Board of Aldermen Page 16
July 12, 2016
Alderman Dowd
| can see Alderman Deane’s point if we brought something up that wasn’t on the agenda already but it
was on the agenda for a first reading and it was referred to committee and it’s on the agenda now and
has been since it was posted in the time required. | don’t see an issue with any concern regarding
public knowledge of the two motions.
Alderman Schoneman
| want to voice my support for proper process. | don’t see anything wrong with the purchase but we do
have a process and it’s best for our image and the people sitting at home that there is a process that’s
being followed. There is no time sensitivity and | don’t know why it didn’t wait.
Alderman Siegel
The only point | can see is that where the minutes of the meeting might be critical for review for the full
Board or the public at large. Alderman Wilshire, was there any specific discussion in your view point
that would be germane to this or was it a fairly quick meeting? | don’t think we are violating the process
but if the meeting minutes were such that it might potentially change somebody’s mind if a piece of
information came out then | would be in favor of waiting.
Alderman Wilshire
There was nothing like that. Deputy Chief Kerrigan gave us the information we needed. There was no
public to give comment and it was posted on the full Board’s agenda. There was nothing that would be
controversial.
Alderman Siegel
Was there more information presented at that meeting regarding this purchase than what was just
presented now describing it?
Alderman Wilshire
No.
Alderman Siegel
So we have all of the information in front of us?
Alderman Wilshire
Yes.
Alderman O’Brien
This seems to be a procedural question and | would like to explore that. Attorney Bolton, did we meet
the Right-to-Know Law?
Attorney Bolton
| believe every requirement of law was properly addressed.
