VIA EMAIL ONLY
June 18, 2026
OM 26-21
Robert J. Chiaradio, Jr.
Brigitte Hopkins
Executive Director, Westerly Library Board of Trustees
Re: Chiaradio v. Westerly Library Board of Trustees
Dear Mr. Chiaradio and Director Hopkins:
We have completed our investigation into the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) Complaint filed by Mr. Robert Chiaradio (“Complainant”) against the Westerly Library Board of Trustees (“Board”). For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the Board violated the OMA.
Background
The Complainant alleges that the Board failed to post its meeting minutes to the Secretary of State’s (hereinafter, “SOS”) website, as required by the OMA, for Board meetings that occurred on January 20, February 17, and March 17 of 2026.[1]
The Executive Director of the Board submitted a substantive Response on the Board’s behalf. The Board concedes that it failed to timely post meeting minutes for the identified meetings. The Board attributes its failure to do so to a “clerical oversight” rather than “a deliberate attempt to withhold information from the public.” The Board included with its Response the relevant meeting minutes, while noting that upon receipt of the instant Complaint the Board “immediately” posted the relevant meeting minutes to the SOS website (on April 27, 2026).
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, it is undisputed that the Board failed to timely post its meeting minutes for the subject meetings. Thus, the Board violated the OMA. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-7(d); see also Puchalski v. Charlestown Fire District, OM 25-44 (finding an OMA violation based on the public body’s admission that it failed to timely post the meeting minutes in question); see also Umbriano v. Scituate Zoning Board of Review, OM 25-21.
Conclusion
Upon finding 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 of up to $5,000 against a public body found to have committed a willful or knowing violation of the OMA. Id.
We find that no injunctive relief is necessary in this instance. In the Board’s Response, its Executive Director stated that the Board “approved and uploaded to the [SOS]’s portal” the relevant meeting minutes “immediately” upon being made aware of their absence. This Office independently reviewed the SOS website and confirmed that the minutes at issue have since been posted.[2] Consequently, no injunctive relief would be appropriate. See Kelly v. City of Newport, OM 24-01 (finding injunctive relief “not appropriate because the minutes for the meeting at issue have been … posted on the [SOS] website”); see also Puchalski v. Charlestown Fire District, OM 25-44.
Additionally, we do not find that the Board willfully or knowingly violated the OMA. The Board attributes its failure to upload the subject meeting minutes to a “clerical oversight.” Additionally, the Board submits that it “immediately” rectified this omission, “[i]mplemented a calendar-based reminder system for filing deadlines,” and “[r]eviewed training resources provided on the Attorney General’s website.” The subsequent remedial measures taken by the Board, its undisputed contention that its failure to properly post the minutes was the result of human error, and the context of a lack of any similar recent violations all evidence that the Board’s OMA violation was not willful or knowing. See Ephraim v. North Tiverton Fire District, OM 23-15 (declining to find a willful or knowing OMA violation where “the District took remedial measures by posting the minutes that are the subject of this finding”); see also Davis v. Town of Exeter, OM 25-25 (“This Office routinely declines to find willful or knowing violations of the OMA where the behavior at issue is attributable to inadvertent human error.”); see also Puchalski v. Charlestown Fire District, OM 25-44.
Nevertheless, this finding serves as notice that the actions discussed herein violate the OMA and may serve as evidence of a willful or knowing violation in any similar, future situation.
Although the Attorney General 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. 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.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8. We are closing the complaint as of the date of 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/ Adam D. Roach
Adam D. Roach
Special Assistant Attorney General