VIA EMAIL ONLY

July 27, 2023

Ms. Jennifer Lisi

Deirdre E. Carreno, Esq.

Dear Ms. Lisi and Attorney Carreno:

We have completed our investigation into the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) Complaint filed by Ms. Jennifer Lisi (“Complainant”) against the Warwick School Committee (“Committee”). For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the Committee did not violate the OMA.

The Complainant alleged three types of OMA violations against the Committee and its subcommittees. She first alleged that the Committee violated the OMA by improperly discussing two policies in closed session.[1] The Complainant also alleged that the Committee and/or its subcommittees (particularly the Warwick School Committee Policy Review Subcommittee (“Policy Subcommittee”)) failed to timely post meeting minutes.[2] Additionally, the Complainant alleged that the Committee’s subcommittees violated the OMA by failing to provide notice of their meetings.

Attorney Deirdre Carreno submitted a response on behalf of the Committee. The Committee denied that any discussion of the two policies ever transpired in closed session. Further, the Committee argued that it timely filed the subject meeting minutes on the Secretary of State’s website and that these filings were within thirty-five (35) days of the meetings, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-7(d). The Committee also asserted that the Policy Subcommittee is “solely an advisory committee” and “has no authority to adopt or otherwise implement policies on its own accord.” Because it is “strictly advisory in nature,” the Committee argued that the Policy Subcommittee needs not file meeting minutes with the Secretary of State, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-7(d).[3]

We acknowledge the Complainant’s rebuttal. The Complainant argued that the Policy Subcommittee is not an advisory committee because it has the “authority to adopt or implement policies on their own.” Accordingly, the Complainant reiterated that the Subcommittee violated the OMA for failing to timely post its  meeting minutes with the Secretary of State.

The Complainant identified two policies that were both scheduled for either a “first reading” or “second reading” at the Committee’s November 9, 2022 and December 13, 2022 meetings. The Complainant alleged that because the Committee never read the policies aloud during those public meetings, it must have discussed the two policies in closed session. The Committee produced minutes of its November 9 and December 13, 2022 meetings to show that “any discussion [sic] regarding Policy Nos. JRAA and JRAAB have taken place during open session.” The November 9, 2022 open session meeting minutes show that the Committee approved the motion to adopt the “1st reading of JRAAB-Student Surveys” and the “2nd reading of JRAA-Student Data Privacy & Security.” Similarly, the December 13, 2022 open session meeting minutes show that the Committee approved the motion to adopt the “2nd reading of JRAAB-Student Surveys.” The Committee noted that “first reading” refers to “the first submitting of a bill before a quorum of a legislative assembly usually by title or number only” and noted that nothing required the Committee to read the entire policy aloud during a meeting. The Complainant produced no evidence that any discussion or action related to the subject policies took place in closed session. Therefore, we do not find any evidence that the Committee discussed or acted on the policies in closed session.[4] Accordingly, we find no violation.

·         Timely Posting of Meeting Minutes

The OMA requires that “[a]ll 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 Complainant generally alleged that she was unable to find meeting minutes for the meetings of the Committee or its subcommittees. The only two specific meetings referenced in the Complaint were the November 9, 2022 and December 13, 2022 meetings of the Committee.  The Committee responded by providing evidence, confirmed by our independent review of the Secretary of State’s website, that the Committee respectively posted the minutes for the November 9 meeting on December 14, 2022, and the December 13 meeting on January 11, 2023. Consequently, the record demonstrates that the minutes were filed within thirty-five (35) days of the meetings. The Complainant did not dispute this evidence and did not identify or provide evidence of any other meeting regarding which she contends minutes were not timely posted. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we find no violation.

In her rebuttal, the Complainant added that the Committee did not make the unofficial minutes of above-mentioned meetings “publicly accessible . . . at the next regularly scheduled meeting” on December 13, 2022 and January 10, 2023. The OMA does not require a public body to post unofficial meeting minutes, but only to keep and make them available on request at the office of the public body within 35 days of the meeting or at the next regularly scheduled meeting, whichever is earlier. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-7(b)(1). The Complainant did not allege in her original Complaint that she sought to view unofficial minutes at the public body’s office or at the next regularly scheduled meeting and was unable to do so. The Complainant did not raise this allegation in her initial Complaint,[5] but even if this allegation were properly before us, the Committee represented that the unofficial minutes were available at the next regularly scheduled meeting and that the Complainant did not assert that she requested to view the unofficial minutes and was denied access to them. Based on this record, we do not find that the Committee failed to make the unofficial minutes available as required by the OMA.

·         Alleged Failure to Post Minutes for Meetings Held by Policy Subcommittee

Although the Complaint generally asserted that the Complainant could not locate minutes for the Committee and its subcommittees, the Policy Subcommittee is the only specific subcommittee referenced in the Complaint submission.[6]  The OMA requires that “[a]ll 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; provided that this subsection shall not apply to public bodies whose responsibilities are solely advisory in nature.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-7(d) (emphasis added). As such, we next review whether the Policy Subcommittee is solely advisory in nature and is thus not required to file official meeting minutes with the Secretary of State. See Langseth v. Buttonwods Fire District, OM 22-29 (finding that a purely advisory committee that qualifies as a public body is subject to the OMA but is not required to file official meeting minutes with the Secretary of State).

We have previously found that a public body that “generally serves as a vehicle through which concerns and ideas can be voiced” and does not “supplant any existing authority” of any other governmental entity responsible for making final decisions is advisory. See Arditi v. Governor’s State Equity Council, OM 21-32; Hopkins v. Chariho Anti-Racism Task Force, OM 22-11 (finding that the Task Force is advisory because it has no authority to make policies). According to the Committee, the Policy Subcommittee is “solely an advisory committee created pursuant to School Committee Policy No. BCF, entitled ‘Advisory Committees,’ for the purpose of proposing amendments to existing policies and adoption of new policies.” The Committee also represented that it is the School Committee and not the Policy Subcommittee that has the authority to adopt or implement policies. The Complainant disputed that the Policy Subcommittee is truly advisory given the lack of citizen participation as required by Policy No. BCF.

Despite the lack of information provided on the school website about the Policy Subcommittee, its official name, “Policy Review Subcommittee,” suggests that the Policy Subcommittee was created to review policies. See Solas v. South Kingstown School Committee - Wellness Subcommittee, OM 22-28 (finding that Wellness Subcommittee is advisory because it was created to review policies and has no power to enforce any standing policies). We have also previously investigated and cited past meeting minutes to determine that an entity is advisory in nature because it has no final decision-making authority. See Chariho Anti-Racism Task Force, OM 22-11.

Our review of the Secretary of State’s website reveals that the Policy Subcommittee has previously posted minutes for its meetings, and those minutes support the conclusion that the Subcommittee reviews policies and presents its recommendations to the School Committee, which has ultimate authority over what, if any, actions to take. For example, at its January 8, 2020 meeting, the Policy Subcommittee minutes note that the Subcommittee would, with regard to one particular policy, “review the policy and send to the School Committee for first reading upon successful review.” (Emphasis added). At its June 12, 2019 meeting, the Policy Subcommittee minutes note that, “Final review shall take place at the August policy meeting. Readings and school committee approval will be determined at that time.” (Emphasis added). These illustrative examples support the Committee’s representation that the Policy Subcommittee is an advisory group that can make recommendations to the School Committee, which has ultimate authority over implementing these policies and suggestions. Although the Complainant’s rebuttal asserted that the Policy Subcommittee lacks lay-citizen involvement, as required by Policy No. BCF, this fact alone does not dispute the advisory nature of the Policy Subcommittee. As such, based on the record before us, we find that the Policy Subcommittee is solely advisory in nature and do not find that the Policy Subcommittee violated the OMA by not posting its meeting minutes on the Secretary of State’s website.

·         Alleged Failure to Provide Notice for Meetings

The OMA requires that all public bodies “give supplemental written public notice of any meeting within a minimum of forty-eight (48) hours, excluding weekends and state holidays in the count of hours, before the date,” by posting such notice in two public locations, and filing such notice with the Secretary of State. R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-6(b), (e).

The Complainant vaguely asserted that the Committee’s subcommittees, including the Policy Subcommittee, violated the OMA by failing to provide notice to the public of the meetings held by said subcommittees. However, the Complainant did not identify any particular subcommittee meeting for which she contends the subcommittee failed to post notice. Based on our independent, high-level review of the Secretary of State’s website, it appears that the Policy Subcommittee has been timely posting notice for its meetings. For instance, the most recent meeting of the Policy Subcommittee prior to the date when Complainant filed her Complaint was December 1, 2022, and the Secretary of State’s website reflects that the agenda for that meeting was posted more than 48 hours in advance of the meeting, on November 28, 2022. Therefore, we do not find the Policy Subcommittee violated the OMA with regard to posting notice of its meetings. The Complainant raised concerns about lack of transparency with regard to the existence of subcommittees. While we acknowledge the important transparency interests identified by the Complainant, our purview is to determine whether any specific OMA provision was violated. We find no evidence of an OMA violation.