VIA EMAIL ONLY

August 16, 2022

Ms. Nicole Solas

Attorney Mary Ann Carroll, Esquire

Dear Ms. Solas and Attorney Carroll:

We have completed an investigation into the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) Complaint filed by Ms. Nicole Solas (“Complainant”) against the North Kingstown School Committee (“Committee”). For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the Committee violated the OMA.

The Complainant alleges that the Committee failed “to file meeting minutes for meetings on the following dates: January 12, January 14, February 22, and April 8.”^[1]

Attorney Mary Ann Carroll submitted a substantive response on behalf of the Committee.[2] The Committee concedes that “[t]he minutes for the January 12, 2021, meeting were filed on the North Kingstown web site (sic), but apparently not filed with the Secretary of State’s Office.” The Committee further notes that the Committee did not meet on the following dates: January 14, February 22, and April 8.

The Complainant did not submit a rebuttal.

“All public bodies shall keep official and/or approved minutes of all meetings of the body and shall file a copy of the minutes of all open meetings with the secretary of state for inspection by the public within thirty-five days of the meeting[.]” R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-7(d) (emphasis added).

The Committee concedes it failed to file timely meeting minutes for its January 12, 2021 meeting, as required by the OMA. Further, the uncontested record before us and this Office’s review of the Secretary of State website demonstrates that the Committee did not hold meetings on January 14, 2021, February 22, 2021, and April 8, 2021. We thus find that the Committee violated the OMA as to its January 12, 2021 meeting, but did not violate the OMA as to the other dates identified in the Complaint when the record evidences that no meetings of the Committee took place.

The OMA provides that the Office of the Attorney General may institute an action in Superior Court for violations of the OMA. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8(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 of the OMA. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8(d). Additionally, the Superior Court may impose fines of up to $5,000 against a public body found to have committed a willful or knowing violation of the OMA. Id.

Injunctive relief is not appropriate here because the subject meeting minutes were posted on the Secretary of State’s website after the Complaint in this case was filed. 

We have also not been presented with sufficient evidence that the violation found herein was willful or knowing under these circumstances. Indeed, we question whether these complaints could have been avoided altogether had the Complainant simply informed the public body of the issue. We also note that the Committee’s minutes for the meeting in question were previously posted on the North Kingstown website, evidencing that there was no intent to obscure the minutes from the public. We are not aware of any recent, similar violations involving the Committee. However, this finding may serve as evidence of a willful or knowing violation in a future, similar case.

Although the Office of the Attorney General will not file suit in this matter, please be advised that nothing within the OMA prohibits an individual from instituting an action for injunctive or declaratory relief in Superior Court. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8(c). The OMA allows the Complainant to file a complaint within ninety (90) days from the date of the Attorney General’s closing of the complaint or within one hundred eighty (180) days of the alleged violation, whichever occurs later. See id. Please be advised that we are closing this Complaint as of the date of this letter.

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

Sincerely,

PETER F. NERONHA

ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: Marissa D. Pizaña

Marissa D. Pizaña

Special Assistant Attorney General