VIA EMAIL ONLY
OM 26-33
Mr. Joshua Mello
Liberty Quahog Media
Attorney Michael J. Marcello
Legal Counsel, Cranston City Council
Re: Liberty Quahog Media v. Cranston City Council
Dear Mr. Mello and Attorney Marcello:
We have completed our investigation into the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) Complaint filed by Liberty Quahog Media (“Complainant”) against the Cranston City Council (“Council”). For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the Council violated the OMA.
Background and Arguments
The Complainant alleges that the Council violated the OMA by failing to file meeting minutes for its June 15, 2026 meeting on the Secretary of State’s (hereinafter, “SOS”) website.
Legal Counsel to the Cranston City Council submitted a substantive Response on behalf of the public entity. The Council concedes that it failed to timely post its meeting minutes for the aforementioned meeting on the SOS website. This lapse, the Council contends, was attributable to an “unprecedented staffing disruption” that ultimately impacted the City’s usual procedures with respect to the electronic posting of the Council’s meeting minutes. Nevertheless, the Council asserts that “[u]pon the filing issue being identified,” on September 14, 2026, the June 15, 2026 Council meeting minutes were posted to the SOS website. The Council further asserts that “[t]he applicable filing procedure has been clarified to ensure timely compliance going forward.”
We acknowledge the Complainant’s Rebuttal.[1]
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 provides that:
“All 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).
As noted, there is no dispute that the Council failed to timely file its June 15, 2026 meeting minutes. We therefore find that the Council violated the OMA. See Puchalski v. Charlestown Fire District, OM 26-25 (finding an OMA violation where “the District concede[d] … that [it] failed to file the relevant minutes within thirty-five days of the meeting as the OMA requires.”).
Conclusion
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 of up to $5,000 against a public body found to have committed a willful or knowing violation of the OMA. Id.
Here, we do not find that injunctive relief would be appropriate. The record establishes that the minutes for the June 15, 2026 Council meeting “were electronically transmitted [to the SOS website] on September 14, 2026,” rendering injunctive relief moot. See Chiaradio v. Westerly Library Board of Trustees, OM 26-21 (declining to issue injunctive relief where this Office “confirmed that the minutes at issue have since been posted” to the SOS website); see also Stewart v. West Greenwich Planning Board, OM 20-13 (finding that injunctive relief was not appropriate where the pertinent meeting minutes were subsequently posted to the SOS website). Consequently, injunctive relief is unnecessary.[2]
Further, we do not find that the Council’s failure to timely post the subject minutes to the SOS website amounted to a willful or knowing OMA violation that would warrant civil penalties. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8(a), (d). The Council thoroughly explains how City staffing challenges resulted in this underlying OMA violation. To wit, the Council states that:
“the City Clerk … who would be responsible for compiling and posting the minutes, was and continues to be on an extended leave of absence from her position. In her absence, the City did employ a deputy clerk … who filled in. However, [she] retired as of May 1 [2026]. In addition, the City’s probate senior clerk … and another clerk in the office … left employment the same month. The City … was facing a budget short fall, and all City employees were offered a buy-out from the Mayor. This left the Clerk’s office understaffed and without seasoned employees with institutional knowledge related to … Council business. Following the extended absence of the City Clerk and the departure of three experienced Clerk’s Office employees in May 2026, the … Council was left without its customary administrative support or personnel possessing institutional knowledge of the office’s established procedures.”
This Office has regularly determined that OMA violations stemming from isolated staffing issues do not evidence willful or knowing behavior on the part of a public body. See Prince v. Langworthy Public Library Board of Trustees, OM 26-03 (“[w]e have previously held that OMA violations stemming from a staffing change and other mitigating circumstances may not rise to the level of a willful or knowing OMA violation.”); see also Solas v. South Kingstown School Committee, OM 23-03 (declining to find a willful or knowing violation where the public body “provided evidence that staffing challenges … resulted in new staff being brought in to assist and that a miscommunication among staff resulted in the violation.”).
The Council has also taken steps to prevent a future, similar occurrence, which further counsels against a willful or knowing finding in this instance. Namely, the Council submits that in addition to filing the minutes at issue “[t]he applicable filing procedure has also been clarified to ensure timely compliance going forward.” See Solas v. RIEC4 STAB, OM 26-10 (declining to find a willful or knowing OMA violation where the public entity took remedial measures upon becoming aware of the issue, including “revis[ing] its internal procedures”).
Finally, we note that we are unaware of any recent, similar violations on the part of the Council, nor does the Complainant bring any such violations to our attention. See Langseth v. Warwick Sewer Authority, OM 20-37 (declining to find a willful or knowing violation where there were no recent, similar violations found against that entity).
This finding nevertheless 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 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