Background

The Complainant takes issue with multiple agenda items from the Committee’s June 2 and June 16, 2026 meetings. The Complainant alleges that the agenda items V.B “Financial reports” and V.C “Advisory Committee Reports” from the Committee’s June 2, 2026 meeting were insufficient to inform the public of the business to be discussed. The Complainant further alleges that the agenda items IV.E.1 “GCB Contracts”, V.A.7 “GBEBB Report”, V.C “Advisory Committee Reports”, and 7.N “Outreach Coordinator” from the Committee’s June 16, 2026 meeting were similarly insufficient.

The Committee submitted a substantive Response to the instant Complaint through its legal counsel Gwendolyn Peel, Esq., along with a sworn affidavit from Committee Clerk Kristen Oscarson. The Committee addressed the challenged agenda items as follows:

·         V.B “Financial reports.” The Committee states that this agenda item remained on the agenda due to an administrative oversight and that the meeting minutes demonstrate that this agenda item did not result in any discussion, deliberation, or action by the Committee. The Committee states that it was “skipped entirely.”

·         V.C “Advisory Committee Reports.” The Committee asserts that this agenda item contains three subcategories, which list each North Kingstown Advisory Subcommittee: “1. DEI; 2. Policy; and 3. SELAC.” It states that “[t]hese are standing, publicly known subcommittees that regularly provide brief informational updates about ongoing work in their limited subject areas” and their “verbal report does not include a formal presentation.”

·         IV.E.1 “GCB Contracts.” The Committee asserts that the executive session agenda item from the same meeting agenda explains that the Committee would meet to discuss “job performance, character, or physical/mental health of a person(s)” regarding “GCB Contract: Ctrlr, Admin Asst. to Supt., Staff Acct, Benefits Coord, Sys. Admin. Data Mgr., HR; Interim Sup. of Transportation; Maternity/LWOP request; Exec. Admin. Asst. to the Asst Supt. Hire.” The Committee avers that “[t]he reference to ‘GCB Contracts’ later in the agenda when read in conjunction with the executive session notice, sufficiently convey that the School Committee would be discussing such employment-related contracts.”

·         V.A.7 “GBEBB Report.” The Committee states that this agenda item “refers to an internal report connected to School Committee Policy GBEBB (‘Professional Conduct with Students’).” The Committee asserts that this policy is publicly accessible “which may provide context to members of the public seeking additional information.”

·         VC “Advisory Committee Reports.” The Committee reincorporates its response above.

·         7.N “Outreach Coordinator.” The Committee states that the full agenda item was “Student Attendance and Outreach Coordinator Position.” It asserts that this agenda item “reasonably indicated that the School Committee would discuss this school district position” but “[n]onetheless, the matter was tabled due to insufficient time.”

We acknowledge the Complainant’s Rebuttal.

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.

·         Sufficiency of agenda items

The OMA requires that all public bodies provide supplemental public notice of all meetings at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the meeting. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-6(b). “This notice shall include the date the notice was posted, the date, time and place of the meeting, and a statement specifying the nature of the business to be discussed.” Id. (emphasis added).

In Anolik v. Zoning Board of Review of the City of Newport, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-6(b) requires the “public body to provide fair notice to the public under the circumstance, or such notice based on the totality of the circumstances as would fairly inform the public of the nature of the business to be discussed or acted upon.” 64 A.3d 1171, 1173 (R.I. 2013); see also Tanner v. Town of East Greenwich, 880 A.2d 784, 797 (R.I. 2005) (appropriate inquiry is “whether the [public] notice provided by the [public body] fairly informed the public, under the totality of the circumstances, of the nature of the business to be conducted”).

We have previously determined that broad and insufficient agenda items such as “Tax Collector’s Report,” “Treasurer’s Report,” “Chief's Report,” “Committee Reports,” “Old Business,” and “New Business” typically fail to “fairly inform the public of the nature of the business to be discussed or acted upon.” Spodnik v. West Warwick, OM 19-28; Beagan v. Albion Fire District, OM 10-27.

The Complainant challenges the sufficiency of six agenda items across two Committee meetings. We will address all of these agenda items.

o   Agenda items that were not discussed or acted upon

The Complainant alleges that the agenda item V.B “Financial reports” was insufficient. However, the Committee states that it “skipped entirely” this agenda item and the agenda item did not result in any discussion, deliberation, or action. Similarly, the Complainant alleges that the agenda item 7.N “Student Attendance and Outreach Coordinator Position” was insufficient, but the Committee states that “the matter was tabled due to insufficient time.”

Under the OMA, public bodies must provide sufficient notice of the discussions, deliberations, and actions that will occur at public meetings. However, where no discussion, deliberation, or action occurs there is no need for notice. Indeed, this Office’s “prior findings have held that if an item is listed on a meeting agenda, and yet it is not discussed, there is no OMA violation absent evidence that the agenda was intentionally misleading.” Sinapi v. Warwick School Committee, OM 18-14. The Complainant does not contest the Committee’s representation that neither agenda item was discussed or acted upon and our review of the meeting minutes confirms such. Further, no evidence has been presented that the Committee’s agendas were intentionally misleading by including agenda items that were not discussed or acted upon. Indeed, the Committee explained that the “Financial reports” agenda item was included on the agenda as an administrative oversight and the outreach coordinator agenda item was tabled by the Committee due to insufficient time. Accordingly, we find no OMA violation in this regard.

That said, we do express concern that the agenda item “Financial report” would likely be insufficient to provide notice had a discussion or action occurred. See Solas v. South Kingstown School Committee, OM 26-27 (finding the agenda item “Financial Update” was insufficient to inform the public of the business to be discussed). However, we note the Committee’s explanation that “[i]n subsequent agendas […] ‘V.B Financial Reports’ agenda items include additional detail and supporting attachments.”

o   Advisory committee reports

The agendas for both Committee meetings in question included an agenda item V.C “Advisory Committee Reports.” The Complainant alleges that these agenda items were insufficient. The Committee avers that these agenda items were sufficient because they also contained three subcategories, which list each North Kingstown Advisory Subcommittee: “1. DEI; 2. Policy; and 3. SELAC.” The Committee explains that “[t]hese are standing, publicly known subcommittees that regularly provide brief informational updates about ongoing work in their limited subject areas” and their “verbal report does not include a formal presentation.”

But merely providing the specific names of the advisory committees about which reports will be given is not enough to provide sufficient notice to the public about the specific business or topics to be discussed. See Finnegan v. Scituate School Committee, OM 21-09 (finding the agenda item “Report of Committee Liaisons” was insufficient under the OMA); Beagan v. Albion Fire District, OM 10-27 (finding the agenda item “Committee Reports” was insufficient under the OMA). We recognize that this is a closer call than the just-cited findings as those findings dealt with agenda items that did not even include the names of the committees being discussed. However, even with the name of the committees included in the agendas in question, the public is still left without sufficient information about what business is to be reported or acted upon in relation to those committees. For instance, a member of the public would not know whether this item would involve a general report on all matters discussed or acted upon at the prior meeting of each subcommittee, or a report about some specific subject or topic involving the subcommittees. Therefore, this agenda item failed to “fairly inform the public of the nature of the business to be discussed or acted upon.” See Tanner, 880 A.2d at 796. Accordingly, we find that the Committee violated the OMA by failing to provide sufficient supplemental notice. See R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 42-46-6(b), (c).

o   GCB contracts

The Complainant alleges that the agenda item IV.E.1 “GCB Contracts” was insufficient. The Committee argues that “the relevant inquiry is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the public notice informs the public of the nature of the business to be conducted.” It asserts that here the executive session agenda item earlier in the agenda gave more detail about GCB contracts by listing the specific positions that were covered by that term and that accordingly “the agenda, read as a whole, provided reasonable notice that employment contracts for specific categories of personnel would be discussed.”

The Committee is correct that the executive session agenda item provides additional information about what positions are encompassed by the “GCB Contracts.” We question the Committee’s suggestion that additional detail provided in an entirely different agenda item should be construed as also included in this agenda item; indeed, it seems the public would have no way of knowing if the two agenda items pertained to the same subject. But even if this additional information from a different agenda item were included, it would only provide further information about which contracts were at issue, it would still not shed light on what about the contracts would be discussed or acted upon at the meeting. The agenda item merely states “GCB Contracts.” It provides no information about what discussion or action (if any) will be taken by the Committee in regards to such contracts. See Tanner, 880 A.2d at 798 (holding that an agenda item for “Interviews for Potential Boards and Commission Appointments” was insufficient as it failed to indicate what action the public body would be taking). Even after reviewing the Committee’s meeting minutes, we are still at a complete loss as to what about the contracts the Committee acted upon or discussed. Therefore, this agenda item failed to “fairly inform the public of the nature of the business to be discussed or acted upon.” See id. at 796. Accordingly, we find that the Committee violated the OMA by failing to provide sufficient supplemental notice. See R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 42-46-6(b), (c).

o    GBEEB Report

The Complainant alleges that the agenda item V.A.7 “GBEBB Report” was insufficient. The Committee states that this item “refers to an internal report connected to School Committee Policy GBEBB (‘Professional Conduct with Students’).” The Committee asserts that this policy is publicly accessible “which may provide context to members of the public seeking additional information.”

As we have done in past findings, we warn public bodies against the use of non-commonly used acronyms without any explanation for what the acronym stands for or additional information. See O’Connell v. West Warwick Pension Board, OM 20-20 (finding an OMA violation where “the acronyms used in the agenda items (L), (M) and (O) are not defined and it is not apparent what these terms mean”). While the Committee asserts that the policy the acronym is referring to is publicly available and “may provide context to members of the public seeking additional information,” the Committee cannot expect members of the public to have to conduct additional research outside of reviewing the meeting agenda to understand what public business is to be discussed. It has an obligation under the OMA to provide sufficient notice to the public within its agenda. See DeCubellis v. William M. Davies Career and Technical High School Board of Trustees, OM 21-08 (“[a]lthough the adequacy of an agenda item must be assessed in light of the totality of the circumstances, the agenda item itself must provide adequate notice without expecting members of the public to piece together information available elsewhere to surmise what the agenda item may refer”). And even if a member of the public could discern with the “GBEBB Report” referred to, they would still not have any notice regarding what the Committee intended to discuss or do in connection with the report. Therefore, this agenda item failed to “fairly inform the public of the nature of the business to be discussed or acted upon.” See Tanner, 880 A.2d at 796. Accordingly, we find that the Committee violated the OMA by failing to provide sufficient supplemental notice. See R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 42-46-6(b), (c).

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. Id.

Although injunctive relief may be appropriate, we prefer to allow the Committee an opportunity to comply with this finding. In this finding, we have concluded that the Committee’s agenda items V.C “Advisory Committee Reports”, IV.E.1 “GCB Contracts”, and V.A.7 “GBEBB Report” at its June 2 and June 16, 2026 meetings failed to provide sufficient supplemental notice in violation of the OMA. It is unclear from the record before us and the Committee’s meeting minutes what votes (if any) took place in connection with these agenda items. Accordingly, within ten (10) business days of the date of this finding, the Committee should 1) provide this Office with a supplemental submission stating that no votes or action were taken during the aforementioned agenda items if that is accurate or 2) to the extent any votes or action did occur in connection with these agenda items, provide evidence to this Office demonstrating that it has re-noticed (in a manner compliant with the OMA and this finding) and re-voted any votes that were taken during the aforementioned agenda items.