| 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
May 2, 2023
PR 23-41
Ms. Nicole Solas
Charles A. Ruggerio, Esquire
General Counsel and Deputy City Solicitor
City of Providence
Re: Solas v. Providence Public School District
Dear Ms. Solas and Attorney Ruggerio:
We have completed our investigation into the Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”) Complaint filed by Ms. Nicole Solas (“Complainant”) against the Providence Public School District (“District”). For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the District did not violate the APRA.
The Complainant alleges that the District violated the APRA by failing to respond to her APRA request made via email on April 27, 2022 at 9:46 a.m. The Complainant provided a copy of an email she sent to District employee, Molly Hannon, on April 27 as her proof of submission. Complainant also provided a screenshot of an email from District employee, Lindsey Lemoi, dated April 27, 2022 at 9:09 a.m. directing the Complainant to contact Ms. Hannon as “[s]he will be able to help with public records requests that are not transcript related.”
Deputy City Solicitor, Charles A. Ruggerio, Esquire, submitted a substantive response on behalf of the District, including an affidavit from himself as well as three (3) exhibits. The District contends that the Complainant failed to follow the District’s established APRA procedures – available on the City of Providence website as the District is a department of the City of Providence – when submitting her request. The District maintains that it did not have a duty to respond to the Complainant’s request, which was not submitted in accordance with their procedures. The District provided copies of its APRA procedures as written at the time the Complainant contends she submitted her request. Those procedures state the following, in pertinent part:
“1. *** Requests for records may be made through the portal at: openrecords.providenceri.gov.
2. If you do not wish to submit a request for records through the City’s Open Records Portal, a request to inspect and/or copy public records of the City of Providence can be made by either:
a) submitting a written request via mail to:
Public Records Unit
c/o City of Providence Law Department
444 Westminster Street, Suite 220
Providence, RI 02903
-or-
b) placing your written request, addressed to ‘Public Records Unit, City of Providence, c/o Law Department’ into the drop-box located at the Greene Street entrance of 444 Westminster Street.”
The District also attests that, upon receipt of the Complainant’s April 27 email to Ms. Hannon, Attorney Ruggerio’s Confidential Executive Assistant forwarded a letter to the Complainant, signed by Attorney Ruggerio, advising her of the District/City’s APRA procedures and requesting that Complainant comply with the same. This email was sent to the same email address the Complainant used to send her request to Ms. Hannon. Additionally, this letter from the District was sent to the Complainant on April 27 at 1:40 p.m. The District attests that it did not receive any further communications from the Complainant, nor did the Complainant submit her request via the appropriate procedures. Accordingly, the District maintains that it did not violate the APRA by failing to respond to the Complainant’s request thatwas not submitted in accordance with the District’s APRA procedures, which requires requests for records – aside from birth, death or marriage certificate records – to be made via the City’s NextRequest portal or in writing to the Public Records unit.
The Complainant did not submit a rebuttal.
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. Also, the “[f]ailure to comply with a request to inspect or copy the public record within the ten (10) business day period shall be deemed to be a denial.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-7(b).
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 pursuant to this authority, and in accordance with the APRA, the District (as a department of the City) promulgated and posted its APRA procedures to its website.[1] As applied to this case, there is no provision in the procedures for APRA requests to be made via email to a specific District employee as occurred in this case.
It is undisputed that the Complainant did not submit her APRA request to the District in accordance with its established procedures. Notably, the Complainant does not dispute that she received the April 27 1:40 p.m correspondence from Attorney Ruggerio’s Executive Assistant directing Complainant to the District’s APRA procedures so she could properly submit her request.[2]
Pursuant to the District’s established procedures, the Complainant should have made a written APRA request through the NextRequest portal or to the Public Records Unit of the City’s Law Department as specified in the APRA procedures. The Complainant satisfied neither requirement. Although we encourage public bodies that timely become aware of records requests to process those requests even when they were not submitted in accordance with the appropriate APRA procedures, here the District promptly informed the Complainant regarding the proper procedures that should be followed and the Complainant failed to do so. The APRA requirement that a public body establish procedures to ensure access to records – and the District’s compliance with this requirement – is not meaningless. Among the reasons for this requirement is to ensure a process is in place whereby members of the public may make APRA requests that are uniformly funneled through a public body process so that they may be responded to in a timely manner. The Complainant failed to follow this procedure – instead making a request outside this process – particularly after being advised of this procedure. It is also noteworthy that the District’s APRA procedures, which provide multiple methods for submitting requests including through an easily accessible electronic portal, comply with our recent advisory opinion. See Advisory Opinion Regarding Methods for Accepting APRA Requests, ADV PR 23-01 (regarding methods for submitting APRA requests). Accordingly, we conclude that since the Complainant’s request was not made in accordance with the District’s promulgated and posted APRA procedures, we find no violation. See Solas v. Town of South Kingstown, PR 23-03 (finding no violation where the Complainant made a verbal request to a Town employee rather than through the Town’s established APRA procedures); Reale v. Office of the Governor, PR 21-15 (finding no violation where the Complainant did not submit his APRA request in accordance with the Governor’s Office posted procedures); Shapiro v. Town of Warren, PR 15-39 (finding no violation where the Town of Warren failed to respond to an APRA request where the request was submitted to the Town Manager instead of the Town Clerk where the Town Clerk was the Town’s designated public records officer in accordance with the Town’s established procedures); Stafford v. Rhode Island Family Court, PR 11-13 (finding no violation where the Rhode Island Family Court failed to respond to a request for public records in a timely manner since the request was not made pursuant to the Court’s established APRA procedures). Although we find no violation, the Complainant is free to submit an APRA request to the District at any time by following the District’s APRA procedures.[3]
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/ Adam D. Roach
Adam D. Roach
Special Assistant Attorney General
APRA
[1] The current APRA procedures for the District/City can be found here: https://www.providenceri.gov/law-department/public-records-request/
[2] We also note that Complainant first emailed the District seeking documents on April 27, 2022, but did not file her Complaint with this Office until January 2023.
[3] We cannot help but wonder if this entire complaint could have been avoided if the Complainant followed up with the District after receiving the letter directing Complainant to the District’s APRA procedures. Oftentimes, engaging in communications between the requester and the public body can avoid APRA complaints (or at least narrow the issues) and facilitate the disclosure of public documents.