VIA EMAIL ONLY

February 17, 2025

Representative Jon D. Brien, Esq.

Councilman James C. Cournoyer

Anthony F. Cottone, Esquire

Chief Legal Counsel, Rhode Island Department of Education

Dear Representative Brien, Councilman Cournoyer, and Attorney Cottone:

We have completed an investigation into the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) complaints filed by Representative Jon D. Brien and Councilman James C. Cournoyer against the Rhode Island Department of Education (“RIDE”). As the two Complaints raise substantively similar allegations about the same assemblage, we will combine the Complaints and issue one finding. For the reasons set forth herein, we find that RIDE did not violate the OMA.

Representative Brien alleges that on November 20, 2024, the “RIDE Office of School Opportunities” (the “OSO”)[1] convened a “public hearing” following an invitation to “members of the public to provide written public comments on [a] major amendment request of RISE Prep Mayoral Academy” (“RISE”).[2] He contends that this “‘public hearing’ was not advertised on the [SOS] website” and “[t]here was NO notice [of the public hearing] given ANYWHERE,” in violation of the OMA. (Emphasis in original).

Similarly, Councilman Cournoyer alleges that the “public hearing” took place “without proper Notice (sic).” (Emphasis in original). He provided additional information as to the nature of the hearing itself, noting that the “major amendment” sought by RISE would “convert [RISE] from a ‘Mayoral’ charter school to an ‘Independent’ charter school, which would, in part, allow [RISE] to receive a greater portion of the Woonsocket Education Department’s local share of education funding.” He alleges that this failure to “properly notice the ‘public hearing’ … effectively denied [the public’s] ability to provide important public input … on a critical and consequential issue.”

Chief Legal Counsel Anthony F. Cottone submitted a Response on behalf of RIDE. He contends that three elements need to be present in order for the OMA to be implicated: (1) a quorum, (2) a meeting, and (3) a public body. RIDE argues that “none of the three elements … were present” as to the hearing because “there was no quorum present,” the “public hearing was not a ‘meeting,’” and the “OSO is not a ‘public body’” as contemplated by the OMA. (Emphasis in original). Because none of these elements were present, RIDE contends that the OSO did not violate the OMA.

We acknowledge Councilman Cournoyer’s Rebuttal.

Here, determining whether the OMA was implicated hinges on whether the OSO is a public body.[3] There is no evidence to support this conclusion. RIDE attests to the fact that the “OSO is merely an office within RIDE tasked by the Commissioner [of RIDE] with the administration of certain departmental functions … it is not made up of ‘members’ who collectively take action as a single ‘body’ by meeting in a quorum and voting, but rather consists of rank-and-file RIDE staff members.”

Based on the record before us, there is nothing to suggest that the OSO has a set membership. See Moore v. Westerly Department of Development Services, OM 20-51 (finding that the entity in question was not subject to the OMA, in part, because “[t]here is no evidence that [it] has a set membership”). There is also no indication that the OSO has regular meetings of any kind, either. See Mudge v. North Kingstown School Bond Subcommittee, OM 18-26 (finding an entity not to be subject to the OMA, in part, because “the group did not meet regularly, rather ‘[t]he group met informally on several occasions’”). Finally, there is no evidence that the OSO was created by stature, executive order, or any other governing instrument that sets forth “the scope of its stated authority.” See Arditi v. Governor’s State Equity Council, OM 21-32 (finding that an entity was not a public body, in part, because it “‘was neither formed by Executive Order nor Regulation’ nor statute … [n]or does it operate under any bylaws or charter”). All these factors point to the OSO merely being a component of RIDE that carries out tasks on behalf of the Commissioner, not a distinct public body subject to the OMA.

Even assuming that the OSO is a public body, which we have determined it is not, it cannot be established that a quorum was present at the November 20, 2024 hearing because it is undisputed the OSO does not have a set membership. See Weaver Aleksei v. Warwick Sewer Authority, OM 22-18 (“as there is no evidence that a quorum of the public body convened during the matter in question, we find that the OMA did not apply”); Solas v. South Kingstown School Building Committee, OM 22-32 (“[w]e have not been presented with any evidence disputing the Building Committee’s argument that no quorum was present at either of these meetings and that the OMA did not apply … we find no violation”). The record evidences that the assembly in question constituted a public hearing to solicit comments from members of the public, not a meeting of a quorum of the membership of any public body.

As the OMA was not triggered both because the OSO is not a “public body” as contemplated by the OMA and because no quorum was established, we find no violation.

We recognize the Complainants’ concerns relative to the underlying issue at hand. As we often note, the OMA is a floor and not a ceiling. Even if the OSO is not legally obligated to comply with the OMA, we encourage entities like the OSO to adopt the types of measures set forth in the OMA when it is appropriate to do so to increase transparency.

Because this Office’s purview under the OMA is to investigate alleged violations of that statute, see R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8, our finding is limited to addressing the alleged violation of the OMA. To the extent any other laws or provisions related to public hearings may have applied to the meeting in question, that issue is beyond the scope of this finding.