VIA EMAIL ONLY

September 8, 2022

Ms. Nicole Solas

Sean J. Clough, Esquire

Legal Counsel, Coventry School Committee

Dear Ms. Solas and Attorney Clough:

We have completed an investigation into the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) Complaint filed by Ms. Nicole Solas against the Coventry School Committee (“Committee”). For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the Committee violated the OMA but injunctive relief is unnecessary and there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of a willful or knowing violation.

The Complainant alleges that the Committee did not timely file meeting minutes for the following meetings in 2022: April 25, May 12, May 19 and May 24.   

Attorney Sean J. Clough submitted a substantive response on behalf of the Committee conceding that the Committee failed to timely file minutes with the Secretary of State for the April 25, May 12 and May 19 meetings. The Committee maintains that this “oversight was not willful and unfortunately coincided with the resignation of the School Committee Clerk.” The Committee states that “[i]mmediately upon receipt of Ms. Solas’ complaint Coventry worked to correct the oversight and posted all the minutes in question to the Secretary of States [sic] website.”

Based upon this Office’s review of the Committee’s page on the Secretary of State website, the April 25, May 12 and May 19 minutes were posted on July 11, 2022.

Regarding the Complainant’s allegations concerning the Committee’s May 24 meeting, the Committee asserts that “[t]he minutes of that meeting are not governed by the OMA because it is a [Financial Town] meeting of the public under Pine v. McGreavy, 687 A.2d 1244 (R.I. 1997).” “To the extent Coventry noticed the Financial Town Meeting and posted minutes, it went above and beyond the statutory requirements under the OMA, as explicated in Pine.”

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).

There is no dispute that the Committee failed to timely file its meeting minutes for its April 25, May 12 and May 19 meetings, as required by the OMA. Accordingly, the Committee violated the OMA with respect to those meetings.

It is also undisputed that the Committee’s May 24, 2022 meeting constituted a “Financial Town Meeting” within the scope of Pine v. McGreavy. In that case, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that an annual financial town meeting that was run by a moderator and featured votes by electors qualified to vote, was not subject to the OMA. This Office's authority under the OMA is to enforce the OMA statute, R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8, and matters falling outside of the OMA are outside this Office's authority under that statute. The Complainant does not contest the Committee’s assertion that the May 24 meeting was a Financial Town Meeting within Pine and thus outside of the OMA and this Office’s authority. Accordingly, we find no violation in connection with the May 24 meeting.

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 and the Committee attributes its oversight to the resignation of their Committee Clerk. Although we do not find a willful or knowing violation in these particular circumstances, going forward the Committee should be especially mindful of posting its minutes in a timely fashion in accordance with the OMA. 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