Background and Arguments

The Complainant submitted an APRA request to the City on August 3, 2022 (received by the City on August 5, 2022) seeking the following related to a net metering contract:

“Please provide an unredacted copy of the report prepared by the city’s RFP consultant, Best Practice Energy, LLC, hired to evaluate the RFP responses.”

The City responded on August 10, 2022, providing what it determined to be documents responsive to the Complainant’s request. Dissatisfied with the City’s response, the Complaint to this Office followed.

The Complainant alleges that the document provided to him in response to his request was “a summary prepared by city employees ***, but that is not what I requested and does not compare to what the consultant’s report should include.” The Complainant alleges that the document provided by the City “is no comparison” to “a sample report prepared by the net metering consultant for Smithfield.” The Complainant attached a copy of a document entitled “Town of Smithfield RFP Review and Approval Virtual Net Metering Agreements” presented by Clean Economy Development, LLC to his Complaint, presumably as an example of what he seeks from the City and intended to receive from the City. 

Deputy Solicitor, Christopher M. Rawson, Esquire, submitted a substantive response on behalf of the City in affidavit form. The City attests that “[t]he City of Cranston does not possess the type of RFP Review report that the Complainant seeks. This extensive report was presented by a third-party consultant company, Clean Economy Development, LLC presumably hired by the Town of Smithfield.” Although the City contends it does not have the specific type of report the Complainant seeks, it provided “any and all documents that the City of Cranston has in its possession related to the net metering contract(s) or any consultants it may have used” in response to the Complaint.

We acknowledge Complainant’s rebuttal.

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, unless exempt, all records maintained by any public body shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect and/or copy such records.  See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-3(a).  The APRA does not require “a public body to reorganize, consolidate, or compile data not maintained by the public body.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-3(h); see also Lopez v. City of Providence, PR 20-03 (“Because the APRA does not require a public body to disclose records that do not exist or that are not within its custody or control, we find no violation[.]”). “A public body that receives a request to inspect or copy records that do not exist or are not within its custody or control shall *** state that it does not have or maintain the requested records.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-7(c).

Here, the evidence is undisputed that the City does not maintain the specific type of report responsive to the APRA request.  This undisputed assertion is supported by an affidavit from the City.  For these reasons, we find no violation.   

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/ Kayla E. O’Rourke

Kayla E. O’Rourke, Esquire

/s/ Adam D. Roach

Adam D. Roach, Special Assistant Attorney General