VIA EMAIL ONLY

September 8, 2022

Mr. Matthew Touchette

William J. Conley, Jr., Esquire

Solicitor, Town of Johnston

Dear Mr. Touchette and Attorney Conley:

We have completed an investigation into the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) Complaint filed by Mr. Matthew Touchette against the Johnston Town Council (“Council”). For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the Council committed a violation of the OMA, but that injunctive relief is unnecessary and there is insufficient evidence to find the violation was willful or knowing.

The Complainant alleges that the Council did not timely file meeting minutes for the following meetings in 2022: March 2, March 14, March 16, March 23, April 11, May 9, June 13 and June 15.  

Town of Johnston Solicitor, Attorney William J. Conley, Jr., submitted a substantive response on behalf of the Council, which included an affidavit from Town Clerk Vincent P. Baccari, Jr. For the sake of brevity, we will summarize Clerk Baccari’s attestations regarding the relevant meeting minutes in the below table:

Clerk Baccari attests that “all of the minutes for the meetings have been filed. However, it appears from the Secretary of State’s website that the meetings for March 2, 2022, March 16, 2022 and May 9, 2022 are shown as ‘draft’ minutes and not ‘approved’ minutes. *** Any failure to indicate those minutes as ‘approved’ minutes was inadvertent and not intentional in any way.”

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).

Based upon the undisputed record before us, as well as this Office’s own independent review of the Council’s page on the Secretary of State’s website, the Council posted timely minutes for its meetings occurring on March 14, March 16, March 23, and April 11 in accordance with R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-7(d). The Council did not, however, timely post its official and/or approved minutes for its meetings occurring on March 2, May 9, June 13 and June 15. Pursuant to the thirty-five day deadline provided in R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-7(d), the March 2 minutes were required to be posted on or before April 6, 2022; the May 9 minutes were required to be posted on or before June 13, 2022; the June 13 minutes were required to be posted on or before July 18, 2022; and the June 15 minutes were required to be posted on or before July 20, 2022. Accordingly, we find the Council violated the OMA by failing to timely post its official and/or approved minutes for the March 2, May 9, June 13 and June 15 minutes.

Based upon our review of the Secretary of State’s website, the official and/or approved minutes for the March 2 and May 9 meetings were posted on July 27, 2022 and the June 13 and June 15 minutes were posted on July 22, 2022.

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 pertinent meeting minutes have already been posted on the Secretary of State’s website. 

We have not been presented with sufficient evidence that the violations found herein were willful or knowing under these circumstances. The Council identifies that it has a process in place to track timely filing of official and/or approved minutes and the fact that only draft minutes of the four (4) untimely posted meetings were publicly filed was “inadvertent.” We also note that it is the Council’s practice to post draft minutes within a matter of days of the meeting on the Secretary of State’s website, thereby evincing the Council’s intent to foster openness and transparency.  Although we do not find a willful or knowing violation in these particular circumstances, 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: Kayla E. O’Rourke

Special Assistant Attorney General