Background and Arguments

The Complainant asserts he submitted an APRA request to the City on February 14, 2022 via an email he sent to the City’s Building Official, John Hanley. The email stated that it was being sent to address two “outstanding” matters, which it respectively numbered 1 and 2. Both matters seemingly pertain to a zoning complaint that the Complainant had previously filed with the City against the “Greek Church” (“Church”). The first matter addressed in the email was titled “Amended Complaint.” This portion of the email discussed how the City had denied a zoning complaint against the Church regarding its roof structures and stated that the instant email was being submitted as an amended complaint alleging that certain of the Church’s roof structures violate the zoning code regarding height, area, and/or setback from the edge of the roof.

The second matter addressed in the email was titled “APRA” and read as follows:

“APRA: I asked 13 Jan 2022 for a copy of the fence infraction you stated you would be sending to the Church (‘For purposes of my appeal, can you please confirm whether or not the City will provide me a copy of any infractions it issues against the Church pursuant to the above? I would prefer not to file an APRA request.’). I have not received a copy of that notice, as I had requested. Please treat this as an Access to Public Records Act request for:

A). All records regarding ‘the fence violation which is being sent out shortly’, as stated in your 1/14 email to me; and

B). All records regarding, in any way, the City’s measurements of the Greek Church’s roof structures, as referenced in response #3 of Bill Vieira's 15 Nov 2021 letter to me. (‘Roof structures have been measured ...’).

Please send your response(s) by email, to this email account.”

The Complainant filed this Complaint alleging that the City failed to properly respond to his APRA request because the City’s only reply was a non-responsive communication sent by Mr. Hanley on February 16, 2022. The Complainant provided a copy of Mr. Hanley’s February 16, 2022 email, which states that the roof structure of the Church does not exceed the maximum height restrictions and, therefore, is not in violation of the City’s zoning requirements.  The email also stated that it was attaching a copy of “the violation for the fence.”

In response to this Complaint, the City asserts that Mr. Hanley’s February 16, 2022 email attached a “Notice of Violation” that was responsive to Part A of the Complainant’s records request. Regarding Part B of the request, the City states that “Mr. Hanley has informed the undersigned that other than a November 15, 2021 letter, from then Director of Zoning and Code Enforcement, William D. Vieira, Sr. (a letter that [the Complainant] has in his possession and which he sent to the Department of Attorney General on March 25, 2022), the City is not in possession of any other records that would satisfy the second part of [the Complainant’s] request.”

The City additionally asserts that the Complainant’s February 14, 2022 email was not a proper APRA request because it was not submitted in accordance with the APRA procedures set forth on the City’s website, which direct that APRA requests should be submitted to the Law Department. The City also provided a copy of a prior email from the City’s Solicitor to the Complainant from 2018 specifically informing him that “all APRA requests are supposed to be sent to the Law Department.”

Relevant Law and Findings

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.

The APRA states that, upon receipt of a records request, a public body is obligated to respond in some capacity within ten (10) business days, either by producing responsive documents, denying the request with reason(s), or extending the time period necessary to comply. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-3.

The APRA mandates that “[e]ach public body shall establish written procedures regarding access to public records,” and these procedures must include “the identification of a designated public records officer or unit, how to make a public records request, and where a public record request should be made, and a copy of these procedures shall be posted on the public body’s website[[.]” R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-3(d).

The record in this case demonstrates that in accordance with the APRA, the City promulgated APRA procedures. Those procedures plainly state that any requests must be submitted via an online request form located on the City’s website or by mail or email to “the Law Department,” “which is the Department designated to handle these matters.” The Complainant’s February 14, 2022 email was sent to Mr. Hanley, who is a Building Official. There is no dispute that the request was not sent to the Law Department or submitted in accordance with the City’s APRA procedures. The record also reveals that the City had previously specifically informed the Complainant that APRA requests must be submitted to the Law Department pursuant to the City’s APRA procedures.

The Complainant’s rebuttal suggests that APRA requests do not have to be submitted in accordance with a public body’s APRA procedures. This assertion is unavailing. The APRA specifically provides that public bodies “shall establish written procedures regarding access to public records,” and these procedures must include “the identification of a designated public records officer or unit, how to make a public records request, and where a public record request should be made, and a copy of these procedures shall be posted on the public body’s website[.]” R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-3(d). This provision in the APRA would essentially be rendered meaningless if requestors were then not obligated to follow the public body’s promulgated procedures. See Roberts v. City of Cranston Zoning Bd. of Review, 448 A.2d 779, 781 (R.I. 1982) (“In giving construction to a statute, … [n]o sentence, clause or word should be construed as unmeaning and surplusage, if a construction can be legitimately found which will give force to and preserve all the words of the statute.”); City of Providence v. Barr, 954 F.3d 23, 37 (1st Cir. 2020) (“The canon against surplusage teaches that [w]e must read statutes, whenever possible, to give effect to every word and phrase. Courts generally ought not to interpret statutes in a way that renders words or phrases either meaningless or superfluous.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

Under the APRA, public bodies are responsible for responding to APRA requests within specific deadlines. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-3. The APRA also requires that each public body designate certain officers and employees “who have the authority to grant or deny persons or entities access to records” under the APRA and ensure that those individuals receive the annual training required under the APRA. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-3.16. The promulgation of APRA procedures provides a way to ensure that the appropriate authorities within each public body who are responsible for responding to APRA requests receive any APRA requests made to that body and are properly trained so the public body can timely and appropriately respond.

Conclusion

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