Background

Based on the parties' submissions, on or about April 11, 2019 and May 16, 2019, the Town Council convened two meetings to hold public hearings.  These hearings were in response to several notices from the United  States Department of Agriculture ("USDA")  and the Rhode Island Housing and Mortgage  Finance  Corporation  ("RIH")  to  the  Scituate  Housing  Authority  ("SHA")  alleging "numerous specific regulatory non-compliance and management deficiencies" by the SHA Board of Commissioners ("SHABOC") related to its management of the Rockland Oaks housing facility. The  USDA  and  RIH  informed  the  Town  of Scituate  that  "the  project  is  in  need  of immediate corrections  of the deficiencies." Among the deficiencies noted were tenant concerns,  civil rights issues  related to the waiting list,  delinquent mortgage payments  due to  RIH,  and issues  with the qualifications  and  appointment of the  SHABOC  Resident  Commissioner.  Pursuant to  R.I.  Gen. Laws  §  42-25-14,  the  Town  Council  has  "the  authority  to  hold  a  public  hearing  to  determine whether a member of the SHA should be removed for cause."

The Complainant contends that the Town Council violated the OMA when the agendas posted for the April  11, 2019  (the "April Meeting")  and May  16, 2019  (the "May Meeting") Town Council meetings failed to sufficiently inform the public of the nature of the business to be discussed. The pertinent agenda item for both meetings that Complainant alleges is insufficient reads as follows, with formatting slightly altered:

"4. Public Hearing - Review, Discussion and/or Potential Action and/or Vote:

A.         Matters  and issues raised by the United  States Department of Agriculture, Rural  Development  ("USDA")  and  the  Rhode  Island  Housing  and  Mortgage Finance Corporation ("RIH") concerning alleged deficiencies and regulatory non• compliance  regarding  improper  management  of Rockland  Oaks  and  the  alleged ongoing  failure   of  the   Scituate   Housing   Authority  Board   of  Commissioners ("SHABOC")  to  adequately  address  and  correct these  items  in  a timely  manner. Also including tenant concerns regarding the SHABOC' s management ofRockland Oaks,  including,  but not  limited to,  the  qualifications  of Resident  Commissioner Sacha Hummel  and the  lack of any tenant vote nominating Mr.  Hummel to  such position."

The Complainant states that, under this agenda topic, the Town Council voted to remove members of the housing authority without providing notice to the public that such a vote would take place.

Assistant Town  Solicitor  David  R.  Petrarca,  Jr.,  Esquire,  submitted  a response  on behalf of the Town Council, which included an affidavit from the Deputy Town Clerk and a copy ofthe agendas and minutes for the April and May meetings. First, the Town Council argues that the Complainant failed to indicate how he was aggrieved or disadvantaged by the alleged OMA violations because "[t]he Complainant is not, nor was a member of the SHA" and "[t]he Complainant is not, nor was, a resident of Rockland  Oaks." See R.I.  Gen.  Laws  §  42-46-8(a).  Next,  the Town  Council  states that,  despite  Complainant's  averments to  the contrary,  "the Town  Council took no  action  at the April Meeting beyond continuing the public hearing" and no  SHA members were removed at the April Meeting.  The  Town  Council also  argues that,  "[t]he properly posted  agenda... contained  a specific statement that a meeting, to include a public hearing was being conducted regarding the SHA,  its Board of Commissioners,  and issues raised by USDA and RI Housing concerning non• compliance  and  other  violations"  and  "the  notice  specifically  stated  that  the  Town  Council intended to  'Review, Discussion and/or Potential Action and/or Vote'  on the matter set forth on each agenda." Finally, the Town Council contends that "[t]he SHA Board members were provided clear and unambiguous notice that a possible outcome of the public hearing included their removal as  a SHA  Commissioner."  Copies  of the notices  sent to  the  SHA and  individual  commissioners were provided to this Office for review.

The Complainant submitted a rebuttal arguing that he was  aggrieved  as  a result of the allegedly deficient  agenda  because  he  did  not  attend  either  the  April  or  May  Meeting,  but  would  have attended both meetings if he had "proper public notice that the Town was  going to remove all of the SHA commissioners that were appointed during [his] term of office as President" of the Town Council.

Relevant Law

When we examine  an  OMA complaint,  our  authority  is  to  determine whether  a violation  of the OMA has  occurred.   See  R.I.  Gen.  Laws  §  42-46-8.   In doing  so,  we must begin with the plain language of the OMA and relevant caselaw interpreting this statute.

The  OMA  requires  that  all public  bodies  provide  supplemental public notice  of all meetings  at least forty-eight  (48)  hours  in  advance  of the meeting.  See  R.I.  Gen.  Laws  §  42-46-6(b).  "This notice shall include the date the notice was posted, the date, time and place of the meeting, and fl statement specifying the nature of the business to be discussed." Id.  (Emphasis added).

InAnolik v.  Zoning Board ofReview ofthe City ofNewport, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that R.I.  Gen.  Laws  §  42-46-6(b)  requires  the  "public  body to  provide  fair  notice to  the  public under the circumstance,  or such notice based on the totality of the circumstances  as would fairly inform the public of the nature of the business to be discussed or acted upon." 64 A.3d  1171,  1173 (R.I.   2013);  see  also   Tanner  v.   Town  of East  Greenwich,   880  A.2d  784,   797  (R.I.   2005) (appropriate inquiry is "whether the [public] notice provided by the [public body]  fairly informed the public, under the totality of the circumstances, of the nature of the business to be conducted"). InAnolik, the agenda item stated, "Request for Extension from Turner Scott received 11/30/08 Re: Petition of Congregation Jeshuat Israel."   64 A.3d at 1173.   The Court held that agenda item was "completely  silent  as  to  which  specific  property  was  at  issue;  the  agenda  item  provided  no information as to a street address, a parcel or lot numbers,  or even an identifying petition or case number."  Id.  at  1175  (Emphasis  in  original).  Accordingly,  the  Court held  that the  agenda item "fail[ed] to provide any information as to exactly what was the reason for the requested extension or what would be its duration." Id.  at 1176.

Findings

Standing

As a preliminary matter, we must determine whether the Complainant is "aggrieved" pursuant to R.I.  Gen.  Laws  §  42-46-8(a).  The OMA provides that "[a]ny citizen or entity of the state who is aggrieved as  a result of violations of the provisions of this chapter may file a complaint with the attorney general." R.I.  Gen. Laws  § 42-46-8(a).

Here, the Complainant maintains that he was "aggrieved" because he did not attend either the April or May Meetings based  on the posted agendas,  but would have attended had he known that the Town Council would be voting on the removal  of commissioners.  These  statements  sufficiently articulate  how the  Complainant was  "disadvantaged"  by  the  Town  Council's  alleged  defective notice for its April and May Meetings,  and in any event,  our precedent provides  ample authority for this Office to review these allegations in the "public interest." R.I.  Gen. Laws§ 42-46-8(e).

The April Meeting

The Complainant argues that the Town Council voted to remove members ofthe housing authority at its April and May Meetings without providing notice to the public that such a vote would take place. Based on the Town Council's representations and this Office's review of the April Meeting minutes, it is undisputed that no vote removing the SHABOC occurred at the April Meeting.

The  Complainant next argues that,  although the Town Council may not have voted  at the April Meeting,  it  did  take  action  when  it  "held  a public  hearing,  called  witnesses,  [and]  questioned witnesses[.]" We note that the title of the subject agenda topic reads: "4. Public Hearing-Review, Discussion and/or Potential Action and/or Vote[.]" Black's Law Dictionary defines "hearing" as "[a] judicial session, usually open to the public, held for the purpose of deciding issues of fact or law,  sometimes with witnesses testifying."  Based on our review of the parties'  submissions  and the meeting minutes, we find that the agenda for the April Meeting adequately informed the public, under the totality of the circumstances, that a public hearing would occur on the topics  listed on the agenda. Accordingly, we find no violation in connection with the April Meeting.

The May Meeting

The  minutes  provided  by  the  Town  Council  and  the  representations  made  by  its  legal  counsel confirm that the Town  Council voted  at its  May Meeting to  remove members  of the  SHABOC. The  agenda  item  cited  by  the  Town  Council  did  not  mention  the  individual  members  of the SHABOC or inform the public that the Town Council may vote to remove any member or members of the  SHABOC.    The  Town  Council  maintains  that  it  sent  the  SHA  and  the  commissioners individual notice that the Town Council intended to review their positions on the SHABOC at its April  Meeting  (and  continued  the  discussion  to  its  May  Meeting).  However,  this  Office  must determine  whether  the  particular  agenda item  -  on  the  publicly  posted  notice  -  "would  fairly inform the public of the nature of the business to be discussed or acted upon." Anolik, 64 A.3d at

1175  (emphasis  added).  Therefore,  despite the Town Council's  apparent notice to the SHABOC of  its  intentions,  the  May  Meeting  agenda  did  not  adequately  inform  the  public  that  a  vote removing members of the SHABOC would occur.

Based on the totality of the circumstances, and consistent with the Rhode Island Supreme Court's precedent, we find that the agenda item cited by the Town Council did not sufficiently specify the nature of the business to  be discussed and, therefore, the Town Council violated the OMA at its May Meeting by discussing and voting on an item without providing proper notice.  See R.l.  Gen. Laws § 42-46-6(b).

Conclusion

The  OMA provides  that the  Office of the Attorney  General may  institute  an  action  in  Superior Court  for  violations  of the  OMA  on  behalf of a  complainant  or  the  public  interest  within  one hundred eighty (180)  days  of public approval of the minutes of the meeting at which the alleged violation occurred.  See R.l. Gen. Laws§ 42-46-S(a), (e).  The Superior Court may issue injunctive relief and declare null and void any actions of the public body found to be in violation ofthe OMA. See R.l. Gen. Laws§ 42-46-S(d).  Additionally, the Superior Court may impose fines up to $5,000 against a public body found to have committed a willful or knowing violation of the OMA.  Id.

We conclude that injunctive relief is not appropriate in this matter. Although we have determined that insufficient notice was provided to the public regarding the vote to  remove members  of the SHABOC, the vote itself occurred at a public meeting and it is uncontested that the members being removed were provided notice.  Additionally, the agenda item did provide the public with at least general notice that matters regarding problems with the SHABOC would be discussed and/or acted upon.

Nor do we find sufficient evidence of a willful or knowing violation.  We are concerned that the Town Council previously committed a violation that is somewhat similar to the violation discussed herein.  See Bower andAngell v. Scituate Town Council, OM 19-04  (Town Council voted to freeze the funds of two entities without providing notice of the vote on its agenda).   However, the prior finding was issued after the April and May Meetings occurred and the Town Council did not have the benefit of our analysis prior to posting the April and May Meeting agendas. Our determination is based, in part, on the fact that the May agenda item, although ultimately deficient, was robust in other respects, and that the Town Council provided notice to the individual SHABOC members, which belies any intent to provide inadequate notice. However, this finding serves as notice to the Town  Council that its  conduct violated the OMA and may  serve as  evidence in a future  similar situation of a willful or knowing violation.

We consider this matter closed as of the date of this decision.  Although the Attorney General will not file suit in this matter, nothing in the OMA precludes an individual from pursuing a complaint in the Superior Court as specified in the OMA.  The Complainants may pursue an OMA complaint within "ninety (90) days of the attorney general's closing of the complaint or within one hundred eighty (180) days ofthe alleged violation, whichever occurs later."  R.I. Gen. Laws§ 42-46-8.  We are closing our file as of the date of this finding.

We thank you for your interest in keeping government open and accountable to the public.

Sincerely,

PETER F. NERONHA ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: /s/ Kayla E.  0 'Rourke

Kayla E. O'Rourke

Special Assistant Attorney General