Background

The Complainant alleges that the Council violated the OMA by providing inadequate supplemental notice relative to its March 14, 2023 meeting. Specifically, the Complainant contends that the agenda included an item titled “Update of Stephen J. Angell, Esq. – Town Solicitor” and “lack[ed] any specific details describing what the ‘update’ [was] about.” Included in the Complaint is a link to the relevant meeting minutes and agenda, a link to a YouTube video of the meeting, and a “transcript” of the remarks made by the Town Solicitor.

Attorney Stephen J. Angell submitted a response on behalf of the Council. The Council concedes that “[t]he agenda did not list any specifics under the Solicitor’s update, which is, in essence, the [Council’s] responsibility to provide.” The Council explains that terms such as “Town Manger update (sic),” and “Finance Director update” serve as “placeholders for the Clerk to utilize” if certain “department heads” wish to provide an update at a Council meeting. If that is the case, “specific items” will be listed in association with each department head’s update. In this instance, the Council contends that there was no intention for the Solicitor to “provide any update” as to the agenda item in question. Due to “extenuating circumstances” and the Solicitor’s “overzealous[ness] in … keep[ing] the public informed,” the Solicitor offered comments under the “Update” agenda item. The Solicitor’s comments concerned a “long-anticipated ‘show cause’ hearing concerning a business in Town” that had caused some confusion. The Solicitor’s remarks were intended to “provide the Council with clarity” on this subject. The Council asserts that it was “never [its] intention to willfully, knowingly or otherwise violate the OMA.”

Relevant Law and Findings

When we examine an OMA complaint, our authority is to determine whether a violation of the OMA has occurred. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8. In doing so, we must begin with the plain language of the OMA and relevant caselaw interpreting this statute.

The OMA requires that all public bodies provide supplemental public notice of all meetings at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the meeting. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-6(b). “This notice shall include the date the notice was posted, the date, time and place of the meeting, and a statement specifying the nature of the business to be discussed.” Id. (emphasis added).

In Tanner v. Town of East Greenwich, the Rhode Island Supreme Court examined the OMA’s requirement that a public notice contain “a statement specifying the nature of the business to be discussed.” 880 A.2d 784 (R.I. 2005). The Court determined that the agenda item “Interviews for Potential Boards and Commission Appointments” did not adequately apprise the public of the nature of the business to be discussed at a Town Council meeting. In that case, after conducting interviews as indicated on the notice, the Town Council proceeded to vote to appoint various individuals to the planning and zoning boards for the Town and the Court determined that the agenda item failed to provide notice that the Town would vote on appointments. Id. at 798.

The Court concluded that although the standard is “somewhat flexible,” the contents of the notice “reasonably must describe the purpose of the meeting or the action proposed to be taken.” Id. at 797-98. The Court determined the appropriate inquiry is “whether the [public] notice provided by the [public body] fairly informed the public, under the totality of the circumstances, of the nature of the business to be conducted.” Id.; see also Anolik v. Zoning Board of Review of the City of Newport, 64 A.3d 1171, 1173 (R.I. 2013) (holding R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-6(b) requires the “public body to provide fair notice to the public under the circumstance, or such notice based on the totality of the circumstances as would fairly inform the public of the nature of the business to be discussed or acted upon”).

We have previously determined that public bodies violate the OMA by posting broad and insufficient agenda items such as “Tax Collector’s Report,” “Treasurer's Report,” “Chief’s Report,” “Committee Reports,” “Old Business,” and “New Business.” These broad agenda items typically fail to “fairly inform the public of the nature of the business to be discussed or acted upon.” Spodnik v. West Warwick, OM 19-28; Beagan v. Albion Fire District, OM 10-27.

In Castelli v. Coventry Town Council, OM 20-32, this Office found that an agenda item reading “District One Update by Councilwoman Dickson” violated the OMA because it did not provide any information regarding the subject matter of the “update” or what would be discussed about District One pursuant to the agenda item. This Office noted that the agenda item did not give the public notice that the Councilwoman would discuss the formation of a Coventry Charter Review Study Group, or that she would “[report] on a ‘community forum.’” Id. Accordingly, the “agenda item failed to fairly encompass and provide notice of the substance of what would be discussed.” Id.

Here, based on the undisputed evidence, the agenda did not provide notice that the Solicitor would make comments regarding the show cause hearing that he discussed during the meeting.  We find that the subject agenda item failed to fairly encompass and provide notice of the substance of what would be discussed by the Town Solicitor, and that the Council violated the OMA. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-6(b); Castelli, OM 20-32. 

Conclusion