Background

The Complainant alleges the Charlestown Fire District failed to post minutes “within the required time” for its April 8, 2026 meeting, “once again” in violation of the OMA. The Complainant notes that her allegations in the instant complaint are “similar to … previously recognized complaints.”

The District submitted a substantive Response to the instant Complaint through its legal counsel, Wyatt Brochu, Esq., along with a sworn affidavit from District Clerk Janet Pabon. The District acknowledged that “the [District] Clerk inadvertently overlooked the timing for the filing of meeting minutes with the Rhode Island Secretary of State” and conceded that it “may have inadvertently committed a technical violation of the OMA requirement.” The District stated that “[u]pon learning of this error, the Clerk immediately filed the subject minutes.” The District further explained that “in response to this complaint, the Clerk has received training from the Solicitor reviewing the OMA requirements for the filing of Board meeting minutes” and that the “Clerk will have the [District] office manager prepare a calendar for the timely filing of Board minutes with the RISOS and assist in cross-checking said filings prior to the due dates.” Finally, the District asserted that “any technical violation of the OMA in this matter was not ‘willful’ or ‘knowing’” as the “draft Board minutes were available to the public and had the Complainant contacted the District prior to filing the Complaint, the Clerk would have provided a copy of the subject minutes to the Complainant.”

We acknowledge the Complainant’s rebuttal.

Relevant Law and Finding

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). 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) (emphasis added).

The record confirms, and the District concedes, that the District failed to file the relevant minutes within thirty-five days of the meeting as the OMA requires. Thus, the District 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 of up to $5,000 against a public body found to have committed a willful or knowing violation of the OMA. See id.

Injunctive relief is unnecessary because our independent review confirms that the relevant meeting minutes have been posted to the Secretary of State’s website. See, e.g., Solas v. South Kingstown Planning Board, OM 26-07.

Therefore, the next step is to determine whether the District’s violation was willful or knowing. In Puchalski v. Charlestown Fire District, OM 25-44, this Office determined that the District failed to timely file meeting minutes with the Secretary of State for two meetings held in June of 2025. We are mindful of and concerned about this recent finding determining that the District was in violation of the OMA for the same issue that is the subject of this finding. See Keep Metacomet Green v. East Providence Planning Board, OM 24-14 (finding a public body’s “recent history of a similar violation” to be “ample grounds” for finding the subsequent violations “willful or knowing”); see also Solas v. South Kingstown School Committee, OM 24-08.

Our independent review of the Secretary of State’s website reveals that, since the District’s first violation, the body has seemingly complied with the OMA’s minutes filing requirement for some meetings but not others. We are thus concerned whether a pattern may be developing and if the District has adopted sufficient corrective measures.

The District has previously cited inadvertent error when failing to file meeting minutes within the thirty-five-day deadline. We are conscious of the District’s acknowledgement of its violation and its prompt posting of the missing minutes after the instant Complaint. We are also pleased to see the District’s assurances that it has provided OMA training to the District Clerk and established a calendaring procedure to avoid future violations. Still, the District does not explain why it did not implement these or other measures after having recently committed the same violation. The District has been on notice that it is responsible for rectifying the situation and performing its statutory duties. The record evidences repeated failures to timely file meeting minutes. Clerical errors cannot continue to explain nonperformance of statutorily required functions.

As discussed in this finding, in light of the District’s history of a similar, recent violation, there are sufficient grounds in the record to find the violations discussed herein to be “willful or knowing.” See, e.g., Keep Metacomet Green v. East Providence Planning Board, OM 24-14. Although we will not pursue civil penalties at this time, this Office will operate in the following way. This Office will monitor the Secretary of State’s website until December 31, 2026 to determine whether the District is filing meeting minutes in a timely manner for meetings taking place on or after July 1, 2026. If this Office determines that the District has seemingly failed to timely file meeting minutes as required by R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-7(d), then this Office will open a complaint on its own initiative in the public interest and, upon the finding of a violation, anticipates that it would pursue civil penalties at that time.

Furthermore, even after this Office completes the above-described six-month monitoring period, if the District is determined to have committed a similar violation after that time, we will remain acutely aware of this history, which suggests that any such similar violation in the near future is likely to be willful or knowing.

Although the Office of the Attorney General will not file suit in this matter at this time, nothing within the OMA prohibits an individual from instituting an action for injunctive or declaratory relief in Superior Court. See R.I. Gen Laws § 42-46-8(c). The OMA allows the Complainant to file a 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. See id. Please be advised we are closing this file as of the date of this letter. Nonetheless, we will monitor the District’s compliance with the OMA’s minutes filing requirement as described above.

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