Camden City Council removes limit on lawyer reimbursements for former and current employees, despite fierce opposition from residents

From Camden and Cherry Hill to Trenton and the Jersey Shore, what about life in New Jersey do you want WHYY News to cover? Let us know.

Camden City residents packed the council chambers Tuesday night to oppose a measure that removes the $125 per hour rate cap the city reimburses its employees and public officials, past and present for legal representation.

Despite vocal public opposition, the proposal passed 4-1 with Councilman Chris Collins as the lone no vote. Council Vice President Sheila Davis and Councilwoman Jannette Ramos were not at the meeting.

After the vote, the council was not able to move on to other business right away. Approximately two-thirds of the people in the audience shouted in protest leading Council President Angel Fuentes to call for a recess.

During the recess, Camden resident and community activist Ronsha Dickerson, chair of the Camden We Chose coalition, addressed the audience.

“We’re not going to keep sitting in these…meetings, allowing them to think they got the power, when we’re the power,” she said. “We are residents, we got rights…”

When the council returned, the chants of “shut it down!” picked back up.

Camden County Police officers talked to Dickerson, who left the meeting on her own accord.

Outside of Camden City Hall, she said she chose to leave out of respect for the community.

“I respect this community so much, I wouldn’t do that to the elders inside that room,” Dickerson said. “I wouldn’t let babies see someone they see as a mother being escorted out in handcuffs; It’s a time and place for that.”

After the meeting, Fuentes accused the protesters and activists of trying to undermine him.

“I’ve been very open to listen to their concerns and even asking them to ‘please, respect the council chamber,’ he said. “I understand their frustration, and if they had issues…they should have met with us.”

The proposal, according to Fuentes, now goes to the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, which will decide whether the ordinance will go through.

Department spokesperson Lisa Ryan said that the state agency is aware of the revisions proposed by the city council and has the authority to veto the ordinance under the Municipal Rehabilitation and Economic Recovery Act.

‘No attorney would represent a client for $125 an hour’

The amendment to the ordinance was introduced in August by Councilman Arthur Barclay, who declined to comment on what motivated him.

The measure amends the section of Camden’s law that guides the defense of current and former employees and officials by removing the current cap of $125 per hour the city reimburses for legal representation. The new rule allows reimbursement of “reasonable attorneys’ fees” but does not institute a cap. If the amount is in dispute between the city and the lawyer for the employee or officials, it would go to an arbitrator, whose decision can be appealed by either party.

The proposal comes two months after former Mayor Dana Redd was indicted with South Jersey Democratic power broker George Norcross and others in a scheme to control Camden’s waterfront properties.

Howard McCoach, counsel to the city council, told the audience that the bill “covers all former and current city employees” and that “it is not about any specific individual.”

Fuentes said the ordinance has been on the books for a long time and cited the current cap as a reason for updating the law.

“No attorney will represent a client with $125 per hour,” he said. “We had an antiquated ordinance, we needed to make some changes within amendments. So it’s not just coming from Arthur Barclay, but the four who voted in favor.”

Councilman Collins, the lone no vote, agreed that the rate should be increased, but with a limit.

“I do have an issue if there’s no limitations as far as a cap to what amount the city would be responsible to pay,” he said, adding that the questions that he has about the bill weren’t answered.“How do you notify past employees and current employees that this service is available?”

He said his decision to oppose the measure “was not based on any one particular person that may be facing challenges or may not be facing challenges.”

Residents applauded Collins’ “no” vote. Dickerson called his vote critical, adding that he “stood with the community.”

“That’s the kind of champion city council people we need, people who are willing to say, I don’t know enough, so I’m not going to vote on this,” she said.