Background

The Complainant alleges that the School Committee violated the OMA on February 4, 2020 when it provided school tours to potential custodial vendors that constituted a potential rolling quorum pertaining to a new custodial contract.

We  received  a  substantive  response  from  the  School  Committee’s  legal  counsel,  David  M. D’Agostino, consisting of an affidavit from Attorney D’Agostino and associated exhibits. Attorney D’Agostino  states  that  the  February  4,  2020  “meeting”  which  is  the  subject  of  Complainant’s allegations was “a mandatory pre-bid meeting of all potential responders (vendors) to the Custodial Services   [Request   for   Proposals]   issued   by   the   [Scituate   School   Department].”   Attorney D’Agostino maintains that he attended this mandatory pre-bid meeting and no members of the School  Committee  were  present  for  the  pre-bid  meeting.  As  such,  “[t]here  can  be  no  rolling quorum without participation by members of a public body[.]”

We acknowledge Complainant’s rebuttal.

Scott v. Scituate School Committee

OM 20-16

Page 2

Relevant Law and Findings

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.

For the OMA to apply, a “quorum” of a “public body” must convene for a “meeting” as these terms are defined by the OMA. See Fischer v. Zoning Board of the Town of Charlestown, 723 A.2d 294 (R.I. 1999).  A “quorum” is defined as “a simple majority of the membership of a public body.”  R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-2(4).  For purposes of the OMA, a “meeting” is defined as “the convening of a public body to discuss and/or act upon a matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-2(1).  All three of these elements—a quorum, a meeting, and a public body—must be present in order for the OMA to apply; the OMA is not applicable when one or more of these elements is absent.  See Fischer, 723 A.2d 294 (R.I. 1999).

Here, the undisputed evidence reveals that no members of the School Committee were present for the mandatory pre-bid meeting concerning the new custodial contract. Therefore, without evidence that a “quorum” of the School Committee” convened a “meeting” to discuss and/or act upon a matter over with the School Committee has “supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power,” the OMA is not implicated. Accordingly, we find no violation.

Conclusion

Although the Attorney General did not find a violation and 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 Complainant 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 of the alleged violation, whichever occurs later.”  R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8. We consider this matter closed as of the date of this decision.

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. O’Rourke                     

Kayla E. O’Rourke

Special Assistant Attorney General