Board of Aldermen Page 20
August 9, 2016
Alderman Siegel
No, that is not correct. Anything that is seen by the Finance Committee is public information and we will
see it redacted. We have the opportunity at that meeting to ask questions and vote whether or not we
want to have it redacted and that vote can occur in either public session or non-public session. This
legislation does not mandate whether or not we go into non-public session. | think that would be not in
the spirit of what we are trying to do. | would also point out two separate things; one is that any individual
committee member can inquire of the police department what this might be without then giving away the
information. | would further state that even should expenses be made public, our options for rescinding
those expenses are limited since the Board of Aldermen, by statute, has no control over police
department expenditures. This legislation is there to protect people’s lives. This shouldn't be very
controversial. We scoped it down to where it only applies to one thing.
Alderman Schoneman
How would the Finance Committee review the legitimacy of it? They are going to see a payment that’s
redacted and not know who it’s too but if they had a question about it then they could bring it up, is that
correct?
Alderman Siegel
That would be correct. We have every opportunity to ask questions and have those questions answered
either in public or in a non-public session at the discretion of the committee.
Alderman Schoneman
How has this been handled in the past?
President McCarthy
| believe that all names have been published in the past. | would just hope the right people didn’t read
them.
Alderman Schoneman
If there was a question about a payment that was redacted we could raise the question.
President McCarthy
Yes.
Alderman Moriarty
| am not sure how a Worker’s Compensation payment being redacted protects somebody’s life. | think |
could support this for item #3 but the other two is public money.
Alderman Siegel
First of all, the wage garnishments were part of the original ordinance and the reason is that it is state
level and we are not allowed to reveal that information. The only change to the ordinance that’s been in
effect on the books is to add the additional exclusion for the police department under those
circumstances in which there is reasonable belief that somebody’s life could be in jeopardy.
