Background and Arguments

The Complainant alleges the District failed to respond to her January 10, 2023 emailed APRA request to District employee Kimberly Blais seeking:

“1) contracts between Woonsocket school district and school-based health centers

2) communications between Woonsocket school district and school based health centers related to gender affirming care including but not limited to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and social transition.”

Attorney Sara Rapport submitted a substantive response on behalf of the District. The District acknowledges that it failed to timely respond to the Complainant’s request, but maintains that the same was due to the District’s public records officer, Ms. Kimberly Blais, being out of the office from January 17, 2023 through February 13, 2023. The District concedes that it received the Complainant’s APRA request prior to Ms. Blais going on leave, but that “Ms. Blais, through inadvertence, did not ‘flag’ the matter for those covering in her absence, so that they could seek additional time to respond.” The District states that “Complainant did not make inquiry of the Department before [filing her Complaint with this Office] regarding the status of the request.”

In responding to the Complaint, the District provided records responsive to Part (1) of Complainant’s request, at no charge, and indicated that “the Department is aware of no documents responsive to Request No. 2.”

The Complainant did not submit a 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.

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. See R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 38-2-3(e), 38-2-7. If no response is sent within ten (10) business days, the lack of response will be deemed a denial. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-7(b).

Here, it is undisputed that Complainant made an APRA request on January 10, 2023 and the District failed to respond within ten (10) business days. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-7. The District does not argue that Complainant failed to comply with the District’s procedures for submitting APRA requests. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-3(d) (requiring public bodies to establish written procedures regarding access to public records).  Indeed, our independent research revealed that the email address designated for submitting APRA requests on the Woonsocket Education Department website is the same email address to which Complainant submitted her January 10, 2023 request. It is that public body's responsibility to implement procedures to ensure that requests sent to that email address are read and processed, including when the main monitor of that email address is out of the office. See Mudge v. North Kingstown School Committee, PR 05-04 (School Committee violated the APRA when it failed to respond to Complainant's request made via email); see also Farinelli v. City of Central Falls, PR 19-16 (City violated the APRA when it failed to respond to Complainant’s request made via email when the email went to the Solicitor’s SPAM folder). Accordingly, we conclude that the District violated the APRA when it failed to respond to Complainant's January 10, 2023 APRA request within ten (10) business days. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-7.

Conclusion

Upon a finding of an APRA violation, the Attorney General may file a complaint in Superior Court on behalf of the Complainant, requesting “injunctive or declaratory relief.” See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-8(b). A court “shall impose a civil fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000) against a public body... found to have committed a knowing and willful violation of this chapter, and a civil fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) against a public body found to have recklessly violated this chapter***.” See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-9(d).

It appears from the submissions provided to this Office that Complainant has now received a response to her January 10 request and that injunctive relief is not necessary. Additionally, based upon the evidence presented in this matter, we do not find the instant violation rose to a willful and knowing or reckless level. The District made the undisputed representation that the failure to respond to the Complainant's request was due to an inadvertent oversight of an employee who, shortly after the request was submitted, took a leave of absence. Nor are we aware of any prior, similar violations by the District. Nonetheless, the District is advised that this finding may serve as evidence in a similar future situation to support a finding of a willful and knowing, or reckless violation.

Although this Office has determined that it will not file suit in this matter at this time, nothing within the APRA prohibits the Complainant from filing an action in Superior Court seeking injunctive or declaratory relief as provided in the APRA. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-8(b). Please be advised that we are closing our 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