By using words such as “furious,” “astonished,” “outraged,” “shilling,” and “gullibility,” it appears that Christine Schultz seeks to inflame the discussion about the merits of the Board of Education’s proposal to purchase the Bancroft property.
The goal of One Haddonfield is to help residents understand the Board of Education’s proposal and encourage them to vote in favor of it. While we believe passionately that Haddonfield must take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, we are committed to using measured language to make our case, in keeping with the 300-year-long traditions of our community.
Schultz says residents should be “astonished and outraged” that Bancroft has contributed money to One Haddonfield. But why shouldn’t they contribute? Bancroft genuinely wants to move to another location. They can only do so if the referendum passes, so why wouldn’t they support One Haddonfield, the community committee that is advocating a “yes” vote?
Schultz suggests that One Haddonfield is a front for Bancroft. It’s not. Unlike the “Citizens for This” or “Citizens against That” groups that carry out their “shilling” anonymously, we have nothing to hide. We registered One Haddonfield with the NJ Election Law Enforcement Commission knowing that we would be required to file periodic public reports. We knew that Bancroft’s contribution would stand out in our first report. But we also knew that our funding would become much broader once the campaign got under way.
As future reports will show, financial support for One Haddonfield is growing broader by the day as more and more residents understand the proposal, reject the rumors, decide to vote “yes” on Jan. 22, and contribute generously to our cause.
Jack O’Malley
Chair, One Haddonfield
