VIA EMAIL ONLY

February 12, 2026

PR 26-06

Mr. Douglas Soscia

Attorney David V. Igliozzi

Legal Counsel, Town of Coventry

Re: Soscia v. Town of Coventry

Dear Mr. Soscia and Attorney Igliozzi:

We have completed our investigation into the Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”) Complaint filed by Mr. Douglas Soscia (“Complainant”) against the Town of Coventry (“Town”). For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the Town did not violate the APRA.

Background

The Complainant requested the following records from the Town on June 25, 2025:

“1. All executive session minutes of the Coventry Town Council [hereinafter, the “Council”] [1] and the Coventry Redevelopment Agency [hereinafter, the “Agency”] from January 1, 2020, to the present [June 25, 2025].

2. All audio and visual recordings, or handwritten notes; of executive sessions of the … Council and the … Agency from March 2, 2020, to the present [June 25, 2025].”

The Town denied the Complainant’s request in full on July 2, 2025, stating in response that “RIGL § 42-46-7(c) … does not allow public access to Executive Session Minutes … [that] were sealed by the … Council and the … Agency.” (Emphasis in original). In the Complaint that followed, the Complainant alleges that the Town wrongfully denied this request. He argues, inter alia, that nondisclosure of the sought-after minutes contravenes the Town Charter and that the Town has discretion to produce the sealed minutes and should do so in the interest of transparency. The Complainant appended the APRA request at issue to his Complaint.

The Town submitted a substantive response reaffirming the lawfulness of its full denial. The Town first set forth the universe of records it maintains that are responsive to the Complainant’s request, as worded, and provided excel spreadsheets illustrative of the same (which included the statutory justification for each closed session).[2] The Town argues that the responsive minutes “were sealed by the Council and the … Agency” (with one exception)[3] and that “properly sealed executive session minutes are exempt from public disclosure under the APRA” pursuant to Exemption (J).[4] The Town also submits that any further records responsive to the request at issue constitute “confidential communications protected from disclosure pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, and/or [were] prepared in anticipation of litigation and thus protected from disclosure under the attorney work product doctrine” and are otherwise non-public under Exemptions (A)(I)(a), (E) and (K). The Town adds that no reasonably segregable portion of any of the responsive records may be disclosed. In addition to the spreadsheets, the Town provided with its Response seven exhibits, which included an affidavit executed by the Town Clerk.

We acknowledge the Complainant’s Rebuttal, which largely reiterated his previously advanced arguments regarding the Town Charter and the Town’s discretion relative to producing the records at issue.

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.

The APRA states that, unless exempt, all records maintained by any public body shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect and/or copy such records, unless the document falls within one of the twenty-eight (28) enumerated exemptions. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(A)-(AA). Among other exemptions, Exemption (J) permits nondisclosure of “[a]ny minutes of a meeting of a public body which are not required to be disclosed pursuant to chapter 46 of title 42.” See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(J). In other words, executive session minutes that are properly sealed under the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) may be withheld from disclosure under the APRA.

Here, there is no dispute that the minutes requested by the Complainant are executive session minutes.[5] There is also no dispute that, but for the Agency’s September 25, 2024 executive session minutes, all executive session minutes were sealed pursuant to the OMA. As such, the plain language of Exemption (J) permits nondisclosure of the requested executive session minutes, and we find no violation.[6]

Much of the Complainant’s argument is premised on his analysis of the Town Charter and that the APRA must yield to the Charter as it “mandates transparency.” We find this argument to be unavailing. This Office has regularly held that interpretation of a municipality’s Charter is outside the scope of this Office’s charge to enforce the APRA. See Richer v. Town of North Smithfield, PR 23-32 (“While the … Charter might provide additional access above and beyond the APRA — a legal conclusion we need not reach — the interpretation and enforcement of the Charter is beyond the scope of our authority and we limit our conclusion to the APRA.”); see also Clark v. West Glocester Fire District, PR 16-51 (“This Department only has jurisdiction to investigate violations of the APRA … [a]ccordingly, alleged violations of the WGFD’s charter will not be investigated.”) As such, analysis of the Town Charter does not impact our ultimate conclusion.[7]

While it may be the Complainant’s contention that the executive session minutes should no longer be sealed, there is no provision within the OMA that provides for the automatic unsealing of properly sealed executive session minutes. See Quay v. Middletown Town Council, PR 22-47 (finding that sealed executive session minutes were properly withheld despite the fact that the underlying investigation that was the subject of the executive session had concluded); see also Thompson v. Town of North Kingstown, PR 20-15 (noting that “[a]lthough we acknowledge the Complainant’s contentions that the executive session minutes should no longer be sealed, there is no provision within the OMA that automatically unseals properly sealed executive session minutes,” while finding an APRA violation on other grounds); Fortin v. Town of Narragansett, OM 19-41.

Finally, we note that the Complainant’s request included “audio and visual recordings” of the subject executive sessions. Consistent with our precedent, such records are treated in the same manner as properly sealed executive session minutes under Exemption (J) and were lawfully withheld by the Town. See Nunes v. Town of Westerly, PR 25-66 (finding that Exemption (J) covers more than just written executive session minutes and includes audio recordings of executive sessions).[8] It is worth stating that while our conclusion rests on Exemption (J), multiple other APRA exemptions, including those cited by the Town, are likely applicable to some or all of the records at issue based on the content of the executive sessions.[9]

As we have noted before, in the interest of transparency we encourage public bodies to review and unseal executive session minutes, or portions thereof, when the need for confidentiality is no longer applicable. However, nothing in either the APRA or the OMA compels a public body to do so. See Thompson v. Town of North Kingstown, PR 20-15.

We thus find no APRA violation as to the nonproduction of the executive session minutes sealed by the Council and the Agency pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(J).[10]

Conclusion

Although this Office has found no violation, nothing within the APRA prohibits an individual or entity from instituting an action for injunctive or declaratory relief in Superior Court as provided in the APRA. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-8(b). Please be advised that we are closing this file as of the date of this letter.

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

APRA

[1] We observe that the Complainant filed an OMA Complaint against the Council, also concerning executive session, close in time to the date that the instant APRA Complaint was filed. This finding is limited in scope to the Complainant’s APRA Complaint. His OMA Complaint was addressed in Soscia v. Coventry Town Council, OM 25-46.

[2] The Town avers that as to the following Council meetings wherein a closed session transpired “[n]o video or minutes [are] available – clerk was not present.” (June 4, 2020, January 22, 2021, January 29, 2021, February 6, 2021, and February 20, 2021). As to a May 24, 2021 executive session, the Town submits that there was “[n]o [v]ideo - Town Clerk was not present and Minutes were submitted by … [the] Council President.” In response to this Office’s request for supplemental information, the Council advised that those May of 2021 minutes “were sealed.” The Council further noted that it had erroneously identified the date of this meeting as “May 21, 2021.”

[3] The Town acknowledges that “the Town Clerk … believes that the … Agency[‘s] executive session minutes for [its] meeting on 9/25/2024 were sealed but [the] records are unclear … [the] Agency [will] re-seal these executive session minutes.” See infra.

[4] In addition, the Town notes that “[o]n August 5, 2025, the complainant amended his [C]omplaint to add the executive session conducted on June 18, 2025 … Council minutes for June 18, 2025 … indicate that [those] executive session minutes were sealed.”

[5] The plain words of Part 1 of the request at issue seek “executive session minutes.”

[6] As to the Agency’s September 25, 2024 executive session minutes (regarding which the Town could not confirm whether they had been sealed at the time when the Complaint was filed), we decline to find whether a violation occurred. While we recognize that it was unclear at the time of the request whether these specific minutes were sealed, our independent review of the Secretary of State’s website indicates that these minutes were subsequently sealed at the Agency’s September 30, 2025 meeting. Even assuming that the Town wrongfully withheld these minutes under Exemption (J) (because Exemption (J) only applies to sealed minutes and it is unclear whether these minutes were in fact sealed at the time when the APRA request was made), we decline to reach the merits of such an allegation. The reason for this conclusion is because, even assuming a violation occurred, the APRA only provides for two types of remedies: injunctive relief and civil fines for a willful and knowing or reckless violation. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-9(d). Injunctive relief would be inappropriate, as the now-sealed (if not already previously sealed) executive session minutes are currently non-public per the analysis set forth herein. Although we primarily analyze APRA responses based on the circumstances when the request was made, in these circumstances, we do not think it would be appropriate to require the disclosure of minutes that have now been sealed, especially because executive sessions by their very nature pertain to matters that are generally intended to be non-public. There can be important policy reasons for keeping the content of such closed sessions non-public, as the General Assembly recognized when it crafted the OMA to permit these non-public sessions in certain circumstances, and to permit the sealing of the minutes of such sessions. The record suggests, and the Agency’s September 30, 2025 sealing vote confirms, it was clearly the Agency’s intent that the minutes from this session be sealed. Moreover, the July 2, 2025 denial was also not willful and knowing or reckless, as the Town was operating under the assumption that these minutes had been sealed. Nevertheless, going forward the Agency should be mindful of ensuring that it votes to seal any executive session minutes it intends to keep sealed, or else risk waiving the ability to do so.

[7] We also question whether the Charter is actually in conflict with the APRA, as the Complainant himself cites to a provision of the Charter directing that Town records “shall be open to public inspection” with the exception of those “records required by law to be treated as confidential.” See Town of Coventry Charter § 15.05. (Emphasis added). The OMA and APRA would seemingly constitute other laws that permit executive session minutes to be treated as confidential.

[8] The request at issue also sought “handwritten notes; of executive sessions.” The Town Clerk attested to the fact that the Town “has no … handwritten notes” responsive to the request. It is well-settled that a public body does not violate the APRA by not producing records that it does not maintain, see supra Footnote 10, and the Complainant does not contest the Town’s representation that these records do not exist.

[9] R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(A)(I)(a) exempts “records relating to a client/attorney relationship”, R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(E) exempts “records which would not be available by law or rule of court to an opposing party in litigation” pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, the common interest privilege, the deliberative process privilege, and/or any other applicable privilege or principle, and R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(K) exempts “[p]reliminary drafts, notes, impressions, memoranda, working papers, and work products.”

[10] We need not address the executive session minutes for the June 4, 2020, January 22, 2021, January 29, 2021, February 6, 2021, and February 20, 2021 meetings (nor the video footage of the May 24, 2021 executive session or any additional video footage that has since been deleted) because “[it]t is well-settled that a public body does not violate the APRA by not producing records it does not maintain.” See Robinson v. Rhode Island Department of Transportation, PR 25-05; see also Azar v. Town of Lincoln, PR 13-21.