| 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 USPS and EMAIL
May 8, 2023
PR 23-44
Allen J. Hanson
Diane Daigle, Esquire
Deputy Chief Legal Counsel, RI Department of Corrections
Re: Hanson v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections
Dear Mr. Hanson and Attorney Daigle:
We have completed our investigation into the Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”) Complaint filed by Mr. Allen J. Hanson (“Complainant”) against the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (“DOC”). For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the RIDOC did not violate the APRA.
The Complainant alleges that the DOC failed to respond to an APRA request he submitted “[i]n the middle of November” “asking for the name of Mid America staff the new President & Vice President, and DMD Dr Clark.” The Complainant did not provide a copy of his purported November APRA request.[1]
Deputy Legal Counsel, Diane Daigle, submitted a substantive response in affidavit form on behalf of the DOC. The DOC attests that it “did not receive an APRA request from Mr. Hanson regarding Mid America in mid-November or any other time.” Nonetheless, the DOC chose to accept the Complainant’s APRA Complaint as an APRA request and responded to the same (copying this Office) on February 3, 2023. The DOC provided Complainant with “a schedule of the names of the Mid-America dental staff at each facility which is responsive to [his] request.” The DOC denied the remainder of Complainant’s request as “seek[ing] the answer to certain questions for which no responsive records exist.”
We acknowledge Complainant’s rebuttal wherein he acknowledges receipt of the DOC’s February 3 response and contests the DOC’s denial of “1) the full name of DMD Clark 2) Vice President of Mid America 3) President of Mid America & Adress [sic].” Complainant argues that “[t]hese aren’t interrogatories just requests for public records.”
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. The APRA permits a public body to invoke an additional twenty (20) business day extension for certain reasons set forth in the statute. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-3(e).
Here, DOC attests that it did not receive Complainant’s APRA request for the names of certain dental staff “in mid-November or any other time.” The Complainant has not contested this assertion, nor has he provided any evidence that he submitted his request in mid-November. Accordingly, based upon the undisputed record before us, we find the DOC did not violate the APRA. See Grundy v. RI National Guard, PR 22-49 (finding no violation where RING provided undisputed evidence that it did not receive any APRA requests from the Complainant until it received notice of the Complaint).
Regarding DOC’s response to the Complainant’s request, the DOC contends that it does not maintain records responsive to the Complainant’s request for the full names of “DMD Clark” and the President and Vice President of Mid-America. The Complainant does not contest the DOC’s assertion that it does not have records responsive to this part of his request, but rather argues that he needs this information for a lawsuit he intends to file.
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). Nothing within the APRA requires 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 R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-7(c) (“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, in responding to the request in accordance with this chapter, state that it does not have or maintain the requested records”).
While the APRA unequivocally states that public records must be provided to requesting parties unless the records are exempt, it is well settled that a public body does not violate the APRA by not providing records it does not maintain or that do not exist. See Lopez v. Department 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[.]”); Azar v. Town of Lincoln, PR 13-21 (“The Town is Not Obligated to Give Ms. Azar Records it Does Not Have”); see also R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 38-2-3(h), 38-2-7(c).
Accordingly, based upon the undisputed evidence, 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/ Adam D. Roach
Adam D. Roach
Special Assistant Attorney General
[1] The Complainant appended a second APRA request to the DOC to his complaint, dated January 10, 2023 identified as “Exhibit A.” This second request, submitted simultaneously with the Complaint, is outside the scope of the Complaint and will not be considered or addressed in this finding.