VIA EMAIL ONLY
February 25, 2026
PR 26-11
Ms. Nicole Solas
Benjamin M. Scungio, Esq.
Legal Counsel, North Providence School Department
Re: Solas v. North Providence School Department
Dear Ms. Solas and Attorney Scungio:
The investigation into the Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”) complaint filed by Ms. Nicole Solas (“Complainant”) against the North Providence School Department (“Department”) is complete. For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the Department violated the APRA.
Background
On January 12, 2025 the Complainant submitted a public records request to the Department seeking: “email correspondence of [a specified Department email account] from September 1, 2024 to present.”
The Department responded to this request on March 28, 2025 via email, with a letter attachment acknowledging the Complainant’s request and providing the documents responsive to the request.
Upon receipt of this APRA response, the Complainant submitted the instant Complaint to this Office. The Complainant noted that it took “almost three (3) months” for the Department to respond to her initial request.
The Department submitted a Response to the Complaint, conceding to the tardiness of its underlying APRA response. The Department explained that this tardiness was attributable to some delays in the Department’s IT search process and ultimate review by legal counsel, and the failure to relate the same to 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. A public body may extend the time to respond to an APRA request by an additional twenty (20) business days “if it can demonstrate that the voluminous nature of the request, the number of requests for records pending, or the difficulty in searching for and retrieving or copying the requested records, is such that additional time is necessary to avoid imposing an undue burden on the public body.” Id.
Here, it is undisputed that the Department failed to timely respond to the Complainant’s APRA request. The record demonstrates that the Department did not respond within ten business days and did not assert an extension in accordance with the APRA. We thus find that the Department violated the APRA. See Rourke v. Rhode Island Judiciary, PR 25-01 (“we conclude that the Judiciary violated the APRA when it failed to respond to Complainant’s request within the statutory time period”); see also Patrie v. North Scituate Fire Department, PR 23-14; Neilly v. Nuestro Mundo Public Charter School, PR 23-01.
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 conclude that insufficient evidence exists to find a willful and knowing, or alternatively reckless, violation. We are not aware of any recent, similar violations by the Department, nor does the Complainant bring any such prior violations to our attention. See Solas v. Rhode Island College PR 25-29 (declining to find a willful and knowing or reckless APRA violation due to the absence of any recent, similar violations on the part of RIC); see also Rourke v. Department of Children, Youth and Families PR 25-62. Further, we acknowledge the Department’s legal counsel’s frank acceptance of responsibility for the delay and are mindful that although there was an impermissible delay, the Department did ultimately respond to the request, and without assessing any costs. [1]
We also do not find that injunctive relief would be appropriate given that the Department has already responded to the request and the Complainant has not raised any objections to the Department’s substantive response.
This Office frequently encourages requesters and public bodies to communicate with each other to attempt to promptly and efficiently mutually resolve any issues. Here, there is no record of the Complainant inquiring with the public body about the still-outstanding nature of her request until receipt of the Department’s response. While such a reminder is not required by the statute, we cannot help but wonder what further purpose was served by the filing of this Complaint in circumstances where the Complainant seemingly did not attempt to communicate with the public body relative to this request until receipt of the responsive records, the adequacy of which are undisputed.
This finding serves as notice that the conduct discussed herein violates the APRA and may serve as evidence of a willful and knowing, or reckless, violation in any similar situation.
Although the Attorney General will not file suit in this matter, nothing within the APRA prohibits the Complainant from instituting an action for injunctive or declaratory relief in Superior Court. 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
/s/ Adam D. Roach
Adam D. Roach
Special Assistant Attorney General