| State of Rhode Island | |
| | |
| OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | |
| 150 South Main Street- Providence, Rl 02903 (401) 274-4400 www.riag.ri.gov | |
| | |
| Peter F. Neronha | |
| | Attorney General |
VIA EMAIL ONLY
February 22, 2023
PR 23-18
Ms. Lisa Cobro
Mr. Nicholas Poulos, Esquire
Associate City Solicitor, City of Providence
Re: Cobro v. City of Providence
Dear Ms. Cobro and Attorney Poulos:
We have completed our investigation into the Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”) Complaint filed by Ms. Lisa Cobro (“Complainant”) against the City of Providence (“City”). For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the City did not violate the APRA.
The Complainant submitted the following APRA request to the City:
“Please provide a list of all locations and expenses incurred (both paid for by the city and reimbursed by outside sources) for the mayor and his senior staff during out-of-state travel for calendar years 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022.”
The Complainant asserts that the City responded to the portion of her request that pertained to 2019 and 2020 but then closed the request. The crux of the Complainant’s allegation is that it was improper for the City to close her request prior to addressing the portion of her request seeking records from 2021 and 2022. The Complainant states that “I noted it on the website/portal and asked why they closed it with only 2 of the 4 years? and they opened it right away.” Nonetheless, she wished to file a complaint against the City and expressed, “I am worried about the lack of judgement to my request and how their process works.”[1]
The City responded to the Complaint by explaining that due to a miscommunication between the associate solicitor and the Mayor’s Office, the request was mistakenly closed prematurely. The City asserts that once the Complainant notified the City of the issue, the City reopened the request on the same day the issue was brought to its attention, which was the day after it had been closed. The request was re-opened on the tenth business day after the request had been submitted. At the time when it re-opened the request, the City then asserted the twenty-business-day extension provided for in the APRA. The City noted in its response to this Complaint that the responsive records for 2021 and 2022 are not as readily available as the other requested years because the information for the most recent years had not yet been compiled and submitted as part of state ethics filings. The City subsequently provided this Office with evidence that prior to the expiration of the twenty-business-day extension period, it substantively responded to the portion of the Complainant’s request seeking documents related to 2021 and 2022.
When we examine an APRA complaint, our authority is to determine whether a violation of the APRA has occurred. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-8. In doing so, we must begin with the plain language of the APRA and relevant caselaw interpreting this statute.
Pursuant to the APRA, a public body has ten (10) business days to respond in some capacity to a records request, whether by producing responsive documents, denying the request with reason(s), or extending the period necessary to comply as provided in the APRA. See R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 38-2-3(e), 38-2-7. A public body may extend the time to respond to an APRA request by an additional twenty (20) business days “if it can demonstrate that the voluminous nature of the request, the number of requests for records pending, or the difficulty in searching for and retrieving or copying the requested records, is such that additional time is necessary to avoid imposing an undue burden on the public body.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-3(e).
Here, the Complainant does not take issue with the substance of the City’s response to her APRA request, except for the fact that the City initially closed her request without responding as to two of the four years requested. The undisputed evidence reveals that although the City initially erroneously closed the request prematurely, it promptly reopened the request once the issue was brought to its attention. The City provided evidence that it reopened the request and asserted the extension provided for in the APRA within ten business days of when the request was submitted. The Complainant did not allege that the extension invoked by the City was impermissible. The record also reveals that the City provided a substantive response to the request, including as to years 2021 and 2022, within the deadline prescribed by the APRA for responding, after applying the twenty-business-day extension. Although the Complainant generally asserts that she is concerned about “the lack of judgement to my request and how their process works,” the Complainant has not presented evidence that the City violated any provision of the APRA. As such, we find no violation.
Although this Office has found no violation, nothing within the APRA prohibits an individual or entity from instituting an action for injunctive or declaratory relief in Superior Court as provided in the APRA. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-8(b). Please be advised that we are closing this file 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: /s/ Katherine Sadeck
Katherine Sadeck
Assistant Attorney General
[1] The Complainant also initially expressed to this Office, “I sense as though they are redacting/making edits on their end when they shouldn't be.” This Office notified the Complainant that if she wished to file a Complaint regarding any redactions in documents provided to her, she should “identify any particular records that the City provided you in redacted form in response to your APRA request that you allege were improperly redacted and the reason you believe the redaction was improper.” The Complainant did not take those steps or raise any specific allegations taking issue with any particular redactions. As such, that issue is not before us.