VIA EMAIL ONLY

August 16, 2022

Ms. Kathy Akers

Timothy C. Cavazza, Esquire

Legal Counsel, Woonsocket Housing Authority

Dear Ms. Akers and Attorney Cavazza:

We have completed an investigation into the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) Complaints filed by Ms. Kathy Akers (“Complainant”) against the Woonsocket Housing Authority (“Authority”). For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the Authority did not violate the OMA and the Governor’s Executive Orders regarding conducting open meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Attorney Timothy Cavazza submitted a substantive response on behalf of the Authority, which included an affidavit from the Authority’s Executive Director, Vasiliki Milios. The Authority contends that the agenda for the January 20, 2022 meeting was posted on January 18, 2022 and included Zoom platform information for remote public access: specifically, a weblink for video access and a toll free number for telephone access. The Authority states that it “experienced technical difficulties with the Zoom platform” and, after forty (40) minutes, was able to resolve the technical issues for members of the public and subsequently convened the meeting at 5:10pm “with several members of the public in attendance through both alternative means listed on its Agenda.” [1]

The Complainant did not submit a rebuttal.

The OMA requires that all meetings of every public body “shall be open to the public.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-3. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor of Rhode Island enacted Executive Order 22-01, which allowed for virtual and hybrid meetings and relieved public bodies of the OMA’s usual prohibition against the “use of electronic communication” to conduct meetings unless one of the narrow exceptions set forth in the statute is implicated. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(b).[2]

The Executive Order stipulated that a public body must ensure that “adequate, alternative means” are provided to the public to ensure access to these virtual or hybrid meetings. As set forth in the Order, “adequate alternative means” requires the public body to provide virtual access “that enables the public to clearly follow the proceedings of the public body while those activities are occurring.” The Executive Order defined adequate alternative means as “measures that provide transparency and permit timely and effective public access to the deliberations of the public body.” (emphasis added). Additionally, the Executive Order provided that “[a]ll other OMA provisions shall remain unchanged and fully applicable to the activities of public bodies.”

Here, the undisputed evidence indicates that the Authority held its meeting on January 20, 2022, albeit convening the meeting forty (40) minutes after the posted time.  In doing so, the Authority posted the meeting agenda — including the web-link and dial-in information necessary to remotely access the meeting — on the Secretary of State's website. The Complainant alleges that “[a]t no time was the meeting made available via zoom [sic] audio.” The Authority provided undisputed evidence in the form of an affidavit from Executive Director Milios that other public participants were able to access the meeting through the link on the meeting agenda after the Authority resolved initial technical difficulties. Moreover, despite Complainant’s argument that the January 20 meeting was not available via the Zoom information provided, Complainant indicates that she “called in at 4:31 p.m.; received a message ‘I was in the meeting,’ only to hear ‘hold music’ until I disconnected at 5:00 p.m.” thereby confirming that she was in fact in the Authority’s meeting. The evidence also indicates that the technical difficulties were not resolved until 5:10 p.m., and the meeting commenced at that time.  While we credit the Complainant's assertion that she heard “hold music” and the meeting did not start promptly at 4:30 p.m., we were not presented with sufficient evidence indicating that the Authority failed to provide public access, especially in light of the undisputed evidence that others attended the meeting using the Zoom information. The Complainant has also not alleged or provided any evidence that the Authority intentionally blocked her access.  See Pariseau v. Cranston Housing Authority, OM 07-10 (meeting starting beyond posted starting time did not violate the OMA).  

We do express, however, that the Authority could have notified those attendees remotely logged onto the meeting at 4:30 p.m. of the technical difficulties and that the start of the meeting would be delayed. Such an announcement would have advanced the public interest and perhaps obviated this Complaint.  Nevertheless, on this record and in light of the evidence presented by the Authority, there is insufficient evidence that the public body failed to provide alternative access to the meeting.  See Ahlquist v. Central Falls Detention Facility Corporation, OM 20-41 (finding no violation where Complainant did not provide evidence that his asserted inability to access the meeting was due to the public body not providing public access and where other members of the public attended the meeting). Because the evidence establishes that the January 20, 2022 meeting was held remotely and was accessible to members of the public via Zoom, we find no violation.