.
Feedback

Amid Allegations of Push Polls, BOE Approves Bancroft Bond Language

Haddonfield BOE beats the deadline for a Jan. 22 bond referendum.

The Haddonfield Board of Education unanimously approved final language for a $12.5 million bond referendum in a sometimes raucous public meeting Thursday night at the high school library.

The action clears the way for a Jan. 22 bond referendum for the purchase of the 19-acre Bancroft property adjacent to the high school. The joint purchase by the school board and the borough has been a lightning rod for criticism about the costs and priorities of the BOE and borough.

The plan is to pair the $12.5 million bond with at least $3.5 million in state, county and local open-space funds for the purchase. With the passage, the board met a Dec. 13 deadline for the language to be forwarded to the state Department of Education for approval.

Bancroft is a center for people with developmental disabilities and acquired brain injuries. It has been on this parcel of land for the past 128 years.

"I will pay taxes for anything that helps kids become responsible adults," said Angela Melzi, who said she is 65 and a lifelong borough resident. "But when I see this Bancroft proposal, I have to question what we are we doing as a community."

Melzi peppered the board with questions about an annual facilities report filed with the state that listed over $30 million in improvements needed for local schools. She asked if it was wise to buy Bancroft with other pressing needs.

Amid the rancor of the two-hour meeting Thursday, allegations of professional polling of this 2.5-square-mile borough were raised by several residents in a crowd of about two dozen. School board President Steve Weinstein said he was surprised when he got a call at home from pollsters.

"There's a stench of corruption in this town," said Dr. Susan Hoch, a physician and resident who said she was upset about a phone poll on the Bancroft purchase. "Who paid for this poll on us?"

Weinstein said he didn't know who paid for or commissioned the poll, but promised the crowd the BOE did not. Hoch called the canvas a push poll, a technique of planting negative or positive cues to callers disguised as an impartial poll.

The Bancroft property has been an oasis of possibilities in this nearly built-out borough for open-space preservation and the development of additional athletic fields. The public purchase plan includes the construction of a high-school sports field, demolition of existing buildings on the property, preservation of open space and preservation of land for future school development.

Bill Tourtellotte, a past president of the borough civic association, stood and said he supported the Bancroft purchase as a step forward.

"Where we're sitting is on land that used to be four or five houses that were taken to build this high school," Tourtellotte said. "This is a bigger issue than just us. Our predecessors did the right thing for us and now is our chance to exhibit good vision for those after us."

Opponents of the plan object to the sports field—for which Weinstein and other board officials favor a $1.2 million, artificial-turf surface—and additional taxes for borough residents who already pay some of the highest taxes in the state.

"I've said all along, there are reasons to vote against this and reasons to vote for it," Weinstein said after the meeting. "Everyone has a right to voice their opinion on taxes and costs. Let's see where it goes. I'm hopeful. That's all I can say."

Don't miss any Haddonfield or Haddon Township news. Sign up for Patch's free daily newsletter, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Brett Harrison December 14, 2012 at 01:16 pm
Amazing that the 1.2million for the turf field remains, but the wording does not include a turf field on Bancroft now. What a bunch of smoke and mirrors!
angela melzi December 14, 2012 at 03:53 pm
I would like to clarify if I may: this article states that the $28mil proposal for current school building improvements, repairs, rennovations, etc., was submitted to the NJ State Dept of Ed. to meet requirement for Long Range Faciities Plan. When I presented this proposal to the BOE on November 27, 2012, mtg for this plan Bancroft, the BOE respose was, initially, that they had no knowledge of this plan and then when they viewed it they said that this plan was submitted to the LRFP office as required.
This is incorrect. I spoke to Ms. Dunn, Mgr of facilities dept, I believe, who was clear to tell me that this plan was not submitted. She said that on 6/20/12 an approval letter was submitted, or some such document, by the BOE for Bancroft purchase. She also said that this letter was not made a part of LRFP since it did not deal with educational uses. It is important to me that I be given clear information so I can make informed decisions.
Bill Tourtellotte December 14, 2012 at 05:38 pm
I prefer the new language that does not bind this or future boards to provide a turf field. The change does provide more flexibility so that additional consideration to the issue can take place in the future. Let's not forget that it could be several years before such a field is even constructed. For the record, I used to be opposed but am now on the fence on the turf and suspect that some board members may be as well. But, while there are concerns, there are also undeniable benefits to synthetic surfaces. For one, its almost like getting the usefulness of two or three fields out of the same space. That's a true and clear benefit. Do the negatives outweigh it? Perhaps. But if we are opposed, let's not pretend that it's so clear cut. Regardless, I reject the notion that this board has been anything but transparent, hard working, and doing their very best to look out for the best long term interests of Haddonfield. To suggest otherwise, is inappropriate and unappreciative of their high level of community service in my opinion.
Bill Tourtellotte December 14, 2012 at 05:47 pm
Further, assuming that turf ever even ends up as the surface, this referendum is not about field toppings. This is about not land locking our primary school facility. This is about the future and vision and by that, I mean the next 40, 50, or even 100 years. I love this place and we owe future generations the same vision and caring that drove our predecessors to save Hopkins Pond, Mountwell, Crows Woods Fields and nature area, the Fortnightly, Indian King, Tatem Garden, Radnor Field, etc, etc. they made sacrifices for us, and god bless them for it. That land will be parks, fields, natural areas, and preserved historic structures. It will be the "fairgrounds" that we have always wanted and never had, right at the very gateway to Haddonfield. There will in fact be something for everyone. Let's not be silly and argue over field toppings. History will look back on this time and such divisive arguments will appear petty. It's like fighting over the look of the guard rail crossing Hopkins pond back in the day and instead letting it get developed out of spite.
Bill Tourtellotte December 14, 2012 at 05:59 pm
Lastly, this community has been interested in open space preservation. This is the biggest opportunity to achieve that goal that we will witness in our lifetimes. But that message has been lost here by small thinking. Here is a fact, if this deal fails to happen, not only will we not get additional parkland that we want, we will instead have to hand back a few million dollars of timed-out grant money's that we fought for and were awarded by the state and county. Think about how ridiculous we will be as a community if the negativity and naysayers convince the more level headed folks to not understand and embrace the big picture on this. Frankly, in my view that would be a ridiculous and embarrassing result for our town. No parkland, a land-locked school district, and handing back millions on open space dollars. Lets not cut off our Nose to spite our face. This is not complicated at all if people would just get over the petty stuff and look at the overall picture.
Bill Tourtellotte December 14, 2012 at 06:11 pm
By the way, the full video from last night's meeting is now available for viewing at haddonfieldcivic.com
What is great is that you can scroll past the parts that don't interest you.
Jack S December 14, 2012 at 06:35 pm
Brett, you're exactly right. The approximately $1 to $1.2 million in the bond had been described by the board all along as being for "turf." If you look at the board's presentations on Bancroft beginning in July, the reference to "turf" exclusively was in there from day one. Only when some of our elected officials took into account the growing opposition among townsfolk to turfing Bancroft did their bond counsel cleaverly write the bond language to refer ambiguously to the turf as a "multi-purpose athletic field."
This board has voted to date for 100% of the turf fields coming before it, at the high school. Given that track record, can voters trust that the "multi-purpose athletic field" at Bancroft will not to be turfed? And why should voters have to take their chances? The board had an opportunity to remove some or all of the $1 million from the bond and address the issue of turf or grass down the road. But they chose instead to keep the $1 million in the bond and to leave voters in a quandry.
Jack S December 14, 2012 at 06:45 pm
Angela, putting aside the issue of whether the board submitted the report or not, I take the salient point of your post to be that there are up to $28 million in additonal capital expenditures on the table for the existing schools which are not part of the Bancroft bond. While some of those potential capital expenditures may be ordinary (e.g., a/c upgrades), and others may be extraordinary (e.g., a senior lounge at the high school or the new parking lane at Tatem), it's good for voters to know about the potential for $28 million in capital expenditures in the coming years since they'll be voting soon on the nonessential $12.5 million purchase of Bancroft, with the real prospect, if the bond passes, of additional future millions at Bancroft for the school district to realize its vision of educational building there. It's good to have the whole picture.
Bill Tourtellotte December 14, 2012 at 06:59 pm
Jack, I do genuinely apologize if that characterization is unsettling or you view it as inappropriate. My intention is not to offend, but rather just share my honest view. I do believe that if we get bogged down in negativity and bickering over what I firmly believe is minutiae, we will be failing to get the big picture and suffer as a result. There is no doubt in my mind that if we fail to secure that land, we will regret it. Similarly, if we do secure this land, as the decades go by, we will actually laugh and shudder a bit about how close we came to talking ourselves out of it. There are plenty age-old examples around town where preservation and open space parklands sacrifices by our predecessors have benefitted us. If you are interested, go to I think about 1:49 or so on the web video from last nights meeting and I hope my words there might sway you a bit. A few other opposed folks there said it had a moderating affect. A few minutes later, Kim Custer had some interesting points, and then I had a few remarks after that. In any case, this is civic engagement in action, so thanks.
angela melzi December 14, 2012 at 07:39 pm
On 12/6/12 I rec'd an interview call 4 Bancroft purchase. Questioning the polls lanuage, which seemed 2 me 2 be a push poll, was not made public by BOE I sought out the survey Co. The Co was identified by the interviewer as RSR NY. I attempted 2 make contact with said & discovered that it was allegedly out of business. I discovered the true Co 2 be McLaughlin & Assoc, Belvuid NY. Speaking with Mr. Larkin a Dir of the Co, I was told that they were hired by a pvt organ. was not @ liberty 2 devulge who, or the source of the language. He also said that they are RSR This Co boasts Eric Cantor Bloomberg Netenyahu(sp) Swartzenagger(sp) etc as clients check web My concern is why an arsenal was hired 4 a 19 acre purchase in Hadfld Who hired this Co, why? Hadfld can discuss & debate like always without big guns Perhaps elected officials should address these questions & quell possible resultant rumors
Bill Tourtellotte December 14, 2012 at 08:09 pm
The officials did address this last night when you raised it and said that they had no knowledge of it and most certainly did not pay for it. They cannot control what the pro or anti people do.
Jack S December 14, 2012 at 08:27 pm
One board member, when asked last week, said the polling was being done by Haddonfield United, which I know to be incorrect. One would think if some of the board members were circulating incorrect information, they'd want to find out the truth, and to dispel such rumors.
Joe Taxpayer December 14, 2012 at 08:46 pm
Jack on this we agree. We should always know what the future capital needs/plans are for the boro and BOE. I am familiar with doing long range plans for both public and private sectors/both for profit and not for profit. One needs to look at the balance sheet to understand how you fund depreciation of current asset and then plan for it. Many items are simply wish list but are important to see nontheless. For example, DPW might want 5 new trucks someday and list it as $2M when they will likely get 1 someday.
Whether we agree on Bancroft or not, we do agree on all information should be readily available and explained. It helps keep the what ifs and misunderstandings at bay.
Bill Tourtellotte December 14, 2012 at 08:50 pm
They all said they knew nothing about it last night but you can watch the tape yourself. Frankly, I think the whole poll discussion is a big waste of time and gets off the real issues surrounding the merits of this initiative. A lot of meeting time was wasted on it last night. They were asked if they were behind it and if they knew who was. They said no, and then people kept whining about it on and on. Watch it for yourself but it contributes nothing useful to the debate as far as I can see.
Di Pilla December 14, 2012 at 09:50 pm
I disagree. Clearly, this push poll was an costly and unethical effort paid for by some one or some group that has a high stake interest in the outcome. That brings into question the entire premise and terms of the proposal. Considering that the polling company cited bond language that had yet to be made public, I disagree with Bill that the officials "cannot control what the pro or anti people do" - IF they ARE the pro people behind it. This is what this kind of insider information strongly suggests. It will be interesting to see if one of the many intelligent and resourceful citizens of Haddonfield manages to ferret out exactly who is behind such reprehensible tactics. This will reveal the true financial reason for this proposal.
Bill Tourtellotte December 14, 2012 at 10:05 pm
A resident with experience with polling costs demonstrated that it is not expensive at all to conduct such a poll. Who knows who is behind it and it apparently has nothing to do with the BOE. Also, my understanding is that the general wording of the referendum was available. Let's argue the merits of this initiative pro and con until the cows come home. But let's not waste our valuable time with Conspiracy theories and cloud the real issues.
angela melzi December 14, 2012 at 10:05 pm
My post does not suggest that the BOE had anything to do with this poll. And I did not raise the issue. I simply provided information that I had obtained re: poll and my opinion. I do not believe a lot of time was wasted nor do I believe that it was non-contributory. Questions were and are raised as to purpose, contributors if any and the character that this campaign is taking. I do not regard ciitizen comments from the public or the BOE to be whiny - they are/were honest, concerned comments and questions that elicited same. We are a kind community who looks after each other. Never before has a school referendum involved big gun political consultants or such push polling tactics. This is something that some may feel is important to question. I respect your comments and your right to opinion and expression as I am sure you do as well.
Bill Tourtellotte December 14, 2012 at 10:18 pm
Suggesting that these BOE folks, who are our fellow residents should waste their time chasing down rumors and conspiracy theories is troubling. Someone said that at the meeting as well. Think about what you are saying. These folks put in an incredible amount of their spare time to serve us on an unpaid basis. All for the privilege of getting lambasted and having their integrity called into question by thoughtless residents. Disagree with their vision and advice all that you want, but at least be fair and decent. Are any of these folks who are giving these folks so much crap ready to run for the BOE? The current Civic Association President last night got pretty upset and raised his voice to those who had spoken so disrespectfully. Bear in mind that the HCA is a resident based group that is something of a watchdog who seeks extensive debate, fairness and sunshine on all public matters. They have the reputation and label as "the conscience of the community". And their leader is disgusted by the tone and disrespect exhibited by certain residents. Disagree all you want, and if there is foul play, bring facts and let's expose them. But being unfair with people who are serving us because you don't agree is unfair and inappropriate.
Bill Tourtellotte December 14, 2012 at 10:21 pm
Angela, my post above was a continuation of my response to the other persons post but your post came in while I was writing. Thanks
angela melzi December 14, 2012 at 10:31 pm
I believe the citizen who suggested the poll was not expensive was referring to a robo call as he has stated on Haddonfield United website. This was a personal interview call. He was not aware that McLaughlin and Assoc was the hired firm. You bring up an impotant question that was asked last night at the BOE mtg. Where did the poll language come from? It was not official BOE until last night - specifically -when the draft proposal was read to me by the surveyor, he said Block 14, Lot 2 for future use as active/passive open space and additional site parking ..... - this is in the draft propoal and added - for future educational purposes - this last part for future educaitional purposes is not in the draft. This draft was given to the public 11/27/2012. This survey was done 12/6/12. This language, future edcuational ... is included in the proposal given by the BOE to the public last night.
Bill Tourtellotte December 14, 2012 at 10:50 pm
He was referring to both types of polls as being cheap and that robo calling was super cheap. I'm sorry, but I just don't have the energy for this BOE conspiracy discussion relative to a phone poll. As I have said, I think it's a waste of time and pursuit of negativity and avoidance of a real discussion on the merits of the opportunity to secure that land for the public use and benefit for generations to come. That is what we should be discussing here.
angela melzi December 14, 2012 at 11:25 pm
pls accept these comments in the manner in which they are meant. I have spent some time today on this issue of the best use of school tax dollar for the sake of educational purposes for Haddonfield children, families and residents.
How lucky I am that I and my children are on this earth today so that I can work to plan for our futures and those of any future grandchildren I may have. I am so terribly sorry for those children and adults today who do not have my good fortune. so very very sad
Jack S December 15, 2012 at 12:42 am
Expensive can be relative term. But live onshore polling costs range between about $20 to $50 per fully loaded TSR hour.
Each completed Bancroft survey lasted about 20 minutes, so with the TSR opening and closing the record, figure 30 minutes. Two surveys per hour, tops. For each 1000 households, that's $20 x .5 x 1000 or $10,000 low end and $50 x .5 x 1000 or $25,000 top end. If the number of homes is higher/lower, or the TSRs are less efficient, the costs will be higher or lower. That's not cheap when you're going up against opposition that has a budget close to zero. The fact that someone or some group is willing to spend so much money to get their point across only furthers the impression that what they're selling is a pig in a poke.
Jack S December 15, 2012 at 12:44 am
Interesting that the pollster had the language earlier than the public.
Brett Harrison December 15, 2012 at 02:07 am
Angela, you hit the nail on the head.
Perhaps all the residents of Haddonfield should view the Civic Assn. posting of last night's meeting, including the request of the Radnor neighbors. Naysayers? Bah! Caveat emptor (buyer beware).
Brian Kelly December 15, 2012 at 02:19 am
We'll find out who ran the polls and who the donors are contributing to the PAC group OneHaddonfield before this over. For the more open minded, there's a big difference between negativity and indignation towards a bill that has been disingenuous in terms of information from the very beginning.
While I appreciate the hard work the school board does and understand why they would be upset, the residents against this bill have every right to distrust what is going on. The referendum is still not clear, although let's face facts. It's going to be a Haddonfield sports campus with 3 turf fields. We already got 2 of them without any say from the residents. As for the commitment to open space, they've been yanking that in and out of the bill for the past year. They're only playing it up now because the PR for this whole project has a disaster. Let's discuss the merits of the tax increases and costs both hidden and down the road and how it's really going to affect this town.
Susan Hoch MD December 16, 2012 at 08:29 pm
You are incorrect. Mr Weinstein had knowledge of the poll because he was one of those polled. He either lacks the intellectual curiosity to wonder who had commissioned it and lacks the experience to be able to distinguish a push poll from a genuine survey or he knows who is behind it. Your choice.
Pro-Haddonfield December 20, 2012 at 05:58 pm
Finally. Someone has the sense to recognize that this whole turf thing is not the bigger issue. Why is it that that is the biggest topic of conversation. Yes, turf is the better alternative for us to maximize use and relieve the problems we have on our fields across town. No turf is not going to give us cancer and cause us knee problems any more than our ill maintained grass (mud) fields with their fertilizers and weed inhibitors. Focus on the opportunity at hand people. We have the opportunity to shape our grandchilrens' future.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Haddonfield-Haddon Township Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Bob Grossman June 13, 2013 at 02:46 am
We found Four in a neighbor's yard. He is now home with his kitty friends and family. Bob