VIA EMAIL ONLY
June 10, 2026
OM 26-15
Mr. Keith Wahl
Mrs. Jennifer Wahl
Mr. Robert J. Donnelly, Esq.
Re: Wahl v. Indian Lake Shores Fire District
Dear Mr. Wahl, Mrs. Wahl and Attorney Donnelly:
We have completed our investigation into the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) Complaint filed by Mr. and Mrs. Wahl (“Complainants”) against the Indian Lake Shores Fire District (“District”). For the reasons set forth herein, we find the District violated the OMA.
The Complainants alleges that the District failed to file meeting minutes for its September 6, 2025 and October 7, 2025 meetings.[1]
The District submitted a substantive Response through its legal counsel Robert J. Donnelly, Esq. The District concedes that it failed to timely file the meeting minutes for its September 6, 2025 and October 7, 2025 meetings. The District states that it “attempted to file the minutes numerous times beginning October 31, 2025” but “[f]or some reason which we are still not aware of, the filings were rejected numerous times by the Secretary of State’s filing system.” It states that the minutes for the September 6, 2025 meeting were finally accepted on April 30, 2026.
The District states that the minutes for its October 7, 2025 meeting were filed on October 31, 2025 and again on April 30, 2026. It states that the “filing system shows that they were accepted by the system on those two dates, but … the system still indicates that the documents can’t be found.” The District asserts that after numerous phone calls to the Secretary of State’s office it was able to get the meeting minutes filed. It also asserts that “the minutes of the following meetings have all been filed on time.”
The District provided this Office and the Complainant with copies of the meeting minutes for the September 6, 2025 and October 7, 2025 meetings.
We acknowledge the Complainants’ Rebuttal.
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 provides that: “[a]ll public bodies shall keep official and/or approved minutes of all meetings of the body and shall file a copy of the minutes of all open meetings with the secretary of state for inspection by the public within thirty-five days of the meeting.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-7(d).
Here, the District concedes that it failed to post the meeting minutes for its September 6, 2025 and October 7, 2025 meetings within the time required by the OMA. Accordingly, we find that the District violated the OMA.
Upon the finding of an OMA violation, the Office of the Attorney General may institute an action in Superior Court. 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.
Injunctive relief does not appear necessary for the District’s September 6, 2025 meeting minutes as the meeting minutes are currently posted on the Secretary of State’s website. However, the meeting minutes for the District’s October 7, 2025 meeting are still not posted on the Secretary of State’s website. We understand that the District states that it posted the meeting minutes on October 7, 2025 and again on April 30, 2025. But while our review of the Secretary of State’s website shows that the District did attempt to file meeting minutes on those dates, both submissions do not contain any documents. Accordingly, the District has still not fulfilled its obligation to post the meeting minutes for its October 7, 2025 meeting. Within ten (10) business days of the issuance of this finding, the District should provide evidence to this Office demonstrating that the District has posted its official or approved meeting minutes for its October 7, 2025 meeting.
Although we understand that the District has stated that it is experiencing technical difficulties and it is frustrated by its difficulties in posting the meeting minutes, we urge the District to work with the Secretary of State’s Office to ensure that the meeting minutes are properly posted. See Prince v. Langworthy Public Library Board of Trustees, OM 26-03 (“[w]hile we understand that there may be some difficulty in posting meeting minutes if no agenda was first posted to the SOS website, we are confident that the Board can work with the SOS to comply with the directives contained in this finding”); Barrett v. Glocester School Committee Negotiations Subcommittee, OM 26-01 (“we urge the Subcommittee to work with the SOS … to resolve this issue in a timely manner.”). If the District encounters further technical issues in this regard even after communicating with the SOS, it may notify this Office and seek further guidance.
Assuming that the District complies with this finding, we do not intend to pursue fines for a willful or knowing violation of the OMA. Although we are troubled by the fact that the meeting minutes for the October 7, 2025 meeting have still not been posted even after the District has been made aware of this issue and filed its Response to the instant Complaint, we do acknowledge the District’s representation that it is unsure why its attempts at posting the meeting minutes have been unsuccessful and it has contacted the Secretary of State’s Office to address this issue. We also recognize the District’s assertion, and our review of the Secretary of State’s Office confirms, that the District has timely filed meeting minutes for all subsequent meetings. We will keep this file open pending receipt of confirmation that the District has complied with this finding.
We thank you for your interest in keeping government open and accountable to the public.
Sincerely,
PETER F. NERONHA
ATTORNEY GENERAL
By: /s/ Patrick Reynolds
Patrick Reynolds
Special Assistant Attorney General
[1] The Complainants also raise allegations about the validity of tax rates and late fees, as well as the legal authority of the District Treasurer. However, such allegations are not addressed in this finding as they fall outside of this Office’s purview. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8.