice?

Thank you for finding this. Credit to the Maret people for describing it accurately- that the District has to affirmatively consent to the extension. The onus should be squarely on the Mayor and Council now. This does not have to happen, and they have the power and right not to do it.

You're giving Maret too much credit. They've been arguing they had the right to an extension, in the DeadSpin article Marjo Talbott is quoted as saying there was "an expectation."

That's somewhat fair. I would say that saying "there was an expectation" isn't too far from reality, although it does imply something close to a right to an extension. A more accurate statement would have been, "we would like to extend the current contract under the existing terms, as contemplated in the option section. The District, of course, has to agree to that, and has no obligation to do so." But by omitting the second part, she made her case appear stronger.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for finding this. Credit to the Maret people for describing it accurately- that the District has to affirmatively consent to the extension. The onus should be squarely on the Mayor and Council now. This does not have to happen, and they have the power and right not to do it.

DPR has already agreed to the extension, no? If so, the appropriate tense in your last sentence is past and not present.

Ah, you seem to be right! I assumed this needed Council approval, which means it would have to go up to the Mayor's Office to be packaged for Council approval. But as it is not a contract where the District will be paying anything, it does not trigger the $1 million threshold needed for Council approval.

And the DPR director has the authority to execute this contract on the mayors behalf. That looks to have happened, so you are right, should have been past tense.

There doesn't seem to be an administrative way to stop this, assuming the contract has been fully executed. It's possible someone could sue, saying it is effectively a disposition of DC land, and thus needs Council approval, but that is a real stretch of an argument, and I doubt it would hold up.

Even if it's been ratified, all parties involved are susceptible to shaming. That's why Maret issued a statement, they didn't have to. If the political pressure is high enough it will be reopened.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: From the recorded easement in the DC land records (Instrument No. 2010001187):

6. Extension of the Term. In the event Grantee desires to extend the Term for an additional period of no more than nine (9) years (the "Renewal Term"), Grantee shall request such extension by giving written notice ("Extension Request") to the District not earlier than three hundred sixty-five (365) days or later than one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the initial Term. Within thirty (30) days following the District's receipt of the Extension Request, the District shall advise Grantee in writing whether it consents to such Renewal Term, which consent may be withheld or conditioned in the sole discretion of the District.

Initial Term ends on June 29, 2020. So the earliest Maret could give notice of a desire to extend was June 30, 2019 (or July 1st, since June 30th was a Sunday). When did Maret give notice?

Thank you for finding this. Credit to the Maret people for describing it accurately- that the District has to affirmatively consent to the extension. The onus should be squarely on the Mayor and Council now. This does not have to happen, and they have the power and right not to do it.

You're giving Maret too much credit. They've been arguing they had the right to an extension, in the DeadSpin article Marjo Talbott is quoted as saying there was "an expectation."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for finding this. Credit to the Maret people for describing it accurately- that the District has to affirmatively consent to the extension. The onus should be squarely on the Mayor and Council now. This does not have to happen, and they have the power and right not to do it.

DPR has already agreed to the extension, no? If so, the appropriate tense in your last sentence is past and not present.

Ah, you seem to be right! I assumed this needed Council approval, which means it would have to go up to the Mayor's Office to be packaged for Council approval. But as it is not a contract where the District will be paying anything, it does not trigger the $1 million threshold needed for Council approval.

And the DPR director has the authority to execute this contract on the mayors behalf. That looks to have happened, so you are right, should have been past tense.

There doesn't seem to be an administrative way to stop this, assuming the contract has been fully executed. It's possible someone could sue, saying it is effectively a disposition of DC land, and thus needs Council approval, but that is a real stretch of an argument, and I doubt it would hold up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: From the recorded easement in the DC land records (Instrument No. 2010001187):

6. Extension of the Term. In the event Grantee desires to extend the Term for an additional period of no more than nine (9) years (the "Renewal Term"), Grantee shall request such extension by giving written notice ("Extension Request") to the District not earlier than three hundred sixty-five (365) days or later than one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the initial Term. Within thirty (30) days following the District's receipt of the Extension Request, the District shall advise Grantee in writing whether it consents to such Renewal Term, which consent may be withheld or conditioned in the sole discretion of the District.

Initial Term ends on June 29, 2020. So the earliest Maret could give notice of a desire to extend was June 30, 2019 (or July 1st, since June 30th was a Sunday). When did Maret give notice?

Thank you for finding this. Credit to the Maret people for describing it accurately- that the District has to affirmatively consent to the extension. The onus should be squarely on the Mayor and Council now. This does not have to happen, and they have the power and right not to do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for finding this. Credit to the Maret people for describing it accurately- that the District has to affirmatively consent to the extension. The onus should be squarely on the Mayor and Council now. This does not have to happen, and they have the power and right not to do it.

DPR has already agreed to the extension, no? If so, the appropriate tense in your last sentence is past and not present.

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for finding this. Credit to the Maret people for describing it accurately- that the District has to affirmatively consent to the extension. The onus should be squarely on the Mayor and Council now. This does not have to happen, and they have the power and right not to do it.

Anonymous wrote: From the recorded easement in the DC land records (Instrument No. 2010001187):

6. Extension of the Term. In the event Grantee desires to extend the Term for an additional period of no more than nine (9) years (the "Renewal Term"), Grantee shall request such extension by giving written notice ("Extension Request") to the District not earlier than three hundred sixty-five (365) days or later than one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the initial Term. Within thirty (30) days following the District's receipt of the Extension Request, the District shall advise Grantee in writing whether it consents to such Renewal Term, which consent may be withheld or conditioned in the sole discretion of the District.

Initial Term ends on June 29, 2020. So the earliest Maret could give notice of a desire to extend was June 30, 2019 (or July 1st, since June 30th was a Sunday). When did Maret give notice?

Anonymous wrote:What is the Mayor or Council members saying about this? on 93.9, the hip-hp radio station spoke about it, but the lady kept on pronouncing Maret wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks understand that the powers favoring this agreement are not just Maret families but the families/administration at any of the other private schools who play Maret on the Jelleff field.

And note that there are powerful families at play here. Maret's board chair is married to ex-National Security Advisor Susan Rice, for instance.

Anonymous wrote:Folks understand that the powers favoring this agreement are not just Maret families but the families/administration at any of the other private schools who play Maret on the Jelleff field.