Background

The Complainant alleges the Fire District violated the OMA by failing to post an annual schedule of its meetings as required by R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-6(a). The Complainant asserts that this is the Fire District’s third violation of the annual notice posting requirement, and that the Fire District supervisors had full notice and knowledge of the requirement “given the clear findings of OM 19-27.”

The Fire District provided a substantive response, through counsel, including an affidavit from Mr. Peter Charland, Senior Supervisor of the Fire District. The Fire District concedes “that the District failed to post the notices as required in January.” Mr. Charland contends “that he and the other two members of the Board of Supervisors each thought one of the others had posted the notices.” The Fire District maintains that it has implemented a procedure “to avoid such a lapse in the future.” The procedure “would make the filing requirement a designated responsibility of the Senior Supervisor and that the filing requirement has been put on a list given to each member of the Board of Supervisors at the time they are elected to the Board and will be reviewed at every Board meeting going forward.”

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.

The OMA requires that:

“All public bodies shall give written notice of their regularly scheduled meetings at the beginning of each calendar year. The notice shall include the dates, times, and places of the meetings and shall be provided to members of the public upon request and to the secretary of state at the beginning of each calendar year in accordance with subsection (f).” R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-6(a).

Based on the undisputed evidence, we find that the Fire District violated the OMA when it failed to post annual notice of its regularly scheduled meetings at the beginning of the calendar year as required by R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-6(a).

Importantly, this is the second instance in approximately one (1) year that a Complaint was filed against the Fire District for its failure to file annual notice of its meetings in accordance with R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-6(a). See Langseth v. Buttonwoods Fire District, OM 19-27. While the totality of the evidence in OM 19-27 established that the Fire District violated the OMA, we did not find evidence of a willful or knowing violation in that instance. Nonetheless, we advised the Fire District that “the Fire District must take measures to ensure that these violations do not repeat. This finding serves as notice to the Fire District that its conduct violated the OMA and may serve as evidence in a future similar situation of a willful or knowing violation.” Langseth, OM 19-27. Additionally, this Office also found the Fire District in violation of R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-6(a) in Langseth v. Buttonwoods Fire District, OM 07-05, wherein the Fire District again failed to post annual notice of its scheduled regular meetings.

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.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8(b). The Superior Court may issue injunctive relief and declare null and void any actions of the public body found to be in violation of the OMA. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8(d). Additionally, the Superior Court may impose fines up to $5,000 per violation against a public body found to have committed a willful or knowing violation of the OMA. Id.

We are troubled by the Fire District’s repeated violations in a relatively short period of time. We acknowledge the Fire District’s contention that it has now taken measures to prevent this issue from recurring. However, the Fire District does not explain why it did not implement these or other measures to address this issue after having committed the same violation twice before, with the most recent violation roughly a year ago. Based on the record before us, this Office questions whether the Fire District’s violation in this case was willful or knowing. Within ten (10) business days of the issuance of this finding, the Fire District is required to provide a supplemental submission addressing whether the Fire District’s violation was willful or knowing. The Fire District should address what, if any, measures it took as a result of this Office’s finding in OM 19-27, when those measures were taken, and why any such measures did not prevent the instant violation. Additionally, the Fire District’s submission should state (and provide evidence regarding) whether the Fire District has now complied with the OMA’s requirements by posting its annual notice for this year. Based on our review of the Secretary of State website, it does not appear that an annual notice document has been properly posted for this year. If the Fire District is unsure how to do so, it may wish to contact the Secretary of State’s Office for guidance. The Fire District should also provide evidence of the new “procedure” that it indicates has been adopted to avoid future similar violations, including a copy of this procedure if it is in writing and information regarding how the procedure has been adopted and implemented. The Complainant may provide a response to the Fire District’s supplemental submission within five (5) business days of the Fire District’s submission.

This file remains open pending receipt of the supplemental submission(s).

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