How Much is Your Child Worth?

As if things at the Board of Education (BOE) meetings in GT had not become ludicrous enough, we had the vice-president of the board respond to a parent’s question with, “How much is your child worth?”

Have you, as a parent, ever tried to answer that question? Can you put a price on your child? Do you have a number in mind that once surpassed, would evoke a response that your child is not worth that much? Given the fact that there is no adequate answer, it seems strange and off-putting that we would hear such a ridiculous question raised by someone who has been given a measure of responsibility in making decisions about the education of our children.

To give it a little context, I understand that each child in our district, as far as primary school, represents somewhere in the vicinity of a $10,000 to $14,000 per year charge to the state and ultimately to the tax-payers of New Jersey.  Additionally, for argument’s sake, as to whether we’re getting our money’s worth here in Gloucester Township, consider the fact that seven of our eleven schools have been deemed inadequate for the task of educating our children by the state of New Jersey.

So, back when the Sandy Hook shooting was captivating the nation, the Township of Gloucester started reacting and came up with a number of responses that were geared to making our children safer. The first thing that happened was we made arrangements to purchase a $275,000 armored personnel carrier (APC). As I remember it reported in the Patch, the police chief made some recommendations to the mayor, one of which was the APC. As reported, the mayor asked the chief if it would save one child, the police chief answered affirmatively to which the mayor responded, “Buy it.”

In addition to the purchase of the APC, there were also plans to beef up security in the schools by adding a police presence. One leg of that plan is apparently being considered now and was the subject of some questions raised at a recent BOE meeting over a $300,000 budget item to fund the special police officers. A parent/resident of Gloucester Township questioned the size of the $300,000 expenditure being considered and was met with the response from Maryanne Coyle, BOE Vice-President, of, “How much is your child worth?”

Okay, I really am at a loss of words to address the sheer simplemindedness of that question/comment. After all, nobody can take that as a serious question so I will suggest that it was floated as rhetorical comment. Can you say, ‘bad taste, unthinking, preposterous,” or any number of other words that come to mind?

This is what we get when our public officials begin to see themselves as more than they are. It’s called arrogance and high-mindedness and we seem to have an abundance of such thinking in this township. It seems that many of our public officials have forgotten where they came from and are stricken with this disease of the mind.

A friend of mine reminded me recently of some of the recent hackneyed comments that have been made in our township.

1.       When questioned about thousands of dollars of campaign contributions made to the Team-Mayer re-election campaign by vendors dependent upon winning contracts in Gloucester Township, Mayor David Mayer said it was not a problem and that he needed such political contributions to run his campaigns to get elected.

($100 to $200 thousand dollars, that is.)

2.       When questioned as to the possible impropriety of $64,000 of campaign contributions, representing fully half of Team-Mayer’s expenditures, funneled to Team-Mayer by township engineer Remington & Vernick, an entity that is dependent upon no-bid contracts in town worth many, many thousands of dollars, Gloucester Township Council President, Glen Bianchini, stated that he did not think there was any conflict of interest and that he did not see such contributions as an attempt to buy influence in our town. When further pressed as to how opposing candidates could fund campaigns, Mr. Bianchini offered no suggestions and seemed unconcerned; that after having praised the two party system.

Seriously? What two party system?

3.       As stated above, when asked to rationalize the need to spend over $275,000 for an armored personnel carrier that is better suited for the streets of Beirut than Gloucester Township, we heard from a number of township officials, “If it saves one life, it’s worth it?” My guess is that this had to be the standard answer that was floated out in response to any that would question the purchase. In other words, ‘it’s for the children,’ and who will question that and thus risk being thought a monster or worse? What no one seemed to explain was why we couldn’t spend more money and thereby save more children. I mean, maybe this sounds crass but, why stop at one APC?

4.       When a resident asked in council why our budget had to increase thereby raising taxes, Councilman Hutchison rationalized that we had to raise taxes to give out pay raises, after all, in his words, “Did you get a pay raise this year? Everybody gets pay raises.” And this from a man making his living representing bankruptcy clients. I wonder if Mr. Hutchison pointed out to his bankruptcy clients that they had nothing to complain about since they had all likely received raises.  I mean, seriously, didn’t everyone receive raises last year?

5.       And finally, we have out BOE Vice-President, Maryanne Coyle, asking a concerned parent questioning a $300,000 expenditure for two special police to patrol eleven township schools, “How much is your child worth?”

Wouldn't it be great if, instead of running interference every time a resident raises a valid question, somebody stepped up in this township and gave us an honest answer?