Background and Arguments

The Complainant submitted a public records request to the City seeking a municipal contract. The Complainant alleges that the City never responded to his request. The Complainant therefore filed the instant Complaint with this Office.

The City submitted a substantive Response through its legal counsel Allan W. Fung, Esq. The City does not contest that it failed to respond to the Complainant’s public records request. It now asserts that no responsive records exist.

No rebuttal was submitted by the Complainant.

Relevant Law and Findings

When we examine an APRA complaint, our authority is to determine whether a violation of the APRA has occurred.  See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-8.  In doing so, we must begin with the plain language of the APRA and relevant caselaw interpreting this statute.

Pursuant to the APRA, a public body has ten (10) business days to respond in some capacity to a records request, whether by producing responsive documents, denying the request with reason(s), or extending the period necessary to comply. See R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 38-2-3(e), 38-2-7. If no response is sent within ten (10) business days, the lack of response will be deemed a denial. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-7(b); see also R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-7(a) (“Any denial of the right to inspect or copy records, in whole or in part provided for under this chapter shall be made to the person or entity requesting the right in writing giving the specific reasons for the denial[.]”)

Here, we have been presented with undisputed evidence that more than ten business days elapsed from when the request was submitted but the City failed to respond to the Complainant’s APRA request. Because the City failed to respond to the request within the ten business day timeframe as provided for by the APRA, we find the City violated the statute. See R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 38-2-3(e), 38-2-7; see also Lapierre v. City of Woonsocket, PR 15-50; Johnson v. City of Woonsocket, PR 25-41; Gifford et al. v. City of Woonsocket, PR 24-03.

Conclusion

Upon a finding of an APRA violation, the Attorney General may file a complaint in Superior Court on behalf of the Complainant, requesting “injunctive or declaratory relief.” See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-8(b). A court “shall impose a civil fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000) against a public body. . . found to have committed a knowing and willful violation of this chapter, and a civil fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) against a public body found to have recklessly violated this chapter***.” See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-9(d).

Based on the record before us, we conclude that injunctive relief is not necessary as the City asserts, and the Complainant did not dispute, that no responsive records exist.

We express serious concern that the City has once again failed to respond to an APRA request. Similar lapses on the part of the City have been documented on numerous prior occasions. See Lapierre, PR 25-50; Johnson, PR 25-41; Gifford et al., PR 24-03; The Public’s Radio v. City of Woonsocket, PR 23-47 (citing Woonsocket Fire Fighters Association Local No. 732, PR 09-28). Given the substantial similarities between the instant Complaint and these prior Complaints, the City is well aware that its pattern of conduct is in violation of the APRA. Therefore, within five (5) business days of the date of this finding, the City should also provide this Office with a supplemental submission addressing whether the violations found herein were willful and knowing, or reckless. If the Complainant wishes, he may provide a response within five (5) business days of receiving the City’s submission.

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