Background and Arguments

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.

·         Failure to respond in the time required

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, the Town concedes that it failed to respond to the Complainant’s APRA request within the time required. Accordingly, we find the Town violated the APRA in this regard.

·         Adequacy of the search

“The APRA requires a public body to conduct a reasonable search aimed at locating documents that are responsive to the particular request.” J.H. Lynch & Sons v. Rhode Island Department of Transportation, PR 19-06; see also Gagnon v. East Prov. School District, PR 15-52 (“When determining the adequacy of an agency’s search, one must measure the reasonableness of the search in light of the scope of the request.”). This Office has recognized that “to determine whether a public body has conducted an adequate search for requested records is a determination that must be made on a case-by-case basis and focus on the reasonableness of the public body’s search.” Reilly v. Providence Economic Dev. Partnership, PR 14-11.

Here, based upon the totality of the evidence, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the Town conducted an inadequate search. The Complainant submitted a request for “siding permits” and associated records. The Town explained that it searched (electronically and manually) the keywords “siding”, “clapboard”, and “shingle.” The Complainant questions the adequacy of such search, asserting in his Rebuttals that the Town should have also searched for the key words “vinyl siding”, “Hardi”, “Hardy”, “Cement Board”, “Strip”, “Side Wall”, “SideWall.” But his request does not contain any of these words or any indication to the Town that it should have searched for these keywords. See Daniel, et al. v. Department of Children, Youth and Families, PR 26-05 (“It is the requester’s responsibility to properly frame APRA requests.”). Nothing in the record suggests that the Town’s search of the key words “siding”, “clapboard”, and “shingle” was inadequate given the specific language of the Complainant’s request. If the Complainant wishes to request records related to keywords such as “Hardi”, “Cement Board”, etc. he is free to submit a new public records request to the Town.

There appears to be a dispute about when the Town switched over to a new electronic system. The Town represents that it completed the system upgrade in mid-September of 2025. The Complainant argues that at the time his public records request was made (October 2025) that the “TOWN HAD ACCESS TO THE PREVIOUS PERMIT PORTAL.” However, the Complainant presents no evidence to support this assertion and as such this Office credits the Town’s representation that it had completed its upgrade to the new system in September 2025 and did not have access to the old system at the time of the Complainant’s request. See Lopez v. Providence Police Department, PR 20-03 (“Because the APRA does not require a public body to disclose records that do not exist or that are not within its custody or control, we find no violation[.]”); Azar v. Town of Lincoln, PR 13-21 (“The Town is Not Obligated to Give Ms. Azar Records it Does Not Have”)

The Complainant generally asserts in his Rebuttals that the responsive records provided by the Town is “COMPLETE GARBAGE” and that additional records exist but were not provided by the Town. But while the Complainant argues that additional permit records exist but were not provided by the Town, at the same time he also asserts that the Town is committing a crime by selectively enforcing rules and regulations that require permits and not always requiring permits. The Complainant’s allegation that the Town does not consistently require permits does not support, and in fact seems to undermine, his allegation that additional permit records must exist. Furthermore, “[w]hether documents should be maintained and whether documents are maintained are two different questions, and pursuant to the APRA, this Office’s sole focus is whether responsive documents are maintained by a public body.” Stephen Hoff v. Town of Charlestown, PR 22-07 (emphasis in original). Accordingly, we find insufficient evidence to conclude that the Town conducted an inadequate search or violated the APRA in this regard.

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).

We do not find that injunctive relief is appropriate in this case. It is undisputed that the Town has provided the Complainant with responsive records and waived any costs associated with such production. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-7(b) (“All copying and search and retrieval fees shall be waived if a public body fails to produce requested records in a timely manner”). Although the Complainant challenges the sufficiency of the Town’s production, we find insufficient evidence to conclude that the Town conducted an inadequate search. Therefore, no injunctive relief is necessary.

We conclude that insufficient evidence exists to find a willful and knowing, or alternatively reckless, violation. We credit the Town’s explanation that the Town Clerk was out on medical leave when the subject request was submitted. To be clear this does not excuse the Town’s violation and it must plan for other employees to take over the APRA responsibilities of the Town Clerk when they are on leave. Nonetheless, we credit this explanation as weighing against a finding of a willful and knowing, or reckless violation. We further note that the Complainant’s public records request is unnecessarily complicated given that the request for records was interspersed with a large number of obscene images. Again, this does not excuse the Town’s violation, but weighs against a finding of a willful and knowing, or reckless violation. Indeed, we credit the Town with professionally rectifying its initial error and responding to the substance of the request even when doing so subjected the Town’s staff to obscene content. The APRA is a mechanism for public transparency, it is unfortunate that a member of the public would choose to use it as a means to subject public employees to disrespectful and inappropriate content.

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