Board of Aldermen 03-22-2022 Page 15
Alderwoman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly
Alderman Derek Thibeault
Alderwoman-at-Large Gloria Timmons
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY TREASURER TO ISSUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT
OF THIRTY-SEVEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($37,500,000) TO FUND THE SECOND
FIVE YEAR PHASE OF A TEN YEAR PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Given its first reading; Assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE, BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS, and schedule a
SPECIAL BOARD OF ALDERMAN PUBLIC HEARING on Monday, April 25, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. in the Aldermanic
Chamber by President Wilshire
R-22-021
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Melbourne Moran, Jr.
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons
Alderman Alex Comeau
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Derek Thibeault
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
CHANGING THE PURPOSE OF UP TO ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTY DOLLARS
($152,030) OF UNEXPENDED BOND PROCEEDS FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT PUMPER TRUCK AND
AERIAL LADDER TRUCK PURCHASES TO INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL FIRE
ALARM SYSTEM
Given its first reading; Assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE, BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS, and
schedule a SPECIAL BOARD OF ALDERMAN PUBLIC HEARING on Monday,
April 25, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber by President Wilshire
NEW BUSINESS — ORDINANCES - None
PERIOD FOR GENERAL PUBLIG COMMENT
Laurie Ortolano
Laurie Ortolano, 41 Berkeley Street. And what's really interesting is the name is now Laurie Ortolano and | did not do that.
So | guess your request was magically filled out. So | want to talk about our e-mail storage and retention policy. | want to
talk about anything the Aldermen can do to assist me in this policy we have going on in the city regarding e-mails. There's
been a number of lawsuits filed over e-mail records and for the most part, citizens have done well winning those lawsuits on
records. One thing that has occurred over the last year is that each time records were being requested for e-mails, the city
was providing us with a written policy - a 45 day e-mail storage and retention policy that was updated by the Mayor on the
May 3% of 2021. But it turns out that policy was not what was being used by the city. The city had changed their storage
retention policy to 90 days in March of 2020 and then in the summer of 2020 changed it to 120 days - four months but never
disclosed to the public that that change was made. And while | was submitting Right to Knows to understand what the
retention policy was, because | felt it wasn't being handled right, the city just kept unloading a 45 day policy on me.
After going through a series of trials in court and through questioning Nick Miseirvitch, | learned that that was not the policy.
That was not what was being used. He testified that Ms. Kleiner had authorized a change to 120 days and so when Laura
Colquhoun asked for e-mails between Rick Vincent and Miss Kleiner in 2021 - January and February - the city initially would
not provide any records and then came back and said, we can't guarantee we can give you two months of records because
we had a 45 day retention policy. The fact it was 120 days and there was no issue on providing the records.
The same thing happened to me with these assess help e-mails that | am in court on back in court on Thursday. Turns out
on those e-mails, it was a 60 day policy unwritten. So | can't file a Right-to-Know to get what the policy is because it's not in
writing. The city refused to tell me what it was because it wasn't in writing and they would only give me a defunct nonworking
45 day policy that wasn't used and then stood behind it to deny me records. Now | know I'm going to win this lawsuit, but |
am so frustrated by...
Donna Graham, Legislative Affairs Manager
30 seconds
