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?
