For almost a year now citizens in Gloucester Township have been figting a noble fight to end Pay to Play in the Norcrat controlled Township. The effort began by a local watchdog group South Jersey Citizens and has gained support from many in Gloucester Township and surrounding communities including then Councilwoman Crystal Evans, a Democrat.
The SJC and other circulated petitions and came up with enough signatures to force the issue but Norcrat controlled town has opposed the move, which recently resulted in a lawsuit which will be heard on June 8th in Camden. http://gloucestertownship.patch.com/articles/pay-to-play-petition-committee-sues-township-clerk
Leading the fight to keep Pay to Play alive and well is Township Solicitor David Carlamere. Mr. Carlamere holds the following jobs:
- Gloucester Township Solicitor
- Gloucester Township Fire District #1 Solicitor
- Gloucester Township Fire District #2 Solicitor
- Gloucester Township Fire District #4 Solicitor
- Gloucester Township Fire District #5 Solicitor
- Gloucester Township Fire District #6 Solicitor
- Pine Hill Fire District Solicitor
- Pine Hill Planning/Zoning Board Solicitor
- Berlin Township Planning/Zoning Board Solicitor
- Somerdale Planning/Zoning Board Solicitor
- Runnemede Planning/Zoning Board Solicitor

Now to the interesting part. Mr. Carlamere has dedicated this past year to keeping Pay to Play alive and well in Camden County but Gloucester City and Camden County The Truth recently learned that at onetime FREELOADER Dave Carlamere…that’s right he’s a former Freeloader supported an end to Pay to Play. The question to Mr. Carlamere: Why are you Flip Flopping?
http://articles.philly.com/1987-11-06/news/26173525_1_freeholder-candidates-county-employees-freeholder-board
Support For Solicitation Ban Reaffirmed
November 06, 1987|By Thomas Turcol, Inquirer Staff Writer
Camden County Freeholder-elect David F. Carlamere reaffirmed yesterday that he would support a proposal that would prohibit county officials and employees
from soliciting county vendors for political funds.
With the three Republicans on the seven-member freeholder board already supporting the ban, sought by the county Ethics Commission, Carlamere's vote would provide the majority necessary to have it included in the proposed new county ethics code.
During a meeting yesterday, Ethics Commission members, who have likened the solicitation of county vendors to a form of extortion, reiterated their intention to push for an end to the practice.
The commission will submit a new county ethics code to the Board of Freeholders for its approval in January.
"The whole thing creates an inference of intimidation, the appearance of conflict," said Carlamere, a Gloucester Township councilman and one of two Democrats who won freeholder seats in Tuesday's election.
Carlamere said he did not believe there had been any evidence that county employees had threatened vendors. He also stopped short of saying that it was wrong for county employees to solicit county vendors, unless those employees intimidated the businessmen.
He said, however, that the practice of employees seeking political money
from companies doing business with the county "tarnishes the image of the county government. If you're going to raise campaign money, it should come
from the party organization itself."
Before Tuesday's election, it appeared unlikely that the Democratic- controlled freeholder board would support the prohibition on fund-raising by county employees. The proposed ban was opposed by the county Democratic Party organization, which has depended on the fund-raising network of county employees and vendors to help remain in control of the county government since 1972.
But as public pressure for an end to the practice mounted during the course of the just-completed campaign, Carlamere and his running mate, incumbent Freeholder Joseph F. Carroll, broke with their party's hierarchy and came out in favor of the prohibition.
The Republican freeholder candidates, who were locked in a close race with Carroll and Carlamere, intensified the pressure by making the fund-raising controversy an issue in the campaign.
Carroll could not be reached for comment yesterday.
The process, directed by Democratic Party officials, includes most of the county department heads, division supervisors, aides and other employees. Typically, each department head or his surrogate is responsible for soliciting campaign donations from the companies doing business with that department.
Several lower-level county employees also are assigned either to solicit the vendors or to collect the money from the vendors and deliver it to their supervisors.
Rabbi Harry B. Kellman, chairman of the county's recently revived Ethics
Commission, has been the driving force behind the drive to include a prohibition against the practice in the new ethics code. Rabbi Kellman said yesterday that he was confident the freeholder board would support the proposal.
Rabbi Kellman, of Cherry Hill, said the "climate was right" to push for the fund-raising ban. He said he believes that the freeholders and county residents "have reached the point where they don't think it's the right way" for a political party to raise campaign funds.
The commission also decided yesterday to choose one of three lawyers to
serve as its special attorney in drafting a final ethics code. The commission launched a search for an independent lawyer after deciding that the county legal staff was not in a position to give the most objective advice.
Rabbi Kellman said it would be inappropriate to name the three lawyers being considered for the position. He said they were all county residents and had no political allegiances.
Among other things, the lawyer will recommend to the commission whether it can extend its proposed revolving-door rule to cover county row offices and quasi-independent county agencies and commissions.
The revolving-door provision would prohibit the county from rehiring or awarding a contract to a former county official or employee for at least two years after the employee has left the county government. The commission has decided to permit exceptions to the rule for former employees with "special skills or expertise."
Rabbi Kellman said yesterday that the commission would undertake a ''stringent investigation" to determine the need to rehire or award contracts to any former employees that the freeholders seek to rehire.
"We don't want anybody taking advantage of the revolving-door situation," Rabbi Kellman said.
The commission would make non-binding recommendations to the freeholder board in those cases.