A Donora councilwoman came under fire Monday after a fellow council member uncovered multiple private legal service charges billed to the borough.

Councilman Tommy Thompson uncovered an alleged 30 bills charged to the borough by law firm Gabriel Fera for private legal action taken by Jane Ackerman. Thompson said the borough has potentially paid up to $6,440.75 for the councilwoman’s private legal fees. “This is what’s happening to your money,” Thompson said to residents in attendance. “They do what they want to do when they want to do it.” Council voted for Ackerman to reimburse the borough for the fees. The motion passed 3-1 with Ackerman abstaining. Thompson, Councilwoman Cindy Brice and Councilman Joe Greco voted in favor of the measure, while council President Mike Mc-Dowell voted against it.

Councilmen Fred Berestecky and Gib Szakal were absent from the meeting.

Disagreement arose over the exact amount the borough has paid in private legal fees. Members agreed to the motion on the condition that Borough Manager Louis Morrison determine the accurate amount.

“I don’t care if it’s $6,” Thompson said. “The taxpayers shouldn’t pay for private legal costs.”

According to Thompson, Gabriel Fera began billing the borough for Ackerman’s private legal services in September. Ackerman initiated legal action against Brice following an incident in front of the post office on Meldon Avenue.

Thompson asked Chief Neal Rands to explain the complaint he received and if any subsequent charges were filed against Brice.

“What did Ms. Ackerman tell you that day?” Thompson said.

“That Ms. Brice knocked on her (car) window,” Rands said. “(Ackerman) was parked in front of the post office. (Ackerman) had a passenger in the car. She said that Cindy Brice opened up her door — Cindy Brice said that Ms. Ackerman opened up the door. And Ms. Brice called her a (two-word expletive) and then walked away.” Brice admitted that she approached Ackerman’s vehicle and used foul language, but said nothing she did consti-DONORA • A2 FROM A1 tuted a crime.

“There wasn’t no crime,” Brice said. “I didn’t open the door — that’s a lie. I’m not charged with anything. Did I call her a name? Yes I did. But that’s not a crime. That’s free speech.”

After the meeting, Brice added that Ackerman’s car was running when the incident occurred, claiming automatic locks would have prevented her from opening the door.

Through Thompson’s questions, Rands explained that his department, the state police and the district attorney said the complaint lacked sufficient evidence of wrongdoing and did not bring charges against Brice. “Did Cindy Brice commit a crime?” Thompson asked.

“According to the district attorney’s office, no. I consulted them,” Rands said, adding he also consulted with other law enforcement agencies.

When confronted by the audience, Ackerman claimed Brice did open the door, but declined to speak further on the incident.

“What good will it do for me to say one more word,” Ackerman said. “My rights were stripped away the minute she opened that door.”

According to Thompson’s itemized statement, a large amount of Gabriel Fera’s billings came from filing Ackerman’s private criminal complaint with the district attorney. The document indicates the firm filed charges Oct. 25 and charged the borough $2,483 over 12 separate billings to take the action.

The invoice suggests the DA denied the complaint in November. Gabriel Fera petitioned the denial and from Nov. 10 to Jan. 18, the invoice indicates the borough paid $3,957.75 over 18 billings.

Disagreement over Thompson’s billings list arose when Greco said Morrison found the firm only charged the borough $3,330 for Ackerman’s private legal action.

After seeing Thompson’s itemized list, Morrison said he would like to thoroughly review appropriate documents and invoices.

Greco also read a letter from attorney Chris Gabriel dated April 6 that defended Ackerman’s position and argued the borough has a prerogative to pay for the private complaint.

“I am writing to recommend that council reaffirm its earlier commitment to pay the cost of Mrs. Ackerman’s legal bills in a criminal case against Cindy Brice,” Gabriel wrote. “As you know, Mrs. Ackerman requested assistance because Mrs. Brice threatened her at a local business, opening her car door and calling her a (expletive).”

Gabriel argued Brice intentionally intimidated Ackerman following Ackerman’s decision to fire Cindy Brice’s husband, former police superintendent Jim Brice, from the police department.

Gabriel also claimed council previously agreed to pay bills with borough funds, arguing council felt the incident constituted a borough matter.

Gabriel additionally wrote Ackerman claimed she received a threatening text message from Jim Brice around the time of the incident, saying the former superintendent suggested Ackerman committed an Ethics Commission violation.

“Mrs. Ackerman did not engage in any conduct in violation of the Ethics Act and the threat has the same quality as the person who made it,” Gabriel wrote. “It is a desperate attempt by a defeated man who is scared of someone who he perceives as weak.

“Your council should continue supporting her.”

McDowell also defended Ackerman.

“My stance on this is, we’re all elected officials,” McDowell said. “No one is going to be coerced, intimidated, because of their views. When you intimidate elected officials, you are in violation of some law.”

Council members disagreed on whether Cindy Brice’s actions constituted intimidation and clashed on allegations. Thompson reminded council that regardless, Gabriel’s claim that council agreed to charge the borough was misguided.

“Who agreed to it?” Thompson said. “No one even mentioned it to me. Who approved it? It started in September. And where did we get this letter from? I was never informed of this letter. I wasn’t informed council was all in agreement.”

Greco appeared to be the only council member with a copy of the letter, as Morrison said no one instructed him to make copies for members.

Mayor Don Pavelko said he never heard discussion about using borough funds for private legal fees, poking at members who’ve recently missed council meetings.

“Unlike some members of council, I haven’t missed a meeting yet,” Pavelko said. “I have never heard this discussed at any type of council meeting.”

No council members claimed to have discussed the matter in a public meeting when confronted with the question.

The situation reflects multiple conflicting interests, entangled lawsuits and political fractures in the borough. In addition to representing Ackerman privately, Gabriel also represents the borough in a lawsuit brought by Jim Brice.

The civil service commission — which hears the case — previously said it would hold a third and final hearing to rule on Brice’s firing within a month of a Feb. 8 hearing, but it has since been delayed.

Additionally, Jim Brice is currently a candidate for council in the upcoming borough election. If he wins, he’ll be seated along with his wife, Cindy Brice, on council.

Ackerman and Greco, whose seats are up by the end of the year, have both stated they do not intend to run for another term.