Background and Arguments

The Complainant alleges that, at its April 11, 2022 meeting, the Council discussed and took action on “the disposition of public property, the closing of a public facility, and removal/relocation of the recreation department and programs” – all relating to the Bradford School Property - without advertising these items on the agenda.

Applicable 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 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 a statement specifying the nature of the business to be discussed.” Id. (emphasis added).

In Anolik v. Zoning Board of Review of the City of Newport, 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”).

Here, the pertinent agenda item read:

“3. PRESENTATIONS

b.                  Bradford School – Recommendation from Planning Board – Discussion and Possible Action”

The Council contends that this agenda item, taken in the context of the many public discussions surrounding the Bradford School property and the Recreation Department’s occupation thereof, provided fair notice to the public under the circumstances that the Council could vote on the disposition of the Bradford School property and relocation of the Recreation Department.

Under the above-referenced agenda item, it is undisputed that the Council discussed the Planning Board’s recommendation for the Bradford School property then unanimously voted to place said property for sale, relocate the Recreation Department and cease scheduling events at the property. Based upon the record before us, and Rhode Island Supreme Court precedent, we find that the agenda item failed to sufficiently inform the public of the nature of the business the Council would be discussing and acted upon. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-6(b). The agenda item here, listed under “Presentations” only advised the public that the Council would be discussing and possibly acting on the recommendation from the Planning Board, though this notice contained no information concerning the nature or subject of the Planning Board’s recommendation and contained no indication that the Council may be voting to sell the Bradford School property, relocate the Recreation Department, and/or cease all public activities at the Bradford School property. Accordingly, we find the Council violated the OMA. See R.I. 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. 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 up to $5,000 against a public body found to have committed a willful or knowing violation of the OMA. Id.