VIA EMAIL ONLY

October 29, 2026

Ms. Christina Rourke

Attorney Lisa M. Martinelli

Executive Counsel, Rhode Island Executive Office of Health and Human Services

Dear Ms. Rourke and Attorney Martinelli:

We have completed our investigation into the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) Complaint filed by Ms. Christina Rourke (“Complainant”) against the Governor’s Council on Human Trafficking (“Council”). For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the Council violated the OMA.

Background and Arguments

This Complaint concerns the Council’s June 25, 2026 meeting. The Complainant alleges that the Council violated the OMA by: “failing to timely make meeting minutes available to the public and/or failing to electronically transmit required minutes to the Rhode Island Secretary of State [hereinafter, ‘SOS’].”

The Council submitted its Response in the form of an affidavit executed by a Programming Services Officer at the Rhode Island Executive Office of Health and Human Services. The Programming Services Officer acknowledges that he “was not aware that the meeting minutes from the June 25, 2026 meeting were unposted” but that upon recognition of the issue he “immediately posted a draft copy of the minutes with the [SOS] on August 24, 2026.” The Programming Services Officer included as an exhibit to this affidavit an email evidencing electronic confirmation of this posting. He additionally submits that the lapse described above was attributable to a “one-time clerical error.”

The Complainant stated that she would “not be submitting a 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.

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).

It is undisputed that the Council failed to timely file its June 25, 2026 meeting minutes. Therefore, 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, injunctive relief is moot. There is no dispute that the June 25, 2026 Council meeting minutes have since been posted to the SOS website.[1] 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 would serve no meaningful purpose.

We also do not find that the Council’s failure to timely post its meeting minutes 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 explains that the minutes at issue were not posted due to some internal confusion. At the meeting in question, “it was noted that an interim secretary would be appointed for that [June 25, 2026] session [and] that a dedicated contact person would be appointed ‘to streamline all future agendas, minutes, and notifications.’” At the same time, the Programming Services Officer was notified that he would “provide administrative support to the [Council] starting at the next scheduled meeting on September 24, 2026.” While these duties were being assigned and future compliance measures were being implemented, there was an evident mix-up as to who would be responsible for posting the minutes for the June 25, 2026 meeting itself, as the Programming Services Officer “assumed the previous administrative support for the [Council] would post th[ose] meeting minutes.” Because this failure to post the subject minutes came about due to miscommunication stemming from a change in support assignments, the Council describes the violation herein as attributable to a “one-time clerical error.”  

Our precedent is clear that OMA violations ascribable to such isolated and nonrecurrent mistakes typically do not evidence willful or knowing behavior on the part of a public body. See Solas v. South Kingstown Library Board of Trustees, OM 26-04 (“[t]he record suggests that the incorrect posting described herein was seemingly the result of a one-time clerical error which was not willful or knowing.”); see also Langseth v. Buttonwoods Fire District, OM 26-11 (“[t]his Office regularly declines to find willful or knowing OMA violations attributable to these kinds of one-time, inadvertent errors.”).

Because the violation herein was the result of some miscommunication during the planning of future OMA compliance measures, the resulting violation was not willful or knowing. See Langseth v. Air Service Development Council, OM 18-10b (declining to find a willful or knowing OMA violation where the record did not establish a “conscious disregard for the OMA’s requirements” and because “mitigating circumstances exist[ed].”).

Lastly, 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 Solas v. State Apprenticeship Council, OM 26-32 (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