Search

Finance Committee Page 2
July 20, 2016

Alderman Cookson

With that statement, what are you going to do with the new 2016 hybrids? Are you doing to take care of them
or are we going to let them sit out and rust? It’s only 74,000 miles. Come on, most people have their own
vehicles for well into the 150,000’s if not higher than that. This is literally half that mileage. | understand it’s in
CERF and we’ve geared them up to come in and out of service. One is using ’16 funds, one is using the °17
funds. But this mileage is relatively low. | think people would go out and purchase a used vehicle with maybe
that would be the max of the mileage that they would be looking for. | don’t think it is that high of a mileage. |
have questions about that just for that sole reason.

Alderman Wilshire

Having a fleet of vehicles where | work, myself, it's not always the number of miles but the type of miles. Most
of these are inner city. They are not highway miles that a lot of vehicles get. From my experience, the age of
these vehicles kind of speaks to that. Mileage isn’t always the telling factor.

Alderman Siegel

Is it reasonable for us to get some additional information about the nature of the repairs? | have a similar
question. I’m used to seeing vehicles having rust with relatively low mileage. It’s kind of annoying, but it’s a
function of us not having proper wash bays. However, | do agree with Alderman Cookson, that the other
vehicle just doesn’t seem to have the type of obvious problems that the first one might have. We don’t know
what the repairs were so I’m not sure there’s a real time urgency to this. If we tabled it and got some additional
information that might be helpful.

Alderman O’Brien

It seems like the Ford Taurus we don’t’ have a question with. Reading the letter from Director Bagley it says it
has 80,000. Yet the vehicle in question is the Chevy Malibu at 74,000. We're only talking about 6,000 miles.
To be accurate to the people who do not see this letter that is before us, she says in her letter that the car has
some major repairs but is also 14 years old, no longer reliable and also not used outside of Nashua. Repeated
breakdowns of this vehicle are very inconvenient and always expensive. If we look at efficiency, | think is what
we need to look at, the city is not the shade tree mechanic. If we’re spending a lot of money for repairs on a
vehicle that’s not really that road worthy, and I’m seeing only 6,000 miles between the two vehicles, | can see
where they would come up at the same time in the CERF account to be replaced. Particularly, we’re talking
about a hybrid which | am very excited about because a hybrid is a vehicle that | think we will get more
productive miles out of it, more efficient in operation. | would recommend going forward. Anytime you start
talking deficiencies, | think this needs to be looked at.

Alderman Siegel

The big question is if. If, in fact, it has repairs. We haven’t seen anything documented. There doesn’t seem to
be a downside in getting more information. It may be the case, but we really don’t know. We are supposed to
be doing due diligence. | think Alderman Cookson did raise a valid point. We may end up voting for it but at
least we would be doing it with more information and in good conscience.

Alderman Cookson

To address Alderman O’Brien’s distinction between the two vehicles. You're absolutely correct that the
mileage between the two is a difference of 6,000. But what you failed to mention is the 2002 Ford Taurus will
nto pass state inspection without cost of repairs. You’ve got a point there where it’s not passing state
inspection. The other vehicle has already passed state inspection but it just needs brakes and tires prior to
winter. That’s my concern. I’d love to see some additional information to support the second vehicle.

12.

> $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit Automobile Liability;
*Coverage must include all owned, non-owned and hired vehicles.
> $1,000,000 Profession Liability;
> and Workers' Compensation Coverage in compliance with the State of New
Hampshire statutes, $100,000/$500,000/$ 100,000.

Professional Consultant shall maintain in effect at all times during the performance under
this contract all specified insurance coverage with insurers. None of the requirements as
to types and limits to be maintained by Professional Consultant are intended to and shall not
in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations assumed by Professional
Consultant under this contract. The City of Nashua shall not maintain any insurance on
behalf of Professional Consultant. Professional Consultant shall require Subcontractors to
carry appropriate and lawful amounts of insurance for the services they are providing.
Professional Consultant will ensure compliance with this section and shall receive valid
certificates of insurance from all Subcontractors as proof that coverage is in place..

Professional Consultant will provide the City of Nashua with certificates of insurance for

coverage as listed below and endorsements affecting coverage required by the contract
within ten calendar days after the City of Nashua issues the notice of award. The City of
Nashua requires thirty days written notice of cancellation or material change in
coverage. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy must be signed by
a person authorized by the insurer and who is licensed by the State of New
Hampshire. General Liability and Auto Liability policies must name the City of
Nashua as an additional insured and reflect on the certificate of insurance. Professional
Consultant is responsible for filing updated certificates of insurance with the City of
Nashua's Risk Management Department during the life of the contract.

> All deductibles and self-insured retentions shall be fully disclosed in the
certificate(s) of insurance.

>» Ifaggregate limits of less than $2,000,000 are imposed on bodily injury and
property damage, Professional Consultant must maintain umbrella liability
insurance of at least $1,000,000. All aggregates must be fully disclosed on
the required certificate of insurance.

>» The specified insurance requirements do not relieve Professional Consultant of its
responsibilities or limit the amount of its liability to the City of Nashua or other
persons, and Professional Consultant is encouraged to purchase such additional
insurance, as it deems necessary.

>» The insurance provided herein is primary, and no insurance held or owned by the
City of Nashua shall be called upon to contribute to a loss.

>» Professional Consultant is responsible for and required to remedy all damage or

loss to any property, including property of the City of Nashua, caused in whole or part

by Professional Consultant or anyone employed, directed, or supervised by
Professional Consultant.

INDEMNIFICATION Regardless of any coverage provided by any insurance, Professional
Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Nashua, its agents, officials,
employees and authorized representatives and their employees from and against any and
all suits, causes of action, legal or administrative proceedings, arbitrations, claims,
demands, damages, liabilities, interest, attorney’s fees, costs and expenses of any kind or

GC 7 of 13

Finance Committee Page 3
July 20, 2016

Alderman Caron

| agree with Alderman Wilshire that the mileage that is used on this is inner-city. That takes wear and tear.
When | see this letter, | am relying on my division director or department head to be giving us as much
information as they feel is appropriate. They are not just looking for a vehicle just for the sake of getting a new
vehicle. | think we have to remember that. | understand that sometimes more information helps you to move
that along, but | think that we also have to trust our division directors to do their due diligence to get that
information. When | see this vehicle is not worthy of going outside of the city then | don’t think that it is worthy
to be inside the city and we should be replacing that. Thank you.

Alderman Siegel

Again, there doesn’t seem to be a tremendous amount of time urgency. | think it’s certainly reasonable to take
a look at this. | understand Alderman Caron’s point, but in fact, everybody can have a different view point of
what it means to replace a vehicle. Director Bagley has just recently come on board. It might be the case that
something is on the CERF schedule so, oh, something is on the CERF schedule, so let’s just put it in under
normal circumstances under auto pilot, shall we say. Maybe yes, maybe no. | would trust but verify shall we
say?

Alderman O’Brien
Point of order, Mr. Mayor. My question would be in the point of order in the state house we sometimes divide a

question. Do we have to look at this in its entirety or can we divide it? Can we okay the Ford Taurus
replacement? Can we split the question?

Mayor Donchess

There’s no problem in dividing the question.

Mr. Kooken

Brakes and tires are, rough, $1,000. This vehicle that goes to auction would probably return somewhere
between $800 and $1,250. It does not have a high value. Can we get another period of time out of it by doing

the repair? Possibly. But they don’t take it out of town. They make some runs to Concord and they don’t’ use
that vehicle for that. Beyond that, | don’t have the dollar record.

Mayor Donchess

At this point the issue being raised is not whether we should refuse to make the purchase, it’s can we get more
information about the vehicle.

AMENDED MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO APPROVE THE REPLACEMENT OF THE 2002 FORD
TAURUS

ON THE QUESTION

We can debate the other one, but there doesn’t seem to be much controversy about the automobile that won’t
pass inspection.

Alderman O’Brien

Can we also amend the motion to have Director Bagley come forward with a presentation on the vehicle in
question? The Chevy Malibu.

Finance Committee Page 4
July 20, 2016

Alderman Siegel

Since I’m making the motion, | don’t’ want to clutter it up.

MOTION CARRIED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO TABLE THE PURCHASE FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE 2002
CHEVY MALIBU PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR OUR NEXT MEETING SUPPLIED BY
DIRECTOR BAGLEY

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Cookson

| don’t think we need to specify who the information is coming from, whether it be Director Bagley or Mr.
Kooken. | just think we need additional information,.

Alderman Siegel
Fine. I'll change it to additional information from whatever source is appropriate.

AMENDED MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO TABLE THE PURCHASE OF THE SECOND VEHICLE
TO THE NEXT MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Alderman Cookson
With regard to the repeated breakdowns, what was raised a point of question this evening.

Mayor Donchess

The motion is to table the second vehicle until the next meeting to obtain additional information regarding its
condition and repairs that may be necessary.

MOTION CARRIED
Alderman O’Brien

This will not affect any of the purchase of the first vehicle to replace the Ford Taurus? When we got a price on
the hybrids was it on purchasing two vehicles? Will the price still hold?

Mr. Kooken

They are independent so there’s not a problem. M-H-Q has both vehicles in stock. | anticipate when we come
back, they will still have it available but there is no difference in the price.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS — None

NEW BUSINESS — RESOLUTIONS — None

Finance Committee Page 5
July 20, 2016

NEW BUSINESS — ORDINANCES

O-16-015
Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
PROVIDING FOR CONFIDENTIAL REDACTIONS ON THE RECORD OF EXPENDITURES

MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE
ON THE QUESTION
Chief Lavoie

| am here to support this proposed ordinance, and I'd like to speak to the police related aspects of the
legislation. The city’s Record of Expenditures lists the name of the person and entity receiving payment as
well as the amount that the payment was. It also must list the fund or appropriation in which the account or
claim was allowed. As you can see this proposed ordinance provides a mechanism for redacting the name of
police department personnel or an entity the claim is paid to if the disclosure could endanger police department
personnel. Some examples are when an undercover officer is paid travel and/or meal expenses for narcotic
training, when a certain company is paid rent for certain facility used by undercover officers, or vehicles rented
or leased for undercover operations and other similar situations. These certain non-salary payments are made
out of a few very specific and quite frankly, very self-descriptive police funding accounts. | can’t identify these
in public session. A person seeing the names of these officers, combined with the specific accounts these
funds come from, because again the funds are right out there in the expenditure report, could potentially lead
to the identification of undercover officers, vehicles or facilities using our fight against the drug dealers currently
plaguing Nashua. This could also, and definitely my opinion would, put the officers’ lives in jeopardy. I’m not
asking for the accounts, themselves, to be redacted. In my opinion the public has every right to see the
account from which money is being spent. I’m not asking that the amount of the payments be redacted for the
same reason, but | am asking for the ability to redact the names of these officers for their safety. Not one
citizen has contacted me expressing any concern about this proposed ordinance. This was even after an
article appeared in the Nashua Telegraph on or about July 10" and a Telegraph editorial that was published on
July 12. Both were expressing concerns about this ordinance. | do have some serious questions about an
editorial that was labeled “Privacy Bill Puts the Public in the Dark” yet the editor wrote, and | quote: “The police
departments $20.3 million budget affords ample areas where overtime, training, equipment and other costs
could be paid out without specifically disclosing the name of an officer with a type of a vehicle being bought or
rented.” | have a lot of respect for Mr. Carroll, and I’m sure he didn’t think the implication of this statement
through. What he is suggesting, in my opinion, is against the rules since money spent from each account has
to be reported as coming from that account, and not mixed in just in the general budget. The name has to be
listed to whom the payment went. That’s the whole reason we’re looking to be completely transparent and
enact this ordinance. | firmly believe that simply redacting a name, when the amount of the payment and the
account from which the payment was charged are still present for review, keeps the police department
accountable to taxpayers. | ask for some common sense to prevail. My business manager has estimated we
would use the redaction of a name only about a dozen times a year. The safety of my officers is of paramount
importance to me, and | hope it is of paramount importance to us all. Thank you for your time. That’s all |
have: a statement on the issue. Again, | am specifically talking about what | assume to be the police related
portion of this ordinance.

Alderman Siegel

| absolutely support the goal, which is to keep to the police officers’ information confidential. We're not looking
to compromise identities. It’s just a question of whether or not the ordinance, as currently structured, allows us
to do that as effectively as possible. | think there’s a couple of things that are worth noting. As far as the

Finance Committee Page 6
July 20, 2016

Telegraph is concerned, | found it curious that they had never really seen a Record of Expenditures so didn’t
realize that there was already information that was redacted. | think it was part of their education when |
described what’s in the Record of Expenditures and how it works. Hopefully we won't see that type of editorial,
but they can write whatever they want. It doesn’t influence my opinion. The bigger problem | have with the
way this is structured mechanically is a different problem | think other people have considered. Imagine a
situation where we have a mayor hostile to the police department. Now it is up to the CFO or COO of the City
to redact information. That person serves strictly at the whim of the mayor. It puts that person, in this case,
Mr. Griffin, fortunately we don’t have that situation with the current mayor but we certainly can imagine
situations where that may occur, he’s in a difficult, if not impossible position. His job is effectively dependent
on whether or not he will follow orders which might get somebody injured or killed or something bad could
happen. We never want to have that be the case. That was my initial concern that | had with this, separate
from the scope of it. It was different than a privacy issue. It’s actually forcing somebody to reveal information
or refusing to redact information otherwise requested by the police department. Within the way this is
structured, that can happen. | can definitely imagine situations where that is possible, and that’s all | am going
to say on that particular item. | believe that we can restructure this such that we make it that the police
department is allowed to supply a redacted name, again the account information is available, and that that
redacted name goes on the expense report to the finance committee. In non-public session, the finance
committee can review that expense and vote, by majority vote, to unredact it, if required. | would assume
under those circumstances the police department would be duly notified and would be able to give whatever
reasoning is required. | wouldn’t expect this would be something that we do very often, but it gives a
mechanism by which the public has access to information, yet it is protected from general view unless there's a
clear decision where we say something is weird here. We need an explanation. That’s what | would like to
see. By giving the police department the ability to send it through already redacted then we don’t have an
issue where the police department is under the thumb potentially of a hostile entity. We've set our police up,
and part of the reason our police department is really, really excellent is we have a completely independent
police commission overseeing a completely independent police department. If something is going on in the
executive branch, they don’t have to worry about reprisal. | would hate to have a mechanism by which that
would be violated. Those are my thoughts about this legislation.

Mayor Donchess

The process you are suggesting is that the police department could ask for redactions subject to?

Alderman Siegel

The police department would submit the expense already redacted.

Mayor Donchess

If the finance committee didn’t agree with that or wanted to question it, they could?

Alderman Siegel

In non-public session.

Mayor Donchess

What do you think about that Chief?
Chief Lavoie

As always, we welcome any opportunity to justify anything we do. We'd be more than happy to do that. I’m
sure you’ve read the expense reports. The accounts that | am talking about are as self-describing as they can

Finance Committee Page 7
July 20, 2016

possibly be. Then you throw a name into that and it’s quite obvious what that person does. We don’t want to
get rid of the account, we don’t want to get rid of the money because people should be able to see what
account it came from and how much it was. But the officer's name, in my opinion, in that case, his safety or
her safety completely outweighs the fact to have the name to go with those other two components. | think that
certainly meets the criteria. But absolutely, | would be in favor of that for the police portion. We're always
willing to justify anything we ask for.

Alderman Wilshire

| would be okay with the legislation be amended to do that. | think that works, especially in the climate that we
have today. It’s just not safe out there as it is. Anything that we can do to help our police, we should do.

Alderman O’Brien

Do you use any employee numbers or identification that the public does not have access to? | think we
definitely want to see where the numbers are, where the account is going and if it is legitimate and question if it
is not legitimate. But we really don’t need the name of the officer. Is there an identifying number, other than a
badge number that somebody can come out and take a look at, that the police department has in their file?
Would that be a better way of tracking it?

Chief Lavoie

We have that for scheduling purposes through TeleStaff. Everybody has an employee number. But again,
whether it’s a name or a number, to me, I’d feel safer just redacting it completely.

Alderman Cookson

Two points. With CFO Griff in the audience, | would certainly tend to lean to him for a suggestion on a way
that we might be able to do this. And to Alderman O’Brien’s suggestion, whether it be a name or number, and
don’t know if the mechanics actually exists to be able to do that. | would ask CFO Griffin if there is an
alternative to the way that we currently report our Record of Expenditures.

Mr. Griffin

Practically speaking, the check is going to be made out to the officer because we’re paying the officer for the
training. We're going to be paying a leasing company. What | would recommend is the police commission or
chief's request of Karen Smith, the business manager, she would ask or request Rose Evans, Accounting
Manager, to simply put “training.” If it’s training, put training. If it's leasing, put leasing. That way there the
officer or the vendor doesn’t get named. What happens now the other part of the ordinance, which | think they
tried to capture some of the things that happen now, if we have a wage assignment where it’s duly noted in the
Record of Expenditures, for example the CFO got paid $1,000 a week, | may have to direct that to someone
other than me. The wage assignments are liabilities to the city. When we pay the IRS or a third party, it simply
says “wage assignment.” Workers’ comp is tied up with some HIPA regulations so we simply put “workers’
comp payment.” We don’t name the payees. If | could use that same logic, that might work. It would be the
police department. | looked at the editorials. It was happening when | came back from vacation. | didn’t want
to be the redactor in chief. | couldn’t agree more with safety. It’s absolutely paramount. | wouldn’t feel at all
good if | put Record of Expenditures in front of you folks and something tragic happened. That wouldn’t be
good either. |’m in full support as well.

Mayor Donchess

| think we have the three examples that we want to redact: the things that are already being done, wage
garnishments and workers’ comp payments, and the payments that the chief is talking about with respect to

Finance Committee Page 8
July 20, 2016

the officers and revealing their identity. | thought the objections to the ordinance were related to the broader
category where it says: “name would be redacted if that information should be kept confidential for privacy or
safety reasons. Examples include, but are not limited to...” and then it gives us the three examples, which is,
the wage garnishments, the workers’ comp and the payments that would reveal the identity of an officers.
Would there be any problem, and | guess I’m putting this the sponsor or the chief, or both, if it simply said that
there could be a redaction for wage garnishments, workers’ compensation, | don’t have the exact language,
but in concept, the two categories or if revealing the name connected with the payment whose identity if
disclosed could endanger or compromise the police department personnel. In other words, if we eliminated
sort of this broad, open category and we limited it to these specific examples, would that, Chief or Alderman
Wilshire, meet your needs? Chief?

Chief Lavoie

Specifically, it’s not just the names. | don’t know if this can be lumped together, but there’s certain items as |
discussed, rental things: rental properties, storage facilities, that all fall under payments made from certain
accounts that, again, are extremely descriptive. Those need to be protected as well because again that could

reveal a location, that could reveal a vehicle. Those, again, are all undercover capacity and that’s what we are
looking to keep out of the public plate.

Mayor Donchess

So basically payments that could disclose the identity of officers or be revealing concerning undercover
operations, correct?

Chief Lavoie
Correct.
Alderman Wilshire

| don’t have a problem with that. In Section B, you would take out “examples include, but are not limited to...”
you would take that out.

Mayor Donchess

We take out this broader category and we list garnishments, list workers’ compensation, and then more
completely describe what the police are trying to do: if it’s the name of the officer or if it would in any way be
revealing concerning undercover operations. That would cover storage lockers or whatever else the Chief was
talking about.

Chief Lavoie
The way | read it, it is a bit general, but | feel that would cover it because it does say “connected to payment
whose identity...” It doesn’t say a person. That could be an entity. The way that’s worded, | think that would

cover that already. Again, when it’s talking about the name, it could be the name of a company, an entity or an
officer.

Mayor Donchess

Do you expect this to come up in the next couple of weeks?

Finance Committee Page 9
July 20, 2016

Chief Lavoie

It could. With the new fiscal year, there was just a large payment a couple of weeks ago. My business
manager is telling me about a dozen times a year. About once a month, something like this comes up. It’s
certainly not an everyday type of thing. Again, this doesn’t include salaries from those accounts. Salaries
come out of the general fund. Just the salary coming with a name is not going to identify anybody.

Mayor Donchess

Here’s why | ask the question. A couple of points have come up. | could get legal to prepare amendments that
would match the comments which we would forward to you for your comment but to do that we would have to
bring it back to the committee next time which is in two weeks. Would that be a problem in terms of revealing
anything?

Chief Lavoie

| believe it comes out every two weeks.

Mayor Donchess

| would say if we take that approach and if there is a payment in the category that you have discussed then just
don’t put it on the record until we deal with ordinance. | don’t think it would actually result in delay because the
full Board can’t pass this until August anyway. | would propose that | take the comments, my own and
Alderman Siegel’s and Mr. Griffin and come up with a revised version that would accomplish the goals that we
have described while at the same time not creating this kind of fear that we are going to use some broad
category to start hiding a bunch of other stuff. Does that seem reasonable?

Alderman Wilshire

It does to me.

Alderman Siegel

There is a Finance Committee meeting before the next Board of Aldermen so we are fine there. The other
thing is | just wanted to make sure that all of our comments are properly captured so when legal actually does
do this that they will get something that reflects our thinking going forward. | made an initial suggestion but
then we sort of went in a slightly different direction, maybe we did and maybe we didn't, | don’t know but we
really didn’t discuss the type of language that should be in here explicitly. For example, if we look at the
ordinance itself in section B, the new part, | would change it to say “notwithstanding the foregoing for the
following reasons, person or entities, a counter claim may be redacted.” That gets rid of the wishy washy.
Then name in parts one, two and three “wage garnishments, worker’s compensation” and then the third one
“names connected to payment whose identity if disclosed could endanger or compromise police department
personnel.” That way there is explicitly three items called out, the first two we are required to do anyway and
the third one is the one that we are talking about now and there isn’t any other wiggle room, that’s it and if we
need to we can put another ordinance in if we find another example. That gets rid of all of the hand waving
stuff and | think there is general consensus to get rid of that. | just tried to put real concrete meat on that so
when legal goes to do this they have got something there. Then we need another section with is E which
describes the mechanics by which the redacted information can be reviewed in a non-public session by the
Finance Committee and by an affirmative vote of the majority of the Finance Committee can be un-redacted
and made available for public view so just add a section C to that affect and | believe that captures in its
entirety all that we have been talking about.

Finance Committee Page 10
July 20, 2016

Alderman Cookson

| think Alderman Siegel brings up some wonderful points and | absolutely concur with the language specifying
one, two and three and specifically identifying those. As CFO Griffin was giving his description we understood
that because of other situations, HIPA and so forth that other pieces of the record of expenditures are redacted
and some way, shape or form | agree that we should be able to review those in a non-public session. | would
exclude the last part because we can make any motion in non-public, we can seal the minutes until they no
longer endanger somebody so | think we should leave the motions out of it and just say let’s take it to non-
public so that we can review the redacted at the pleasure of the Finance Committee.

Alderman Siegel

As long as there is an opportunity... mean the whole point of being able to review is if we see if something
doesn’t look proper to have a discussion such that there is the publics’ right-to-know is satisfied by giving us
the opportunity to make it public. | can’t imagine any situation in which a majority of the Finance Committee
would redact the police department but again, | think we need a safeguard. | wasn’t sure if what you were
suggesting still included that.

Alderman Cookson

If we were to go into a non-public session, once we are in non-public we can make any motion that we wanted
to. | think whatever happens in non-public happens in non-public. It’s not necessarily the motion, we can do
anything and to your point if it needs to be made public then that’s the motion that we would make in that non-
public session.

Alderman Siegel

It’s not clear though if we pass this ordinance that we would have the authority to make it public and so my
suggestion explicitly grants the Finance Committee the authority to make it public or else everyone would say
oh great they reviewed it but what happens if they said this is completely ridiculous but it’s still hidden. Again,
that’s beyond an outlier. People have a legitimate right to be concerned about this stuff whether or not it
reflects actual practice. That’s why | wanted to keep that in.

Alderman Cookson

| would withdraw any comment. | think make it as transparent as we possibly can and explicitly state it. I’m
fine with that.

Mayor Donchess

| think it will be easier when we come up with a specific proposal for this amendment to discuss the language.
Chief Lavoie

At the police commissioner’s meetings there is a non-public session but there is a difference between non-
public and it not being released. In other words there are certain timeframes...even though it is discussed in
non-public you still have to document it and it has to be released within 30 days depending on what the issue
is. | guess my question is that | don’t know the rules on the Aldermanic non-public side and my question is do
the minutes of a non-public ever get released in their entirety?