The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools st

Joshua Berry Originally published October 1 , 2017

During the June 19th, 2017 board meeting of the Gloucester Township Public Schools (GTPS), board VicePresident Mark Gallo made the statements that he doesn’t see what the effect of Pay to Play (P2P) is thus confirming that the school board is aware of its pay to play practices and confirmed they operate in a pay to play culture. Following that meeting, a number of individuals from both political parties who were outraged over these statements contacted me and asked for my help in answering his challenge. This write-up is my answer, written from a first-person point of view using my own experiences and facts that I either uncovered directly or have verified independently, and also includes my own commentary on both specific data points and the overall trend and culture. This also includes stories and events others have said to me directly about them or I have witnessed first-hand. To the greatest extent possible, I have included documentation and sources for facts and data as listed in the end notes. The notes either link directly to a publicly available source or link to a dropbox account with the appropriate documentation. Before continuing I am making the following disclaimers: I wrote this discussion on the Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township under the guidelines set forth in New York Times v Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964). The individuals and entities named herein are public figures and/or public entities. At the time of this document’s writing I believed the statements contained herein to be true and accurate, without actual malice. All commentary is presented as my personal opinion. Throughout this document I have taken reasonable actions to cite sources and provide links to documents, believing cited sources to be accurate. For the limited cases where I intentionally omitted names or used unsworn statements, I understand those specific points are heresy. If any statement or source is incorrect I will amend this document at my discretion if and only if 1) I have the accurate information with proof of its accuracy and 2) a thorough explanation as to why my source was inaccurate or why the accurate information was not publicly available. Under no circumstances will I retract this document in part or whole simply because a public figure does not like the information I provided or the inferences I made. This document is highly critical of the Gloucester Township School Board and is specific and blunt in the effects their decisions have on our children’s education. This is NOT an indictment of teachers who are ordinary people trying to make a living serving our children. I have a long and documented history to standing up for our teachers and supporting them. While writing this response I have learned to respect them even more by their resilience in working under these conditions.

In writing this, I assumed readers are familiar with the concept of “Pay to Play” (P2P): the practice of governing bodies awarding contracts and personnel appointments based on campaign donations and personal contacts in lieu of basing decisions on actual qualifications for the position and overall cost / benefit to the public. I acknowledge P2P can be implemented in many forms with some forms having minimal impacts. However I am telling this narrative within the context of Gloucester Township and in

particular the “Team Mayer” regime’s P2P culture. They currently control the Mayor’s office, municipal council, the school boards for the GTPS and Black Horse Pike Regional Schools, and have strong ties to other governing bodies such as the Camden County Freeholders and the 6 GT Fire Districts. I am focusing on the effects to the schools but am also using data from the municipal as they illustrate potential effects to the schools and are data points I am personally familiar with. I have no doubt these stories and incidents could happen anywhere in the state with only the names and people changing to fit each town. Many of the examples I cite date from 2010 through 2014 because that is when I was active politically and it allows me to discuss in the “real” and not the “theoretical”. I am certain that others have more recent examples and if appropriate I may follow this up with a second reply with those recent examples. As proven throughout this reply, Mr. Gallo’s assertion that pay to play has no negative effect is completely wrong in every sense of the definition. His statements show that either he has no clue as to its effects or he is simply trying to mislead the public and deflect. A pay to play culture leads to higher taxes, reduced services delivered to the schools, and a culture change within the school or municipal environment. I chose to write this from a first-person point of view to tell my personal narrative of pay to play within Gloucester Township to show that P2P does in fact have very real effects to the schools and most importantly to people. Many of these people are innocent residents and public employees, and in some cases children. To answer why did people reach out to me for my reply and why would my narrative be relevant given that I have not lived in Gloucester Township since 2013 when I re-married and moved to my wife’s town? There are two reasons. The first is that I am an expert on pay to play and its effects on local government. In the mid 2000’s I was part of a state-wide coalition advocating for a Citizens Constitutional Convention and led a local group advocating for property tax reform. During this time I learned about the true drivers of tax increases, of which P2P is one. Between 2010 and 2012 I led a petition drive under the Faulkner Act to have P2P banned in Gloucester Township which also included studying how Team Mayer used it. We collected enough signatures but were blocked by the municipality using a technicality on the notarizations to strike a number of petitions. It is these experiences that taught me how it works and showed me it’s frightening effects. Second is that my exwife still lives in Gloucester Township and my sons still go to school there. Even though I live elsewhere in Camden County I still have close ties and follow events because of the vested interest I have in my son’s education and well-being.

Why is Pay to Play a Bad Thing? Before I can begin to tell the story of the effects of pay to play in Gloucester Township, it is important to first answer the question of why P2P is a bad model from a philosophical point of view, which I’ll do very briefly by stating that it is morally wrong to 1) base vendor and personnel qualifications solely on donations and 2) extort campaign contributions from existing or potential vendors. If I need to provide anyone with a more in-depth explanation of why it is morally wrong, I doubt they will understand any additional arguments I or anyone could make. That said, to fully understand how P2P morally corrupts The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools

October 1, 2017 Page 2 This document is a first-person analysis using first-hand and publicly available information in response to the Gloucester Township School Board stating there are no negative effects of pay to play. It confirms to NY Times v Sullivan without malice.

people living in that culture, here are some specific incidents of Team Mayer behavior attributed to this culture: 1. Once Team Mayer took over the GT Housing Authority, Mayor David Mayer demanded the then Executive Director give him the names of all of the GTHA vendors so he could extort them for campaign contributions.i This was not a matter of taking donations into consideration it was a deliberate demand for money in return to a renewal of a contract. 2. According to the former GTHA Board Chairman Arthur Knapp: to get control over the GTHA, Team Mayer threatened board members until they voted Cindy Carlamere, the wife of GT Solicitor Carlamere, as Chair.ii 3. As discussed in the Effects to Taxpayers, multiple residents and business have reported a practice where a public person or entity either encouraged or outright compelled them to use a friend or donor to Team Mayer for services they may or may not have needed such as attorneys, planners, and engineers. This is a form of pay to play where the payback is in private dollars.iii 4. During the petition drive to end pay to play in 2012, the law firm of Wade, Long, Wood, and Kennedy (WLWK) – who at the time were the solicitors for the school boards, many of the fire districts, and the municipal prosecutor – in collusion with members of Gloucester Township’s Department of Law and other party officials fabricated false affidavits to publicly discredit the committee of petitioners and have us prosecuted for crimes that never happened. Further the firm of WLWK attempted a SLAPP lawsuitiv as a means of intimidating us. As this happened to myself and friends of mine you can assume we have complete documentation and those in my group can testify to the statements from scared minority seniors who were forced to come to WLWK’s offices to sign papers they knew to be false.v When a governing body openly and publicly endorses pay to play and proudly admits they operate using it, they are explicitly endorsing these sickening behaviors such as personal intimidation, retaliation against individuals and organizations, and the compelling of business to fund the local political machines campaign. Pay to Play is not a “victimless” culture. It is a toxic culture that affects real people whether they be good government activists, teachers and school staff, business owners seeking a permit, and even innocent children.

The Immediate Effect: Loss of Board Independence The immediate effect of a P2P culture is that the governing body, whether a school board or municipal council all the way through Trenton and into Washington loses their independence. Instead of a board being a group of individuals who debate issues and act as objective oversight to the school administrators accountable to the people, they become puppets to the party or group controlling the campaign money accountable to the machine. As I walk through this journey from citizen involvement to machine control, I assume this story might sound familiar to anyone who has followed local politics. I take no joy in writing this section as in my opinion it is sad to watch boards and the people who comprise them transform into a puppet of the machine. The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools

October 1, 2017 Page 3 This document is a first-person analysis using first-hand and publicly available information in response to the Gloucester Township School Board stating there are no negative effects of pay to play. It confirms to NY Times v Sullivan without malice.

In many parts of New Jersey and in most of the country, people run for school board out of a sense of duty to one’s community. Often they have a specific issue they are championing such as a new school building or changes to the curriculum. Sometimes they are seeking higher office and are using the school board to learn about local politics and build name recognition. Regardless of their individual motivation, most people find a few friends and neighbors to sign the nomination petition then maybe spend a trivial amount out of pocket on yard signs and copies of flyers printed in black and white from the local office supply store. They will attend local civic events and maybe walk a few streets, asking the people they know to vote for them. Once in office they bring their unique point of view and advocate for the students or their issue based on their personal morals and beliefs. Most of them are not professional politicians. These boards act as independent voices and governance to the Superintendent, holding him accountable. They are not perfect and have the same flaws as any ordinary person but their motivation is what they believe is in the best interest of the school community which also includes the taxpayers. In most of the country this model works well. Once candidates supported by P2P enter the picture there is a dramatic change in the election. Instead of obviously looking homemade signs, there are the glossy mailers and billboards, joint events with the local party, and electioneering of the ballot to endorse whomever happens to be in positions 1, 2, and 3.vi The P2P candidates have no idea where the money comes from and are told “don’t worry about it, we’ll take care of it”. Someone else recruits candidates and runs the campaign. Instead of people motivated by civic duty or a specific topic you have people who are running for office who may be unsure of why they are running and not very interested in governing. Or maybe you have people who are using the schools as the “JV” team while they wait for their promotion to council. How many of the machine backed school board candidates know where their campaign funds came from and had a say in their campaign messaging or planned their campaign events? If they weren’t the one driving their campaign, are they the one driving their agenda for the schools? Did the candidates approach someone about running or were they approached by someone to be part of the “team”? During the 2014 GTPS BOE election cycle, there were two complete slates of candidates, one from Team Mayer and the other a collection of honest, independent voters who didn’t organize as a slate until they had individually submitted their nominating petitions. One of who, Richard Bobbe, is a highly regarded criminal defense attorney with references from some of the most prominent prosecutors in the region. His various practices covered a lot of different specialties, and one small area his firm served was for accused sex offenders. Team Mayer pounced on this to smear Mr. Bobbe as an enabler of child predators. They implied he would be a danger to the schools and children himself and that he would pass along student information to his clients. These accusations are completely false and repugnant but they show the depravity that Team Mayer will stoop to. They created a “Stop the Bobbe Team” campaign complete with a Facebook pagevii, PAC-funded lawn signs and even professionally produced attack ads.viii Mr. Bobbe was an outspoken criticix of the behaviors of Team Mayer on the GTBOE thus they had strong incentive to try and block him from being a board member. The machine attacked him in a way that no independent candidate for school board would because independent school board candidates focus on their message and generally do not get into the mud-slinging seen in other races. The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools

October 1, 2017 Page 4 This document is a first-person analysis using first-hand and publicly available information in response to the Gloucester Township School Board stating there are no negative effects of pay to play. It confirms to NY Times v Sullivan without malice.

This type of disturbing behavior by a coordinated pay to play machine has a chilling effect on future residents thinking of the school board. Why would anyone put themselves through that kind of personal abuse where the Team Mayer smear campaign will try to attack anyone via any means necessary including their livelihood and their family? These are attacks a candidate’s family and children have to hear. To be blunt now that Team Mayer has shown they are willing and capable of this, many people will choose to not run. Even if they do decide to run it becomes difficult for honest, independent citizens to compete with the attention glossy flyers, lawn signs, and mailers can bring, let alone emails sent to sports teams, and the inherent support of the political class who are told who to vote for. As a result many qualified and passionate independent voters don’t run, which is precisely what the P2P machine is counting on so their candidates can run unopposed and they have one less race to spend funds on (but they can still raise funds for). Once the candidates supported by the machine are in, they know they are dependent on the machine to stay in office because they cannot raise those kinds of funds on their own, and they might find themselves the targets of the Team Mayer attack machine (as former Gloucester Township Councilwoman Crystal Evans was, who later brought a lawsuit because of itx). That is the moment when the machine owns them and their vote on this board. As documented in Mrs. Evans complaint, there are cases in schools and council of officials being told they don’t need to read the package just vote yes on it. The board members become disposable to the machine knowing the party bosses can find another warm body to run in the spot if a board member grows a conscience and decides to challenge them or vote against them. Or maybe the bosses just convince board members to not run for reelection. Don’t think the GTPS and GT Council are owned by the pay to play machine? How many votes have been 7 – 2 with voting broken down by alignment to the machine in the schools and unanimous in council? How many in each board have questioned the machine or thought for themselves? Here is a hint: once winning school board candidates posed for a picture with council candidates holding a broom for the “machine sweep” on election night, the machine owned themxi. Once the machine owns a board member, the board slowly sees its real choices dwindle. They are told how to vote, what to say (if anything), and sometimes which meeting to miss. The machine is forcing the school board to violate their ethics in become subservient any political group yet the board Solicitor doesn’t care because as documented, they are an integral cog in the P2P machine. Think I am just a malcontent making up stories? Here is a real life example of a GT elected official owned by the machine. I am leaving out his name to protect the guilty. This event took place in August 2012 on the night I exposed Remington and Vernick’s poor service (which we will talk about later). At that time and during the council meeting, discussions became heated as the party continued their attack on me making up outlandish stories including the fake charges of affidavit fraud. After the meeting I was in the parking lot with this nameless elected official discussing the character assassination they were doing. I mentioned the accusations were completely baseless. He quickly replied “Of course they are”. When I asked why he wouldn’t speak up in private or public about it his reply left me shocked, “Because if I did they would punish me”. I’ll repeat this because I had a hard time believing this too: The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools

October 1, 2017 Page 5 This document is a first-person analysis using first-hand and publicly available information in response to the Gloucester Township School Board stating there are no negative effects of pay to play. It confirms to NY Times v Sullivan without malice.

They. Would. Punish. Me. This was a grown man replying like a child afraid of what his abusive parent might do. Do you know what the proper term for that kind of reaction by an elected official is: OWNED! They owned him and he knew it. He better not challenge the party when he knew they were wrong because they owned him. And if the school board is taking their campaign contributions, the machine owns them too. Yet the sworn duty as a school board member is to be an independent and objective voice on the board. Can any of them honestly look me in the eye and say they are either independent or objective let alone both? Of course not. In a pay to play culture, the “investors” meaning the campaign donors are looking for a return on that investment. No vendor donates to a local campaign unless there is something in it for them and as a machine candidate they have no choice but to give it to them regardless of the effects it has. That’s the point of pay to play. That’s how it works. And when the school board brags about being in a pay to play culture they are admitting they put the donor’s interests ahead of the children’s. Throughout this document, remember these numbers: $1,849,248xii $90,000xiii. Those are the amounts Team Mayer has raised in the aggregate and the number spent on school board elections over the past few years through Q2 2017 as documented through ELEC filings. I have no doubt this number will be over $2 Million once we get through the mayoral election in November. Try to imagine how nearly TWO MILLION DOLLARS could have been paid back using taxpayer dollars as Team Mayer’s personal slush fund. Then try to imagine WHY Team Mayer aligned firms would invest the $90k dollars in a nonpartisan school board with unpaid positions? These firms are not “donors”. Donors give money to a worthwhile cause out of a sense of charity or emotional support. These firms are “investors”. They are investing in Team Mayer so they can get a financial or other return on their investment. Many of these firms invest in whichever political party is in power in a given town. They are not motivated by any ideology other than greed and corruption. We must stop thinking of the people who fund the Team Mayer PACs as selfless donors. They are shrewd investors cultivating a crop of politicians and board members they can nurture into puppets they can control. During my review of this document I asked a few key individuals with knowledge of the events described herein to read this and provide feedback to help ensure my accuracy. More than one of them replied with information about a current school board member that shows the deeply entrenched hypocrisy of Team Mayer. Because I did not have time to fully fact check statements, even those that came with sources, I am intentionally withholding her name. Here is her “resume”xiv: She was one of the leaders in the despicable attacks on Richard Bobbe, and also posted faux outrage statements on social media. Others have claimed on social media she once held a job with the municipality and was caught working at a private company during working hours and forced to resign or be arrested. There are reports she is close friends with a sex offender. She had to abstain from voting to fire a school board employee who had sex with a student because she has ties to this person. And finally, her husband was caught bilking seniors and was the subject of a Fox29 report. If her background wasn’t bad enough she has apparently missed 11 board meetings last year and has missed 8 this year! If she was this disinterested in serving on the board why did she run in the first place? Maybe because she is owned by the machine? Mr. Gallo you want an effect to this board, here is one: instead of having Mr. Bobbe on the board looking out for The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools

October 1, 2017 Page 6 This document is a first-person analysis using first-hand and publicly available information in response to the Gloucester Township School Board stating there are no negative effects of pay to play. It confirms to NY Times v Sullivan without malice.

our students posing no risk to our children, we have an absent board member who is an actual risk of introducing predators to our children! Is this the best candidate Team Mayer can produce, someone who makes up false accusations against someone while she has a personal black cloud over her head? What poor choices has she made and what kind of damage has she and the rest of the Team Mayer board done?

The Effect to Taxpayers Let’s start with the effect to taxpayers from a purely financial point of view. In addition to being a government watching, my “day job” is working in an engineering services company in both a pre-sales and delivery role where I create proposals and deliver services including consulting. I am an expert on creating proposals and RFP’s, both technical and client engagement teams. For those who might not be familiar with how service companies price deals, let me quickly educate you on the financial side. When services companies create proposals they have revenue and margin targets they have to hit. They set prices to hit those margin targets based on *every* cost from labor to software to travel and yes they include the cost of sales such as client dinners and payments to local officials. Those campaign donations are absolutely factored into the cost of services every board receives. If you think they are ignored or the firms are supporting a campaign out of altruistic reasons I have a few bridges I’d like to sell you. Moving beyond the education on proposal writing, here is how pay to play directly affects taxpayers from a purely financial perspective in Gloucester Township without considering the quality of the services (though having to redo work or hire outside help because the primary vendor can’t do it should certainly be considered). I am certain there are other modes of this I have not yet discovered inside of GT or may be used elsewhere. Omitting them here does not mean they can’t have an effect as well. 1. Overpaying for delivered services. There are four modes of how this can happen: a. Inflated hourly rates across the board. The vendor recovers the cost of donating by raising the hourly rate of staff when operating on a Time and Materials basis, or raise the cost of Fixed Price work. In this case, the impact can be a 1:1 burden, or if the firm raises prices more than the cost of the donations the impact is obviously multiplied. Without having inside knowledge of each firms cost sheets it is impossible to document. However, now that watchdogs have accused council and schools of ignoring lowest price based on hourly cost, there is a variant of this discussed in point (1)(d) below. b. Up-charging resources. This is when a junior resource is billed at a senior rate. When Solicitor Long took over for Solicitor Wade at the GTPS, WLWK charged the same hourly rate. Standard practice is that staff (engineers, architects, attorneys, etc…) are put into tiers similar to steps a teacher has with the more experienced / better people commanding a higher hourly rate. Solicitor Long is just starting his career and should be paid accordingly, not the premium hourly rate paid to Solicitor Wade who had decades of experience. The impact to taxpayers is that we are paying premium dollars for inexperienced staff. The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools

October 1, 2017 Page 7 This document is a first-person analysis using first-hand and publicly available information in response to the Gloucester Township School Board stating there are no negative effects of pay to play. It confirms to NY Times v Sullivan without malice.

c. A lack of financial oversight. In a pay to play culture, the vendor can pad expenses to invoices knowing the board will not scrutinize them. In 2011, Patchxv uncovered that Gloucester Township was paying for invoices that included no detail other than the overall dollar amount to Blue Sky Power. In addition Patch also found instances of contracts not flowing state regulations by making them open-endedxvi. The obvious impact to taxpayers is without proper controls, we have no idea of what we are paying for and not holding our vendors accountable to keep the costs down or not charge us for expenses like travel time. d. Low Bid but Pad the Hours. Given the lack of oversight and a lack of a cap on the cost of the contract in (c) above, vendors will game the system to appear to be the lowest bidder by charging a lower hourly rate. However, during the life of the contract they will inflate the number of billable hours. Some examples of this: Richard Bobbe questioning WLWK over apparent line item overcharges to the GTBOE at a meeting with no answersxvii, Pettit contracted to do a “design spec” on an athletic field that already existed and didn’t require any engineering analysisxviii, Ben Zhangi contracted by the GTMUA and caught overbilling.xix The general pattern is that Team Mayer will find small projects the firms can overbill for, if any actual work is done at all. And no one other than watchdogs will generally check. 2. The bonding issue. Standard practice is that bond council is paid 10% of the face value of all bonds written. Back when the attorneys had to manually look up information and hand write documentation this was a fair price but with today’s technology this work is mostly automated and can be accomplished in minutes with language created using legal templates. Governing bodies are allowed to supersede this 10% rule and instead pay bond council on a time and materials basis. Because GT’s board is dependent on the political support of the bond vendor our schools will continue to overpay for this service. The result to the taxpayer is that EVERY public works project is inflated by at least 10% just to pay for this, and when one considers how often GT refinances bonds the payoffs to the bond attorneys are astronomical. With over $78Mxx in debt across all GT governing bodies, this means over $7.8 MILLION has been wasted on bond attorneys across GT. Much more when you consider how much debt has been refinanced given GT will refinance every 7 – 8 years. How many other poor financial choices has the board made with respect to finances that we don’t know about? In a pay to play culture board members don’t care and are forbidden from looking or asking. Shut up and vote on what the machine tells you. 3. The board creates bad deals for unnecessary services. Blue Sky Power was created by former law partners of David Mayer without any experience in the energy market. The solar panels were advertised to save $4 Million yet they cost around $20 Millionxxi. Without the donations from Blue Sky and the influence of the mayor the board would not have signed this terrible deal. On belief and information board members did not like the idea, especially the specific implementation of the solar panels and the deal structure. When the board asked the superintendent how this deal originated, he told them “it came straight from the township. Right from the top.” Who is “the top”? Mayor Mayer who is personal friends with Blue Sky The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools

October 1, 2017 Page 8 This document is a first-person analysis using first-hand and publicly available information in response to the Gloucester Township School Board stating there are no negative effects of pay to play. It confirms to NY Times v Sullivan without malice.

Power. Is that why when taxpayers have asked the board repeatedly about the financials they are unable to answer?xxii What are they hiding? There are myriad examples of the municipality awarding contracts for unneeded work, such as T&M getting a small deal through the “private, non-profit” GT Economic Development Corp that was hidden from taxpayer scrutiny. How many small deals has Gloucester Township given that we don’t know about? The obvious impact is wasting taxpayer dollars on unnecessary or ill-advised projects and additional long-term debt. 4. The board hires unneeded staff. Similar to unneeded contracts, the board will often be forced to hire party members for low work or no work positions. The obvious impact is additional expenses, including pension, that are not needed. To protect the guilty I’ll leave out specific names. 5. Private investor payoffs. One twist on P2P is that instead of an investor or friend getting a government contract, the municipality “encourages” private citizens or companies to use the services of the investor. Sometimes the victims need various levels of “encouragement” to “make the right choice”. Because I will never force victims to come forward by mentioning their names or specific situations, I am intentionally withholding their names. Thus discussing this effect to taxpayers is heresy due to a lack of documentation. To protect the guilty in case the repeated stories of this practice are not true I am not mentioning the guilty parties either, even though in some circles it is common knowledge who they are. That said many of the stories include details that when the victim chooses to use their own service provider, they meet resistance until they hear a variant of “if you use X, your problem will go away”. After wasting months of time and thousands of additional dollars, they gave in to the pressure. When the victims used the Team Mayer “recommended” vendor they submitted their original documents which magically were accepted without much scrutiny. I realize how dangerous it can be to make these accusations, especially since in my opinion they are criminal. I include them here noting they are heresy because the compelling story is the fact that I have heard variations of this story throughout my time as a good government advocate. Assuming these multiple stories are accurate, the pay to play culture created these victims because the machine will do whatever it takes to repay their friends and investors.xxiii In my opinion, the Team Mayer machine lacks the ethical guidance to understand that using public officials to steer clients to their investors is morally wrong and compelling the victims to use these vendors in my opinion is criminal. From a taxpayer point of view, how many hundreds of thousands -- if not millions -- of dollars could have been saved and taxes lowered? Even keeping the current budget the same, how many teachers, aides, books and supplies could the wasted money have provided, all without raising a dime from taxpayers? Saying that pay to play has no effect on the taxpayers is specious at best and borderline negligent. Do I need to perform a deep dive into the GTPS financials to see what other effects there may be?

The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools

October 1, 2017 Page 9 This document is a first-person analysis using first-hand and publicly available information in response to the Gloucester Township School Board stating there are no negative effects of pay to play. It confirms to NY Times v Sullivan without malice.

The Effect to Services and Schools Culture The catastrophic effect to taxpayers is only one side of the equation. The other effects of a pay to play culture is to the services delivered by the school which includes the change in the culture. This can be further broken down to effects to services provided by vendors, hiring and other decisions by the board, and the schools culture itself. Before I discuss the details, I will assert that this information is dated and the board might have corrected these negative effects. However I stand by these statements of P2P’s impact at the time of my observations.

Vendors based on donations instead of merit In a P2P culture, small local vendors often do not even bother applying because they cannot afford the donations of the larger firms. This has the effect of immediately shrinking the pool of service providers. Even when there is competition the decision process is guided by the vendor contributions and not the merits of the applicants. Often there is a “rotation” among investors as to who gets the next contract without consideration to quality of servicexxiv. Party officials make the decisions in a back room, and the elected board members are told who to vote for. Even if there is a score card the “owned” board members fill it out to ensure the proper vendor gets the deal. How many of the current board actually objectively reviewed vendor applications without knowledge of their contributions or being told who needs to win? Consider the example of former GTPS board member Marianne Coyle’s evaluation of Wade, Long, Wood, and Kennedy for school board solicitor in June of 2014. She gave them a 130 / 100 xxvof the possible scoring because she filled out the score card for what she thought was the top score in each category. Clearly she was not taking the time to even read it before filling it out and had already chosen her vendor. Is this how we want our children’s education guided? How is this not a violation of the board member guidelines to always pick the most qualified person or vendor? Maybe the fact that Mrs. Coyle was illegally serving as a PAC officer while an elected official might have had something to do with her choices.xxvi Or that WLWK donated to her PAC?xxvii Maybe because she was also an employee of the Department of Law for the municipality? When I first learned of all of this, I was highly concerned that she did not know the law when she worked for the municipal Solicitor – the prohibition against it is bold letters on page 1 of the PAC manual. I read it when I thought there might be a conflict. Why didn’t she? To repeat the theme of this document, because they owned her and were telling her what to do so she didn’t bother to check if it was legal. On belief and information, other Team Mayer board members were seen scribbling numbers on their score cards moments before submitting them, but there is no documentation of this and their carelessness was not as obvious as Mrs. Coyle’s. The example of Mrs. Coyle poorly “fudging” her scorecard to get the desired result is an example of how the GTPS gets poor service. Here are actual examples of effects to service in Gloucester Township. 1. Prior to Mrs. Coyle’s selection, the firm of Wade, Long, Wood, and Kennedy had just participated in witness tampering and affidavit fraud during the pay to play petition drive of 2011-2012 as described earlier and documented in the civil case and multiple complaints to the state and Federal authorities. Given their involvement in this, were they really the best firm for The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools

October 1, 2017 Page 10 This document is a first-person analysis using first-hand and publicly available information in response to the Gloucester Township School Board stating there are no negative effects of pay to play. It confirms to NY Times v Sullivan without malice.

2.

3.

4.

5.

the job? Or were they chosen not in spite of their role in this scandal but because of their role in the scandal? Donations might not always be cash they could be services such as those trying to silence critics of pay to play like me. To be blunt, was it pay to play that changed WLWK from a once well respected law firm to an organization that terrorized a group of scared minority senior citizens into signing false documents against their will? After all, WLWK donated over $100,000 to Team Mayer and doesn’t appear to stop. They are Team Mayer’s third largest investor. In keeping with the level of service WLWK have given the GTPS, during one of my first GTPS board meetings, a workshopxxviii I had to correct Solicitor Wade on the Open Public Meetings Act where there were no meeting minutes from workshops and other non-regular meetings because he felt if there was no vote there was no need for meeting notes. He literally had to look it up when the board went into Exec and came back to the meeting with his tail between his legs. Mr. Wade had decades of experience and didn’t know the OPMA? OMPA and OPRA are the bedrocks of all public entities and have been for decades. How did he now know this? If he did not know OPMA, how were the board taught and advised about OPMA and OPRA on an ongoing basis, and why didn’t anyone correct him? Is that the best legal advisor the GTPS could have gotten? What other bad advice has he given over the years? $100,000 can sure buy a lot of blind eyes and board member silence, can’t it? Maybe Wade’s lack of knowledge on OPMA explains his lack of knowledge about PACs in the Coyle case when he failed to recognize her illegal role even when presented with the facts?xxix When the GTPS selected the firm of WLWK to continue following the departure of Solicitor Wade and replaced him with Solicitor Long (both are park of WLWK), there was a dramatic drop off in experience. How can the board possibly say that he is the best solicitor they could find when he had no experience other than attending meetings prior to watch? In the engineering world a junior engineer is often supported by tools and process of the larger firm, but in the case of a small law firm our support is the attorney himself as he can’t go back to his law library in the middle of a meeting to answer questions. Moving past this board’s legal team, GT Council has a documented history of selecting unqualified vendors. During investigations in 2011 and 2012, Patch and others discovered that two applicants to GT, Blue Sky Power and Kris Kolluri, had little to zero qualifications for the appointments they soughtxxx. Blue Sky had to subcontract to vendors with experience to do the actual work, and Kris Kolluri clearly did not meet the minimum requirements set forth in the RFP. In non-pay to play environments, their proposal would be rejected. In a P2P world, that was ignored in the back room when they were selected. In the case of Kris Kolluri, he was a long time friend of David Mayer (rumored to have been one of the Best Men at Mayer’s wedding) and was recently released as head of the Department of Transportation following the election of Governor Chris Christie. Yet he was appointed economic development having minimal experience in that field. In a non-competitive services world, there is no incentive to improve and show best practices. Firms will get stale in their process and not show improvements over time because they know how poorly of a job they do, they will get reappointed next year or be given another appointment. This is best illustrated by an incident involving the engineering firm Remington

The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools

October 1, 2017 Page 11 This document is a first-person analysis using first-hand and publicly available information in response to the Gloucester Township School Board stating there are no negative effects of pay to play. It confirms to NY Times v Sullivan without malice.

and Vernick in 2012xxxi. While analyzing the calibrations of yellow light times for the red light cameras, I noticed they used manual stopwatches to take three recordings of the light and average them. When I confronted them about this during a council meeting, the engineer had no knowledge of this as if he signed the report without actually reading it. In this case R&V used practices that are shunned by most professional engineers as being unreliable and outdated. If they were this sloppy here, where else have they taken shortcuts? The impact to services is clear. 6. There is a mode of pay to play that does not involve direct contributions to PACs and contributions. Instead, a private firm will hire a politician or members of their family in return for “favorable treatment”. Sometimes these positions are legitimate jobs where the person works and other times they are “no show” or “lo show” jobs. Even though we can’t track this through ELEC forms it does have an effect to the GTPS. Take the case of Source 4 Teachers, a firm the BOE uses for substitute teachers. On belief and information the BOE was not satisfied with for a number of years and gave them an ultimatum of measures to take in 2015 and 2016 or the BOE would replace them. Source 4 Teachers failed to take these measures yet somehow, magically, was still given a new contract. How could this have happened? Well when a company pays a board member, under the pay to play model their qualifications are no longer relevant. According to his LinkedIn profilexxxii, Mark Gallo was hired by Source 4 Teachers as a District Manager in September 2015, 9 months after he was first sworn into office on the school board. His profile also shows him without any work experience since being a Senior Product Advisor for Heartland Payment Systems in November of 2014 and his hiring by Source 4 Teachers. Obviously you can understand why many who follow the GTPS found this incident troubling. Why would a failed vendor who did not comply with demands from the board suddenly get a new contract after hiring someone who would in time become Vice-President of the board? Was there a quid-pro-quo involved in this decision to hire a board member who has been out of work for 10 months? While we will never know this without insider information the effect to the GTPA is clear: the board renewed a vendor they had already documented service problems with after a board member went to work for them. Substitute teachers have direct, front-line exposure to our children. They deserve better than educators selected in a P2P culture! The effect to the services here is dramatic and again I am certain I can quickly add to this list of more recent cases. In many cases smaller and local firms who could provide outstanding service and still be hungry to improve don’t even bother to apply because they know the “fix” is in. Looking at just the quality of services without respect to cost, there are clear examples of vendors failing the public including the solicitor who did not know the OPMA and PAC laws. With a competitive environment you get better service for less because the firms know they are competing with each other, not colluding with each other. These are our schools and our children, and the GTBOE’s board is reckless with how they select vendors!

The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools

October 1, 2017 Page 12 This document is a first-person analysis using first-hand and publicly available information in response to the Gloucester Township School Board stating there are no negative effects of pay to play. It confirms to NY Times v Sullivan without malice.

Hiring Decisions and Board Management Poor choices in appointing and managing vendors is not the only “service” result of a pay to play culture. When the P2P machine owns you, they control how you vote on every subject and tell you who to hire. In the cases where they don’t, board members judgment is clouded in a way that most independent people would clearly see. To illustrate clouded thinking: independent board members would see the obvious conflict of interest with hiring the Gloucester Township Council Vice-President as a highly paid administrator including the convoluted process the GTPS used to hire him, crafting the position so he would be qualified and changing it when other more qualified insiders applied. Given the interdependence of the municipal and school boards whether it be joint services or the municipality approving voter rejected school budgets, there are plenty of conflicts of interest. Sadly in a P2P culture there are many instances of where the Team Mayer ignores conflicts or does not see them as a problem.xxxiii To bring up some history for newer board members and parents whose children were not in school yet: after Team Mayer took over the GTPS, there was a “mass exodus” of highly qualified administrators to other local school districts for parallel positions. They did not leave for significant increases in salary nor promotions yet gave up tenure. This type lateral move is rare in a single case and unheard of for groups of administrators. The question many have asked is why? The answer is simple and common: in the P2P culture of Team Mayer, the local schools become an extension of the party’s ability to reward friends and investors, including patronage jobs. I have personally met some of these fine educators and have seen the look in their eyes when I mention formerly living in Gloucester Township or having children going to school there. Team Mayer rules through fear and control as I have witnessed in their attacks on me and comments by public workers who were warned about signing my petition even though they agreed with it. In the P2P culture, anyone who dissents is made an un-person and attacked personally. Those administrators chose the negative effects to their career over working in the Gloucester Township schools. But what else, specifically, was the deciding factor to leave? It certainly had to with the choice for Superintendent. When the popular Superintendent Tom Sedden retired in 2012, the board chose to elevate John Bilodeau to interim Superintendent even though he had a finance background , was not certified as a Superintendent, and has spent zero time in a classroom as an educator.xxxiv At the time he only had an Accounting degree and got the Masters in Educational Leadership and credentials while an interim. Teachers and staff describe Bilodeau as an authoritarian who rules by fear. His hiring was opposed by many in the community.xxxv When the GTPS board selected John Bilodeau, they passed over Asst. Superintendent Anthony Petruzzelli who had a PhD in Educationxxxvi and was also in charge of the Curriculum. Why would a Team Mayer controlled board pass over a clearly more qualified candidate with experience in the job and relevant degrees, which their choice lacked? When the board selected him as Interim Superintendent, Mr. Bilodeau lacked both the education and experience for any objective board to even consider him! The answer seems simple: what better way to control the schools than have administrators who run them the same way Team Mayer runs the municipality? The common belief among many is the board chose Mr. Bilodeau because he would “play ball” with the mayor. The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools

October 1, 2017 Page 13 This document is a first-person analysis using first-hand and publicly available information in response to the Gloucester Township School Board stating there are no negative effects of pay to play. It confirms to NY Times v Sullivan without malice.

If you don’t think that exodus had an effect, here is a partial list the administrators who left:xxxvii  

Assist. Superintendent Anthony Petruzzelli went to Monroe Township Most of the Curriculum and Special Education leadership including: o Kristen James – Instructional Supervisor became a reading specialistxxxviii o Heather Moran- Supervisor of Mathematics went to Logan Township o Eric Csolak - Supervisor of Special Education went to Princeton Public Schools o Bud Wrigley - Supervisor of Technology went to Pitman o Erika Opdam Silich, Supervisor of Special Services went to the BHPRSD

Having this type of large gaps of entire departments leaving could be catastrophic to a district, but the board made it worse. Instead of replacing them with highly qualified people, Superintendent Bilodeau and the board replaced the Curriculum and Special Education heads with: 



Joanne Acerba, Director of Curriculum, who was a signatory on Ellen Reese’s candidate nomination petitionxxxix and was rumored to be a friend of John Bilodeau. At the time of her appointment she was Principal of the Mullen School, the worst performing school. After years of complaints from the public, eventually she and the board jointly realized the role was not a fit for her so she stepped down and was succeeded by Tim Trow. She is now a Resource Teacher, retaining her Director salary. Which leaves me with the question of what were her qualifications in the first place and what did the board consider when they interviewed her? Did the board interview other candidates or did they choose her because of her ties to Team Mayer players? How severe were the effects to our schools curriculum and thus our children’s education because of the poor decisions of this board? Violet Martin, Director of Special Education. Target of near constant criticism during her tenure for her treatment of parents and special needs children. xl She is reported to manage her department through fear and intimidation (see a pattern here?). She does not discriminate who she lashes out against, parent or staff. One of the criticisms against her was the use of the slur “Aspie” and “Autie” for children on the spectrum. As the head of Special Education she should know better! I am a parent of someone on the edge of the spectrum and am appalled she was not fired on the spot – this is the equivalent of the head of “diversity” referring to Blacks with the “N” word and Jews with the “K” word? How could a person of such little compassion have gotten this job? What kind of example is she providing for her department and what kind of message is she giving to special needs families?

Putting aside the administration leadership for a minute this culture even affects the effectiveness of their meetings. I went to the district website for the June 19th 2017 meeting minutes xlito see exactly what Mr. Gallo said about pay to play. Under the public comment I found “Discussion ensued regarding pay to play rules”. Is this a joke? Meeting minutes are meant to capture not just the high level topic but who spoke and what they said. Maybe the recording secretary omitted details to protect the board but that is not her job, or maybe she was just sloppy. Her job is to record accurate and thorough notes on the meetings. Is this what Team Mayer means by “transparency” in their BOE campaign mailers? Maybe The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools

October 1, 2017 Page 14 This document is a first-person analysis using first-hand and publicly available information in response to the Gloucester Township School Board stating there are no negative effects of pay to play. It confirms to NY Times v Sullivan without malice.

if the BOE taped their minutes as the municipal council does and many people have asked, their recording secretary could produce accurate meeting minutes. Since moving out of Gloucester Township I have attended municipal and school meetings across the county. There is one stark difference between those meetings and meetings in Gloucester Township. In GT, board members rarely speak and votes are all lock-step with each other. No debate, no discussion. Pesky residents who dare question are often talked down to. Typical behavior of owned candidate who legitimately feel that dissention to what they are told is abhorrent. Independent board members embrace open and honest debate because in the end they wind up with a better solution and an informed public. Is this why the GTPS recently enacted the “Jenn rule” to allow the presiding officer to stop a board member from asking questions? Want to place any bets on the voting breakdown when the board instituted this rule? I’ll give you a hint, it’s the same 7 – 2 that most votes have come to. The board clearly shows this culture of fear and silence that school employees are aware of.

School Culture As mentioned earlier, P2P is a toxic culture. You combine this with the vendor selection and the “Team Mayer” board / administration’s culture of ruling through intimidation and what happens to the culture? As an experienced consultant I know that culture starts at the top and the people will reflect the leadership, good or bad. The culture is the board’s responsibility either through direct actions or choices in hiring key administration roles. Some of the teachers and parents I have spoken to refer to the “culture of fear” within the schools with respect to speaking up. The schools have absolutely been used as instruments to retaliate against outspoken parents. Here are some examples. There are many more of them documented on social media: 

 

The “Gloucester Twp, NJ Parents” Facebook page on 6 January 2014 noted the following in a post about the BOE reorganization meeting: “A parent took on one of the goons brought out to intimidate us. Parent 1 - Goon 0. It was a doozy, sorry you missed it!”. This is the school board reorganization meeting, why would Team Mayer feel the need to bring in “muscle” to try and intimidate residents? What kind of message is the board trying to send to the school community? There are other posts on the GT Parent’s Page including intimidating children at a BOE meetingxlii The “Caring for Gloucester Township” Facebook page noted police officers called to a BOE meeting to protect residents from intimidation by Team Mayer “muscle”. xliii There is a story of someone calling themselves “a friend of the Mayor” walking into one the schools, taking a child of one of Dave Mayer’s political opponents from their classroom and videotaping an interrogation over their parents personal life to get damaging dirt under the guise of giving a survey. I am obviously intentionally omitting the family name to protect the child and thus also omitting the name of the perpetrator of this crime. But the question I am still asking is how could the school allow one of the mayor’s goons access to an innocent minor, alone, and without a parent present? If it is true this happened on a day the school principal was not there, maybe the secretaries allowed it because they are well aware of the machines

The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools

October 1, 2017 Page 15 This document is a first-person analysis using first-hand and publicly available information in response to the Gloucester Township School Board stating there are no negative effects of pay to play. It confirms to NY Times v Sullivan without malice.

control over the board and if they didn’t comply they would be punished too? What kind of feckless degenerate would even think to use someone’s child against them as a source for information? Probably the same kind of person who thinks a pay to play culture is good and doesn’t affect the schools. In these cases the root cause is the culture created by a dependent board who is subservient to the local political party and are afraid of honest parents discovering what they are doing to the schools. In normal schools, Principals and office staff would not tolerate this kind of behavior but when the district administrators are hired to be the enforcers and the board becomes a rubber stamp of a vindictive political machine, most employees take the safe route and not fight the system. But what has happened to the GTPS goes far beyond retaliation against outspoken parents. I have heard from myriad teachers and support staff. Through my political activism, Patch blogging, and involvement in my children’s education I have met many in the schools. They have been feeding me information for some time including their personal stories. Here are just a few of their examples of intimidation of public employees in and out of the schools with some names omitted to protect the brave teachers and staff who reached out to me. 











Following the hiring of (then) GT Council Vice-President Mercado to an administration position, teachers reached out to myself and others with their concerns over the conflicts in his hiring and concern over the growing Team Mayer control over the administration. Teachers who have been outspoken and in some cases have aligned themselves to me and other “good government” advocates have been “dressed down” by members of the GTPS administration. There was a wave of retirements because of both pension worries and this culture of fear. I spoke to multiple teachers who wanted to “stick it out another year or two” but could no longer work under the conditions. The look in their eyes was the same ones I saw when speaking to some former GTPS administrators. It’s one of melancholy about what could have been and sadness at the state of the schools. During the pay to play petition drive I lost count of public workers who desperately wanted to sign but were already pulled in the famous “back room” and told their name and their family’s names better not appear on one of my petitions. In 2014 there was a scandal involving GT releasing the public works director so that allegedly Team Mayer they could replace him with another person. To do this, they set up a “sting” to catch him so they could force him to resign. John Paff of the New Jersey Foundation for Open Government had to sue to get the details.xliv One of the more egregious efforts at intimidation came during an incident involving the GTBOE evaluating the $300,000 they were payingxlv for two School Resource Officers to cover all 11 schools. This one was the municipal government trying to intimidate the GTBOE and residents. Members of the board were looking into hiring former police and/or soldiers to get better coverage at a lower individual cost. This information was leaked to the township who then started a campaign against the BOE turning it into an issue of child safety.xlvi For the record I

The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools

October 1, 2017 Page 16 This document is a first-person analysis using first-hand and publicly available information in response to the Gloucester Township School Board stating there are no negative effects of pay to play. It confirms to NY Times v Sullivan without malice.

support our police but I do not support intimidation tactics like what happened next. The chief put out a message which board members had to defend. Board members Mary Ann Johnson and Dominic Gagliardi both released separate statements.xlvii Then at the requisite board meeting, Team Mayer forced approximately 40 officers to attend in uniform as a show of force.xlviii Those who spoke out in favor of the deal against the BOE were Team Mayer plants. On belief and information, privately many of those officers agreed with the board’s decision to look into other alternatives than the $300k a year they were paying. Many towns provide police protection to the schools for no cost or they charge a minimal fee. Why would Team Mayer force the schools to overpay for critically needed protection anyway? Why wouldn’t Team Mayer provide the police at no charge? This culture of fear and of not standing up the Mayor even goes beyond teachers and parents. Years ago some PTA’s would not allow people running for the BOE to speak to them because the Principals decided politics was not appropriate for the PTA. Which was odd because during the mayoral primary of 2017, the mayor used the GTPS as a photo op every chance he could including attending daytime PTA events like ice cream socials. Without a stranglehold on the board, the local principals would not feel like they have to allow the children to be politicized. These local principals are the front-line managers of our teachers and often a bridge between parents and teachers they the good ones know both. Why would they allow the mayor access to children during an election cycle? Maybe because they know the board is owned by the machine? When my sons were at Loring Fleming, I was on a first name basis with then Principal Trish Ferrier because of my involvement in the PTA. We spoke when there were issues with my boys and after the PTA meetings. If I still lived in GT my daughter would have been in the Blackwood Elementary footprint where the Principal sits on GT’s council. Do you really think after a tense meeting on Monday where I called her out for the councils corruption she would have been objective and rational with me if there was a problem with my daughter on Tuesday? By allowing her to sit on the municipal council, the school board has in effect silenced any Blackwood Parent from being an outspoken critic of the Mayer Regime! Also, do you think she would say no to any request from Team Mayer including access to children or family records and information so they could use them against me or anyone else? Remember they own her too both as a councilwoman and an employee of the GTBOE.

The Measureable Effect to Gloucester Township and the Public Schools I can probably continue for some time on how the culture changed once the school board became a part of the Team Mayer regime. These stories of the culture and specific poor decisions of this and other boards would be just stories if we couldn’t quantify them beyond the wasted dollars, which we can probably never fully quantify. So let me give you some sobering statistics about Gloucester Township and the GTPS. These are not my opinions but verifiable with the specific organizations. School Metrics:

The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools

October 1, 2017 Page 17 This document is a first-person analysis using first-hand and publicly available information in response to the Gloucester Township School Board stating there are no negative effects of pay to play. It confirms to NY Times v Sullivan without malice.



  

 

According to SchoolDigger.com the GTPS was in the 35% percentile of NJ schools in 2009 and is now in the 24% meaning today they are ranked 463 out of 609 districts and given an overall 1 star out of 5. The BHPRSD is also one star and currently ranked 548th. According to Niche.com the GTPS has an overall B- with the majority of the schools having individual grades of C or C+. According to GreatSchools.org GTES is 7/10, Lilley is 5/10, Glendora and Union Valley at 4/10, Mullen, Blackwood, Glen Landing at 3/10, Lewis, Chews, Loring-Fleming at 2/10. At the September 2017 board meeting, Tim Trow presented numbers for GT’s PARCC numbers showing that nearly 41.4% of our students met or exceeded PARCC standards, meaning 58.6% of our students do not fully meet PARCC requirements. In PARCC testing, Gloucester Township Schools ranked 470 out of 556 school districts with 12% of students not yet meeting expectations for students in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades.xlix In PARCC testing, Highland Regional ranked 289 out of 371 with 25.9% of students not yet meeting expectations in 9th, 10th, and 11th grades. Timber Creek and Triton 28% ranked 304 and 305 out of 371 high schools.l

Gloucester Township Metrics:      

Between 2009 and 2017, the municipal tax levy increased from $32M to $45.4Mli, a 42% increase! Between the 2010-2011 and 2016-2017 school years, the GTPS tax levy increased from $43M to $50M, a 15.8% increase.lii Between 2009 and 2017, housing values have dropped by 11% from pre-2010 levelsliii According to Patch, GT ranked 394 out of 565 for “Best Towns for Families in 2017”liv According to NJ Monthly, GT ranked 463 out of 565lv According to Zillow.com the “Market Temp” is “cold”

The 42% municipal tax increase is staggering, and while the 15.8% increase in the schools is lower it is still high. With proper spending controls in place, both the municipal and school governments could have lowered the burden placed on taxpayers. Of course a P2P culture is designed to not have thorough financial controls in place as documented in the municipal open-ended contracting and the GTBOE failing to scrutinize their solicitor’s bills (remember their solicitor is Team Mayer’s third biggest investor). And if one might think that we have outside auditing, realize the auditors are also investors! They have an incentive to ignore bad practices and not make recommendations because it keeps the contracts coming. Team Mayer would not rehire any auditor that gave them bad news. Mr. Gallo states there was no effect to our schools because of pay to play. Did he see our abysmal state ranking of 470 out of 566 districts based on PARCC? What about the metrics of 12% of our children completely not ready and nearly 60% not fully meeting the PARCC standard? What did he think would happen when the board passed over an experienced Assistant Superintendent with a PhD in Education for a Team Mayer enforcer without any education experience for Superintendent? Then to make the problem worse they placed an unqualified political insider in charge of the Curriculum instead of the The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools

October 1, 2017 Page 18 This document is a first-person analysis using first-hand and publicly available information in response to the Gloucester Township School Board stating there are no negative effects of pay to play. It confirms to NY Times v Sullivan without malice.

most qualified person AND used a substitute teacher company that retained their contract by giving a board member a job! The whole point of pay to play is to install vendors and individuals in positions based on their donations and political connections without regards to qualifications. What more of an example does the Gloucester Township Board of Education need of the effect of pay to play on our schools than the objective test scores measuring the results of a Superintendent and Curriculum Director chosen in a P2P model? I’ll note that at the September 2017 board meeting Superintendent Bilodeau did say they are improving things. I agree. They started by removing one P2P administrator and replacing her with someone competent. Maybe – just maybe – if the GTPS had their focus on the children and improving the education ecosystem as they are supposed to, they wouldn’t have made such poor personnel choices in the first place! Why is it that other towns in Camden County are experiencing increases in their property values while GT’s is declining? In other towns, “move-in” ready homes priced properly last a few weeks at most. Why is GT’s market “cold”? When looking for a home, after cost, what is the biggest consideration people have? The schools. Other towns have little to zero housing inventory because people want to live there. They no longer want to live in GT. The statistics I just cited are factors why. And the root cause of the change in the GTPS since the start of the Team Mayer regime can be traced back to the board’s loss of independence and reliance on pay to play dollars to fund campaigns. As long as they own the schools, it will get worse as more and more money are wasted away repaying Team Mayer investors. I did not write this to ask the GTPS board to stop pay to play as I know none of them who take Team Mayer’s campaign support have the courage to because the machine owns them. So I’ll conclude with this direct and blunt statement to Mr. Gallo and the rest of his board. Mr. Gallo beyond all of the effects of pay to play the biggest one is what it has reduced each of you on the board to: nothing more than mere chattel whose votes are bought and sold to any investor. You are Team Mayer’s puppets here to make his friends and investors wealthy at the children and taxpayers expense. Maybe the reason you like pay to play so much is because of the personal benefits you get because of it? Your decisions based on money and influence and in Mr. Gallo’s case his job have had catastrophic effects to the quality of our children’s education. If you had any self-respect you would resign to make room for people who put our children first but of course you won’t because then you might get punished. The effects of pay to play are numerous and easy to see for anyone with their eyes open but you and your board choose to ignore the clear signs. People have been hurt. Businesses and residents forced to pay for unneeded services. Staff members had their careers affected. Taxes have gone up. All the while you show the cavalier attitude of Gordon Gekko who said in the movie “Wall Street” that “Greed is Good”. No it is not, and neither is pay to play. By praising it and benefitting off it, you show a lack of moral character and ambivalence towards the suffering from its effects that has no place in a board of education. i

This is documented in the Federal Civil Lawsuit “Rogers v GHTA et al”, Civil Action No 1:14-cv-01268-RMB-KMW, https://www.dropbox.com/s/m2vzz2x39d3k8c3/Rogers%20v%20Carlamere%20Amended%20Complaint.pdf?dl=0

The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools

October 1, 2017 Page 19 This document is a first-person analysis using first-hand and publicly available information in response to the Gloucester Township School Board stating there are no negative effects of pay to play. It confirms to NY Times v Sullivan without malice.

ii

This is documented in an online IM session between former GTHA board member Arthur Knapp and Caring for Gloucester Township, 2014. Link to document: https://www.dropbox.com/s/frpvdcfyeqwku12/Arthur%20Knapp%20Statements.docx?dl=0 iii

In my opinion this is a criminal matter but without sworn statements from the victims this is heresy and cannot be proven or used as criminal evidence. I report it here because the compelling data point is that I have heard this repeated story involving multiple service providers of varying trades. In order to protect the names of the victims, I have long since destroyed any record of these conversations. I will not compel any victim to come forward by releasing their name. iv

A SLAPP lawsuit is a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation”, a tactic public officials use as a way of silencing their critics as most regular taxpayers can’t afford to defend themselves against even frivolous charges. v

These allegations are documented in a complaint sent to the state of New Jersey in 2012 with supporting material from the case of Berry v DiJoise et al Camden County Superior Court Docket No. L-1876-12, https://www.dropbox.com/s/ydr7i9yr1se8p00/Complaint%20Letter%20%20Amy%20Tarves%20et%20al%20.pdf?dl=0 vi

BOE election of 2015. 8 “Team Mayer” people filled nomination petitions. Once the County Clerk drew the ballot, they supported people in positions 4, 5,6 for BHPRSD and 1, 2, and 3 for GTPS. https://www.dropbox.com/s/6qkznx7a8ntkzlo/BHPRSD%20Ballot%20Position%202015.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/x05fnov632gz1fy/GTBOE%20Ballot%20Position%202015.jpg?dl=0 vii

https://www.facebook.com/stopthebobbeteam/

viii

Video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggC9z5IU9j4 Copy of reply from Philadelphia DA Seth Williams is here: https://www.facebook.com/caring4gt/photos/a.456551127775412.1073741829.388130571284135/65622376780 8146/?type=3 ix

YouTube video of his interview for an open school board seat 3/10/14: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCf0RYt27o4 x

Mrs. Evans has filed a civil Federal Lawsuit, Evans v Mayer et al 1:14-cv-07160, where she documented the personal abuse and retaliation. This case was mostly dismissed due to technical reasons of timing in filing not because her accusations were unfounded. It makes for a sobering reading on what they do to their own when someone won’t blindly follow orders. A copy of her amended complaint can be found here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/c1i51uwom8typel/Evans%20v%20Mayer%20Amended%20Complaint.pdf?dl=0 xi

Link to the “Clean Sweep” celebration of GT Council, GTPS, and BHPRSD candidates: https://www.dropbox.com/s/37bm2yfm2gqzw8b/Team%20Mayer%20Council%20and%20Schools%20Clean%20S weep.jpg?dl=0 xii

Data collected 2017.xlsx?dl=0

from

public

ELEC

forms,

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7vad338b21uag8r/ELEC_6-30-

xiii

Peter Heinbaugh wrote up a detailed analysis of this BOE election spending. Link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/hva2ob6od299ff3/DGA-campaign.doc?dl=0 xiv

Because I am not reporting the name of this school board member and her associates, I am not showing the documentation I have here such as a sex offender registry entry and board meeting minutes. If Team Mayer wants The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools

October 1, 2017 Page 20 This document is a first-person analysis using first-hand and publicly available information in response to the Gloucester Township School Board stating there are no negative effects of pay to play. It confirms to NY Times v Sullivan without malice.

to question the accuracy of my statements I will make them public. Even though one of the people mentioned is a registered sex offender I am not listing his name here because I have enough class to make being friends with Team Mayer a crime; I am aware of “outing” him as an offender can do. xv

“SPECIAL REPORT: Township Energy Consultant's Bills Raise Questions”, Updated 3 February 2014, https://patch.com/new-jersey/gloucestertownship/special-report-township-energy-consultant-s-billsrai7fb8d9b1e3 “Critics: Township Needs Tighter Rules for Paying Bills”, 18 March 2012, https://patch.com/newjersey/gloucestertownship/critics-township-needs-tighter-rules-for-paying-bills xvi

“SPECIAL REPORT: Township Didn't Follow Law in Awarding Contracts to Energy Consultant”, 21 May 2012, https://patch.com/new-jersey/gloucestertownship/special-report-township-didn-t-follow-law-inawarding73e95317d2 xvii

According to the 10 February 2014 workshop minutes, “Richard Bobbe questioned the amount invoiced to the board by Mr. Wade. The firm billed the district $209,000 but no invoices appear to be reviewed by the board. Mr. Bobbe wanted to know if any board members question Mr. Wade concerning the invoicing. Mrs. Reese responded that she called the Business Administrator and has arranged for bills (from the payment list) to be handed to her. Mr. Wade reminded Ms. Forsythe to protect confidential names on the invoices. Mrs. Reid stated that she does not see each invoice but understands that when there are legal cases going on it should be understood that the cost is for those cases. Mr. Bobbe inferred that the cost is an excess of money which is due to Mr. Wade’s firm being board solicitor for a long period of time and donation to PAC’s.” http://www.gloucestertownshipschools.org/pdf/agendas_minutes/20132014/Workshop%20Minutes%20of%20February%2010_%202014.pdf xviii

Pete Heinbaugh also research this waste of taxpayer dollars, having the following to say: “ In Q3 2015, Pettit was contracted and paid $60K to do a design spec at the spot where the turf fields would be installed. These fields: 1) already existed as grass field; 2) the specs for these fields are already defined by the youth sport governing bodies; 3) the turf installers have done this a million times, know exactly what to do without Pettit’s spec (they probably have their own specs and never looked at Pettit’s). PO’s and Invoices: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wg32yciiwk0xfng/Pettit-Turf-POs-and-invoices.pdf?dl=0 xix

Documented from the Caring for Gloucester Township Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/caring4gt/photos/a.456551127775412.1073741829.388130571284135/71337216542 6639/?type=3 xx

Source: State of New Jersey Department of Community Affairs 2017 Annual Debt Statement, dated 11 Jan 2017. https://www.dropbox.com/s/yi6kcmg6zpdt9yj/GloucesterTownship_DebtStatement2016.pdf?dl=0 xxi

“Gloucester Township, school districts announce $20M solar project”, 26 June 2013, http://www.nj.com/camden/index.ssf/2013/06/gloucester_township_school_districts_announce_20m_solar_proj ect.html xxii

th

The GTBOE was last asked in a public meeting June 19 2007, https://www.dropbox.com/s/joflk4fdo1wwt6l/June%2019_%202017%20Regular%20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf?dl= 0 xxiii

As stated previously I understand this section is based on heresy statements that I cannot document at this time. Even if I could I will never compel a victim of a crime to come forward by linking to a sworn affidavit or even listing their name. The relevant data here is not any individual story but the fact that I have heard variations of the The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools

October 1, 2017 Page 21 This document is a first-person analysis using first-hand and publicly available information in response to the Gloucester Township School Board stating there are no negative effects of pay to play. It confirms to NY Times v Sullivan without malice.

same events from individuals as well as business. I am clear in stating these stories are heresy and I am also certain in my statement of hearing the stories and in some cases viewing the multiple rounds of altered plans. xxiv

This was well documented in the Birdsall pay to play scandal

xxv

Source: Tally Sheets for GTBOE Board input for Solicitor selection dated June 2014 acquired via OPRA request, https://www.dropbox.com/s/hseioymatti6aey/GTBOE%202014%20Tally%20Sheet%20-%20Solicitor.PDF?dl=0 xxvi

“GT School Board Member Reprimanded Over PAC”, 7 jersey/gloucestertownship/marianne-coyle-gets-reprimand-from-nj-elec

May

2013,

https://patch.com/new-

Original ELEC reprimand letter: https://www.dropbox.com/s/k2k2dch4f80znwc/Coyle%20ELEC%20reprimand.pdf?dl=0 xxvii

Documented through ELEC filings and clear in the ELEC spreadsheet: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7vad338b21uag8r/ELEC_6-30-2017.xlsx?dl=0

xxviii

th

This was a BOE workshop on August 19 2013 at the district offices. The meeting minutes from this workshop do not exist. Workshops following this one appear to have standard meeting minutes. xxix

This happened at a GTPS meeting 25 Feb 2013. During the meeting he indicated no problem and even in follow up conversations did not state it was improper yet she resigned from the PAC a few weeks later without anyone admitting it was illegal. Meeting minutes: http://gloucestertownshipschools.entest.org/pdf/agendas_minutes/20122013/February%2025_%202013%20Minutes.PDF xxx

“Council's Economic Development Consultant Appointment Approval Meaningless”, 16 March 2012, https://patch.com/new-jersey/gloucestertownship/economic-development-consultant-appointment-meaningless

Although the appointment was technically moot because of how GT organized the committee, they still recommended someone who did not meet the qualifications and the GT Economic Council still approved it. Some of the irregularities in giving the energy contract to Blue Sky are described in the “Township didn’t follow law in awarding contracts”. xxxi

“Signal Timing at Township's Camera-Monitored Intersections Questioned”, 20 August 2012, https://patch.com/new-jersey/gloucestertownship/yellow-light-timing-methods-at-township-s-cameramoni6fd1c31aaf xxxii

His profile was public 29 September 2017 https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-gallo-238a744/ I did take a screen capture should it go private following this documents publication. xxxiii

Such cases emerge as the municipal Solicitor Carlamere also being the solicitor for a fire district then making decisions that affect both governing bodies. In other towns when a solicitor represents both sides of a transaction he recuses himself from the decision because of the appearance of impropriety. xxxiv

It is common knowledge he was named “interim” Superintendent because he lacked the certifications and education, and needed time to get them. He did receive a Master’s Degree in Educational Leadership from Thomas Edison State University but I have been unable to validate the dates. He has no public LinkedIn profile. He also now does have the proper certifications. This does not negate the fact that at the time of his appointment he lacked them. The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools

October 1, 2017 Page 22 This document is a first-person analysis using first-hand and publicly available information in response to the Gloucester Township School Board stating there are no negative effects of pay to play. It confirms to NY Times v Sullivan without malice.

xxxv

From the Gloucester Twp, NJ Parents Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/GloucesterTwpNjParents/posts/145395915644046

xxxvi

His LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anthony-petruzzelli-473353a/

xxxvii

While I made a reasonable effort to aggregate a complete list, I cannot guarantee there were not others who also left. Any oversight is accidental and not intended to diminish the significance of an administrator who left during this time. xxxviii

https://www.linkedin.com/in/kristen-james-b07a5458/

xxxix

Link to a copy attained through OPRA: https://www.dropbox.com/s/k1q1enshyj92l1t/Reese%202013%20Nominating%20Petition.jpg?dl=0

What is also interesting about the nomination petition are the names of the signers: other BOE members and other Team Mayer players. xl

See the above Parent’s page posting with details on Dr. Martin. Here is another Parent’s page posting: https://www.facebook.com/GloucesterTwpNjParents/posts/499542033562764 And an audio recording: https://www.facebook.com/GloucesterTwpNjParents/posts/141104872739817 xli

http://gloucestertownshipschools.entest.org/pdf/agendas_minutes/20172018/June%2019_%202017%20Regular%20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf xlii

https://www.facebook.com/GloucesterTwpNjParents/posts/499542033562764

xliii

The Facebook posting: https://www.facebook.com/caring4gt/photos/a.456551127775412.1073741829.388130571284135/52744331401 9526/?type=1&theater xliv

Mr. Paffs blog on this: http://njopengovt.blogspot.com/2014/09/lawsuit-gloucester-township-allegedly.html

xlv

“Gloucester Township Seeks Outstanding $300,000 From Schools Over Resource Officers”, 25 November 2014, https://patch.com/new-jersey/gloucestertownship/gloucester-township-seeks-outstanding-300000-schools-oversecurity “Questions Continue Over Fees for Resource Officers in Gloucester Township Schools”, 10 December 2014, https://patch.com/new-jersey/gloucestertownship/questions-continue-over-fees-resource-officers-gloucestertownship-schools xlvi

Chief Earle’s statement: http://www.gtpolice.com/gtpd-community-bulletin-chief-earle-issues-statement-onschool-security/ xlvii

Her public Facebook post can be found here: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=439989779487575&id=401514453335108 His is here: https://www.facebook.com/GagliardiBOE/posts/935246423174831

The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools

October 1, 2017 Page 23 This document is a first-person analysis using first-hand and publicly available information in response to the Gloucester Township School Board stating there are no negative effects of pay to play. It confirms to NY Times v Sullivan without malice.

xlviii

Facebook posting from the Caring Page which includes a link to the nj.com article. The caring comments include additional facts not in the article such as the ties to people in the article to Team Mayer. They were obvious plants in the meeting. https://www.facebook.com/caring4gt/posts/734978749932647 xlix

“PARCC Elementary School Results: 556 Districts, Ranked Best To Worst”, 1 December 2016 https://patch.com/new-jersey/tomsriver/parcc-elementary-school-results-556-districts-ranked-best-worst l

“PARCC Results: 371 N.J. High Schools, From Best To Worst”, 22 November 2016, https://patch.com/newjersey/pointpleasant/parcc-results-371-n-j-high-schools-best-worst li

Taken from Gloucester Township municipal budget documents

lii

Taken from GTPS website, User Friendly Budget Summaries 2010-2011 and 2017-2018

liii

“Gloucester Township Property Values Down 11 Percent From Pre-2010 Levels, Report Shows”, 14 December 2016, https://patch.com/new-jersey/gloucestertownship/gloucester-township-property-values-down-11-percentpre-2010-levels liv

“Where Is Gloucester Township Ranked On List Of Best Towns For New Jersey Families?”, 23 March 2017, https://patch.com/new-jersey/gloucestertownship/where-gloucester-township-ranked-list-best-towns-newjersey-families lv

“Newly-Released Ranking Of Best Places To Live In New Jersey”, 5 September 2017, https://patch.com/newjersey/tomsriver/newly-released-ranking-best-places-live-new-jersey

The Effects of a Pay to Play Culture on Gloucester Township Schools

October 1, 2017 Page 24 This document is a first-person analysis using first-hand and publicly available information in response to the Gloucester Township School Board stating there are no negative effects of pay to play. It confirms to NY Times v Sullivan without malice.