VIA EMAIL ONLY

April 29, 2026

OM 26-11

Mr. Richard Langseth

Mr. Michael Carroll

Treasurer/Public Records Officer, Buttonwoods Fire District

Re: Langseth v. Buttonwoods Fire District

Dear Mr. Langseth and Mr. Carroll:

We have completed our investigation into the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) Complaint filed by Mr. Richard Langseth (“Complainant”) against the Buttonwoods Fire District (“Fire District”). For the reasons set forth herein, we find the Fire District violated the OMA.

Background

The Complainant alleges that the Fire District: “failed to file the minutes of its February 2, 2026 meeting with the Secretary of State [hereinafter, “SOS”] within the [statutorily] required 35 days.” The Complainant cited the relevant provision of the statute and also referenced the agenda for the Fire District’s subsequent, March 30, 2026 meeting, wherein approval of the subject (February 2, 2026) meeting minutes was included as an item on the agenda. The Complainant also provided a screenshot from the SOS website of the Fire District’s “Recently Filed Meeting Minutes,” which did not include an entry reflective of the February 2, 2026 meeting.

The Fire District concedes that, prior to receipt of the instant Complaint, it was “aware of the situation and [was taking] steps to correct it.” It explains that just days before submission of the instant Complaint, a Fire District “Senior Supervisor” realized that the subject minutes had not been filed and initial steps were then taken to come into compliance. The Fire District states that this “delay in posting the minutes was not intentional or due to lack of concern for the standards of the [OMA] … it was [attributable to] an oversight by a volunteer that the [Fire District] was already correcting at the time … [that] the complaint was received by the … Fire District.”

Relevant Law and Findings

When we examine an OMA complaint, our authority is to determine whether a violation of the OMA has occurred. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8. In doing so, we must begin with the plain language of the OMA and relevant caselaw interpreting this statute.

The OMA requires that all public bodies keep written minutes of all meetings, which shall include, but are not limited to: “(1) The date, time, and place of the meeting; (2) The members of the public body recorded as either present or absent; (3) A record by individual members of any vote taken; and (4) Any other information relevant to the business of the public body that any member of the public body requests be included or reflected in the minutes.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-7(a).

These minutes “shall be public records and unofficial minutes shall be available to the public at the office of the public body within thirty-five (35) days of the meeting or at the next regularly scheduled meeting, whichever is earlier….” R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-7(b)(1). A copy of official or approved minutes shall be filed “with the secretary of state for inspection by the public within thirty-five (35) days of the meeting.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-7(d).

Here, based on the parties’ submissions and our review of the SOS website, the record shows that the Fire District did not timely post its meeting minutes and violated the OMA.

Conclusion

The OMA provides that the Office of the Attorney General may institute an action in Superior Court for violations of the OMA. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8(a), (e). The Superior Court may issue injunctive relief and declare null and void any actions of the public body found to be in violation of the OMA. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8(d). Additionally, the Superior Court may impose fines up to $5,000 against a public body found to have committed a willful or knowing violation of the OMA. Id.

Here, injunctive relief is moot because, as the Fire District notes, it “posted the draft minutes to the [SOS] [w]ebsite on March 27 [2026].”[1] Our independent review of the SOS website has confirmed the same. See Morgan v. Central Coventry Fire District, OM 24-06 (“injunctive relief is not appropriate because the minutes for the meetings at issue have all been posted on the [SOS]’s website as of the writing of this finding.”); see Stewart v. West Greenwich Planning Board, OM 22-02 (finding that injunctive relief was not appropriate where the pertinent meeting minutes were subsequently posted to the SOS website).

Further, we do not find that the Fire District’s untimely filing of its February 2, 2026 meeting minutes constituted a willful or knowing violation that would warrant civil penalties. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8(a), (d). The Fire District states that it had independently determined that these minutes had not been timely filed. While in the process of rectifying the matter internally, the Fire District concluded that the individual responsible for posting the minutes had “been dealing with some pressing work issues and family health concerns and the draft was stuck in his outbox unintentionally.” This Office regularly declines to find willful or knowing OMA violations attributable to these kinds of one-time, inadvertent errors. See Solas v. South Kingstown Library Board of Trustees, OM 26-04 (“[t]he record suggests that the incorrect posting described herein was seemingly the result of a one-time clerical error which was not willful or knowing”); see also Davis v. Town of Exeter, OM 25-25 (“[t]his Office routinely declines to find willful or knowing violations of the OMA where the behavior at issue is attributable to inadvertent human error”). Our conclusion is supported by the Complainant’s failure to allege that the Fire District willfully or knowingly violated the OMA, as well as the lack of any recent, similar violations by the public body.[2]

Although the Attorney General has found no violation as to the Fire District and will not file suit in this matter, nothing in the OMA precludes an individual from pursuing a complaint in the Superior Court as specified in the OMA. R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8(c). The Complainant may pursue an OMA complaint within “ninety (90) days of the attorney general’s closing of the complaint or within one hundred eighty (180) days of the alleged violation, whichever occurs later.” Id. 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 record indicates that these exact same minutes were subsequently approved by unanimous vote at the Fire District’s next meeting, on March 30, 2026. As such, the posted minutes are approved minutes and comply with the statute. However, for clarity, it would be preferrable if the Fire District re-posts the minutes and labels them as approved to avoid any confusion.

[2] In his Complaint, the Complainant indicates that “[a] copy of this complaint was sent to the … Fire District.” The Complainant additionally claims that the “unavailability of [the subject] minutes within 35 days (March 10, 2026) has created a hardship for me in [a separate legal action].” However, the instant Complaint was not filed on or around March 10, 2026, but instead was filed less than 24 hours after the Fire District posted an agenda (cited by the Complainant in his Complaint) noting that it was seeking to cure this meeting minutes issue at its next meeting. We cannot help but wonder if this Complaint could have been avoided had the Complainant simply contacted the Fire District relative to this issue (as opposed to copying the Fire District on an OMA Complaint). While a public body should not require such notification in order to remain in compliance with the OMA, we stress that communication is key, as it can often promote understanding and resolve disputes. See Lema v. Narragansett Town Council [11.17.2021], OM 22-30 (noting the potential that “the Complaint could have been resolved by the Complainant alerting the [public body] to the issue.”).