| State of Rhode Island | |
| | |
| OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | |
| 150 South Main Street- Providence, Rl 02903 (401) 274-4400 www.riag.ri.gov | |
| | |
| Peter F. Neronha | |
| | Attorney General |
VIA EMAIL ONLY
August 24, 2022
PR 22-25
OM 22-55
Mr. Bradford Mayer
David M. D’Agostino, Esquire
Legal Counsel, Central Coventry Fire District
RE: Mayer v. Central Coventry Fire District
Dear Mr. Mayer and Attorney D’Agostino:
We have completed the investigation into the Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”) and Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) complaints filed by Mr. Bradford Mayer (“Complainant”) against the Central Coventry Fire District (the “District”). As discussed herein, the District acknowledges its untimely APRA response, and we find no violation in connection with the OMA allegations.[1]
The APRA Complaint
The Complainant alleges that he submitted an APRA request to the District on or about June 3, 2022 for “Central Coventry Fire District’s current contract with the current District Treasurer.” Having received no response by 5:00pm on June 17, 2022, the Complainant filed his Complaint with this Office.
The District submitted a substantive response through counsel, Attorney David M. D’Agostino, wherein it acknowledges that it “did not comply with the requirements under the APRA, since it did not provide a response to the Complainant within ten (10) business days of his request.” The District argues that its failure to respond was “inadvertent” as the District Clerk reached out to Attorney D’Agostino on June 17 seeking guidance on the request and Attorney D’Agostino was out of the office on that date and did not receive the message. The District also asserts that “there are no documents in the District’s care, custody, or control that are responsive to the Complainant’s request.”
We acknowledge Complainant’s rebuttal.
The OMA Complaint
The Complainant alleges that the District violated the OMA when the minutes for the District’s meeting on January 20, 2022 were not posted on the Secretary of State’s website until February 2, 2022 despite the District holding a meeting on February 1, 2022 and that the minutes for the March 7, 2022 meeting were not posted on the Secretary of State’s website until March 15, 2022 when the District held a meeting two (2) days later on March 17, 2022. The Complainant contends that these late filings violate R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-7(b)(2), which states, in pertinent part, “all volunteer fire companies *** shall post unofficial minutes of their meetings within twenty-one (21) days of the meeting, but not later than seven (7) days prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting, whichever is earlier, on the secretary of state’s website.”
Attorney D’Agostino submitted a substantive response on behalf of the District arguing that neither allegation represents a violation of the OMA as the February 1, 2022 and March 17, 2022 meetings were not “regularly scheduled meetings” of the District. The District maintains that the February 1, 2022 meeting was “a special Board meeting” “to address an emergent situation involving the resignation of a Board member and the appointment of an alternate member, pursuant to the provisions of the District Charter.” The District states that R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-7(b)(2) requires unofficial minutes be posted to the Rhode Island Secretary of State’s website in advance of every “regularly scheduled meeting” and the February 1, 2022 meeting was not a regularly scheduled meeting of the District. (Emphasis in original).
Additionally, as to the March 7, 2022 meeting, the District contends that this was a “Special District Meeting” “akin to an annual financial meeting, and, in this case, it was called for the sole purpose of ratification of prior Board actions that required the imprimatur of the electors of the District to be binding.” The District cites to Pine v. McGreavy, 687 A.2d 1244 (R.I. 1997), which determined that financial town meetings are exempt from the OMA’s provisions as financial town meetings are the “quintessential example of an open meeting.”
Complainant submitted a rebuttal wherein he stated, “I agree that the special February 1, 2022 [meeting] was unexpected due to a recent Board vacancy needing to be filled and that an OMA violation may not be warranted.” As to the March 7, 2022 District meeting, the Complainant acknowledges that the March 17 meeting was a special board meeting, but contends that the District “should not be exempted if [the special meeting is] scheduled, in this case, a month and a half earlier. The district [sic] had more than enough time to get these minutes filed within the proper timeframe.”
When we examine an APRA and OMA complaint, our authority is to determine whether a violation of the APRA or OMA has occurred. See R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 38-2-8 and 42-46-8. In doing so, we must begin with the plain language of the APRA and OMA and relevant caselaw interpreting these statutes.
The APRA Complaint
The APRA states that, unless exempt, all records maintained by any public body shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect and/or copy such records. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-3(a). Here, the undisputed evidence demonstrates that the District failed to respond to the APRA request in a timely manner in violation of the APRA. It is also undisputed the District does not maintain any records responsive to the Complainant’s request. As such, any request for injunctive relief is moot. Additionally, we were provided with no evidence that the District’s untimely response constituted a willful and knowing, or reckless, violation that would warrant civil penalties. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-9(d). [2]
The OMA Complaint
The OMA requires all public bodies 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. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-6(a). Additionally, R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-7(b)(2), states that
“all volunteer fire companies, associations, fire district companies, or any other organization currently engaged in the mission of extinguishing fires and preventing fire hazards, whether it is incorporated or not, and whether it is a paid department or not, shall post unofficial minutes of their meetings within twenty-one (21) days of the meeting, but not later than seven (7) days prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting, whichever is earlier, on the secretary of state's website.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-7(b)(2). (Emphasis added).
Based upon this Office’s review of the Secretary of State’s website, the District filed its calendar of annual meetings pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-6(a) on January 1, 2022. The 2022 annual notice listed twelve (12) meeting dates, one for each month of the year, which included the dates of January 20, 2022, February 17, 2022 and March 17, 2022. The Complainant does not dispute that neither the February 1, 2022 nor the March 7, 2022 District meetings were regularly scheduled meetings of the District.
Accordingly, based upon the evidence presented in this case that neither the February 1, 2022 nor the March 7, 2022 meetings were “regularly” scheduled meetings, we find that the District did not violate the OMA by posting its minutes for the prior meeting in an untimely manner. Nonetheless, we encourage public bodies to adopt the types of measures set forth in the OMA when it is appropriate to do so to increase transparency.
Conclusion
Although this Office will not file a lawsuit in this case, nothing within the APRA prohibits an individual or entity from instituting an action for injunctive or declaratory relief in Superior Court as provided in the APRA. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-8(b). The District is advised that its actions violated the APRA and that this finding may be used as evidence of a willful and knowing violation in any future similar situation.
Similarly, although we have found no OMA violations, 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: /s/ Kayla E. O’Rourke
Kayla E. O’Rourke
Special Assistant Attorney General
[1] The Complainant filed two (2) Complaints against the District. As both complaints involve the same parties, we will combine them and issue one (1) finding.
[2] We cannot help but wonder if this entire complaint could have been avoided if the Complainant had contacted the District directly regarding his APRA request. We take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of maintaining open communications when submitting and responding to an APRA request. Oftentimes, engaging in communications between the requester and the public body can avoid APRA complaints (or at least narrow the issues) and facilitate the disclosure of public documents.