VIA EMAIL ONLY

January 20, 2026

Mr. Caleb Minson

Editor-in-Chief, Cumberland Unfiltered – The Wire

Stephen Adams, Esquire

Legal Counsel, Cumberland School Committee

Dear Mr. Minson and Attorney Adams:

We have completed our investigation into the Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”) complaint filed by Mr. Caleb Minson (“Complainant”) against the Cumberland School Department (“Department”). For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the Department did not violate the APRA.

On August 15, 2025, the Complainant submitted an APRA request to the Department seeking “copies of all executive session minutes, attachments, exhibits, and related records from any and all School Committee [hereinafter, the “Committee”] meetings in which the [since concluded] investigation into the incident involving … [students at] the Cumberland High School football field was discussed.” (Emphasis in original). The scope of the instant Complaint is limited to the Department’s withholding in-full of a single record responsive to this request: “the June 17, 2024 Confidential Report prepared by an outside investigator … relating to [the Cumberland High School football field incident] and subsequent allegations of policy violations.” (Emphasis in original). The Department withheld that record pursuant to Exemption (P). The Complainant contends that the Department’s “blanket denial of the entire 192-page report is inconsistent with [the] APRA’s requirements of segregability, undermines statutory obligations of transparency, and unjustifiably shields from scrutiny an investigation that cost Cumberland taxpayers $80,000.”[1] (Emphasis in original). He argues that the withheld record is public in nature, that Exemption (P) and the “attorney-client privilege and work product [exemptions]” are not applicable to the record in its entirety, and that the Department is required to provide “all segregable factual portions of the record.” The Complainant included with his Complaint the Department’s response to his initial August 15, 2025 APRA request, the meeting minutes from the Committee’s January 11, 2024 and August 8, 2024 meetings, and the Committee’s “Record of Final Action Taken” stemming from the underlying investigation. 

Attorney Stephen Adams submitted a substantive response on behalf of the Department. The Department contends that the confidential report is an investigatory record and consequently was appropriately withheld in full pursuant to Exemption (P). The Department further argues that its public production of the “Record of Final Action Taken” (included with the Complainant’s Complaint-in-chief), satisfies the carveout of Exemption (P) requiring disclosure of “records of final actions taken.” The Department contends that the remaining confidential report itself is naturally subsumed within the ambit of Exemption (P)’s protections, noting that the exemption’s expansive verbiage (“[a]ll investigatory records”) allows for no exceptions except for the aforementioned “records of final actions taken.”

This same statutory language, the Department argues, renders no portion of the confidential report “reasonably segregable,” as the statute’s language explicitly deems “all investigatory records” exempt from public disclosure, and this cannot be harmonized with R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-3(b)’s language directing “deletion of the [nonpublic] information.” (Emphasis added). The Department adds that other exemptions are applicable to the confidential report, including the Federal Right to Privacy Act (hereinafter, “FERPA”)[2] and, by extension, Exemption (S). The Department included with its Response a number of exhibits, including relevant Committee agendas and meeting minutes and affidavits from two (2) Committee members. The Department additionally provided this Office with the withheld confidential report for an in camera review.  

We acknowledge the Complainant’s Rebuttal, wherein he reiterated his arguments that the confidential report contained reasonably segregable material subject to public disclosure and that there is a strong public interest in producing the same. We also accepted and reviewed supplemental filings from both parties.

“[I]t is clear that the report―a report prepared for a public body by outside counsel hired to conduct an investigation[3] and which reports on the findings of its investigation into a potential violation of a state law and its legal analysis―is clearly a record originated in or generated ‘during the course of an investigation.’ … The responsive report falling under the ambit of Exemption (P) can hardly be surprising given that the request expressly sought records related to ‘investigatory proceedings.’ See Bauer v. Department of Health, PR 03-07.”[4]

The facts in Schuler are substantially similar to those of the case before us. The Complainant in this instance also seeks a report, which is definitionally investigatory and prepared by outside counsel, and which was ultimately withheld by the public body pursuant to Exemption (P). Although the in camera nature of our review of the Department’s withheld report limits our ability to discuss the specific nature of it in detail, it suffices to state that the record at issue has the same characteristics as the document we found to be properly withheld in Schuler per Exemption (P). As such, the document discussed herein was lawfully exempted from public disclosure. See also Amaral v. BHDDH and DOA, PR 24-13 (finding that “memoranda contain[ing] information about [an] investigation … and recommendations made as a result of the investigation … contain[ing] a plethora of information ‘specific to the investigation’” were properly withheld under Exemption (P)”).

Our conclusion is bolstered by a key difference between the record analyzed in Schuler and the record assessed herein. In Schuler, the investigation at issue related to the official capacity actions of an agency employee. Here, the underlying investigation concerned:

“a parent’s complaint, to determine whether … [D]epartment personnel violated any … [C]ommittee policies or any federal or state laws concerning the involvement of the parent’s child with, among other things, a Cumberland High School athletic team, including alleged discrimination against the child on the basis of disability, failure to properly notify the parents concerning an injury that the child suffered while participating in a team event and a suspension issued to the child.”

While we find that the confidential report was appropriately withheld in full pursuant to Exemption (P), we observe that the more sensitive nature of this investigation, as described above and evident based on our in camera review, implicates a number of additional relevant exemptions, each of which further bolster our ultimate conclusion. See Connell v. Smithfield Public Schools, PR 23-25 (“[FERPA] is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records”); see also Ebertz v. Department of Corrections, PR 24-16 (“medical information is typically exempt from disclosure under R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(A)(I)(a) (excluding from the definition of public records ‘all medical information relating to an individual in any files’)”); Lyssikatos v. Narragansett Police Department, PR 20-58 (“[t]he report includes various references about this private citizen’s actual or perceived disability that may be difficult to redact … [d]isclosure of the report could thus also subject this individual … to potential embarrassment.”); Bilow v. Coventry Police Department, PR 25-22 (“Exemption (S) … exempts records that are confidential by law … as the basis for denial. R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(S)”).[5]

It thus stands to reason that if an investigatory report concerning the employment activities of an agency employee was properly withheld in-full under Exemption (P), a similar report related to high school students, rife with additional categories of non-public information not present in the Schuler report, would most certainly be properly exempted in full under Exemption (P).[6] 

Our in camera review of the subject record, as well as the nature of the record as described supra, make clear that no portion of the requested record was reasonably segregable. See R.I. Gen. Laws§ 38-2-3(b).

For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the investigatory report in question was properly withheld in full by the Department. We find no violation.[7]