April 7, 2023

Mr. Kent C. Novak

Stephen Angell, Esquire

Dear Mr. Novak and Attorney Angell:

We have completed our investigation into the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) Complaint filed by Mr. Kent C. Novak (“Complainant”) against the Coventry Town Council (“Council”). For the reasons set forth herein, we find the Council violated the OMA.   

The Complainant alleges the Council violated the OMA when it failed to file written notice of their regularly scheduled meetings for calendar year 2022 and when it failed to timely file minutes for the following meetings on the Secretary of State’s website: March 28, 2022, April 11, 2022, April 18, 2022, April 25, 2022, April 30, 2022, May 2, 2022, May 9, 2022, May 16, 2022, May 23, 2022, June 13, 2022, June 20, 2022, June 27, 2022, July 18, 2022, August 22, 2022, and August 29, 2022. The Complainant also alleges the Council failed to post minutes for the following meetings on the Secretary of State’s website: September 12, 2022, September 26, 2022, September 28, 2022, October 11, 2022 and October 17, 2022.[1]  

This Office has provided ample opportunity for the Council to respond to the allegations set forth in the Complaint – at least four (4) requests from November 2022 to February 2023. Instead, Coventry Town Solicitor, Stephen Angell, Esquire, submitted an email exchange between himself and Coventry Town Clerk, Joanne Amitrano, with the subject line “Minutes update.” Based upon our review of the email, Clerk Amitrano provides an “update” on minutes for meetings occurring after the Complaint was filed, but does not address any of the allegations raised in the Complaint.

On March 30, 2023, the Council provided an additional email submission through Solicitor Angell stating, “the Town Clerk represented to me that all meeting minutes have been filed and that there are no outstanding minutes.” Once again, the Council has failed to address the gravamen of the Complaint, which alleges numerous belated filings of meeting minutes.

We acknowledge Complainant’s rebuttal wherein he notes that the Council failed to substantively respond to the allegations in the Complaint within the ten (10) business day timeframe given by this Office. The Complainant also states that he is “pleased with the emphasis placed on following the OMA and APRA statutes by Attorney Angell since being appointed to the Coventry Town Solicitor's position.  Training on the OMA and APRA was arranged and presented by Attorney Angell to a wide audience of town employees.  [He is] also pleased with the efforts of Joanne Armitrano [sic] since the filing of my complaint.” 

“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 below table outlines each meeting addressed in the Complaint, along with the deadline by which the Council had to file its approved meeting minutes pursuant to the OMA and the date upon which the minutes were actually filed:

Pursuant to section 7(d) quoted above, the Council was required to file its meeting minutes within 35-days of each meeting. The Council's failure to do so violated the OMA.[2]

Complainant also argued that the Council failed to timely file minutes for the following meetings: September 12, 2022, September 26, 2022, September 28, 2022, October 11, 2022 and October 17, 2022. Based upon this Office’s review of the Secretary of State’s website, the September 12 minutes were posted on December 13, 2022, the September 26 minutes were posted on January 12, 2023, the September 28 minutes were posted on December 13, 2022, the October 11 minutes were posted on December 1, 2022, and the October 17 minutes were posted on January 12, 2023. All filings for these meetings were outside the 35-day deadline in R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-7(d). Accordingly, we find the Council violated the OMA with respect to these meetings as well.

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.

We are deeply concerned by the number and extent of OMA violations found herein over an eight-month period of time. Based upon our review of the Secretary of State’s website, the Council has been posting minutes for meetings since at least January 2018. Here, the law clearly establishes the requirement to file meeting minutes and the Council has clearly been aware of this obligation. Additionally, as noted above, the record indicates that the Council failed to timely file minutes for numerous meetings over an eight-month period. As such, we are concerned that the violations described herein may have been willful or knowing. Notably, the Council has not provided any response refuting that the OMA violations found herein were willful or knowing. Accordingly, within ten (10) business days of the issuance of this finding, the Council should provide this Office and the Complainant with a supplemental submission addressing whether the violations found herein were willful or knowing. The supplemental submission should also address what steps the Council has taken and/or intends to take to prevent this noncompliance moving forward.

Once a Supplemental Response from the Council has been received by both this Office and Complainant, the Complainant may submit a response within five (5) business days if he so wishes.

Although the Attorney General will not file suit in this matter at this time, nothing in the OMA precludes an individual from pursuing a complaint in the Superior Court as specified in the OMA. The Complainant may pursue an OMA complaint within “ninety (90) days of the attorney general’s closing of the complaint or within one hundred eighty (180) days of the alleged violation, whichever occurs later.”  R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8. Please be advised that we are keeping this file open pending review of responses to the matters addressed above.

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, Esquire

/s/ Adam D. Roach

Adam D. Roach, Special Assistant Attorney General