Background

On April 22, 2025 the Complainant submitted two APRA requests to the Board seeking copies of: 1) “the Proposed Rules for the Oral and/or Video Recording of Formal Hearings of the RI State Labor Relations Board discussed under ‘miscellaneous matters’ of the agenda of the [L]abor [R]elations [B]oard for the February 11[,] 2025 meeting,” and (2) “the consent agreement and affidavit referenced in paragraph 2 of the attached meeting minutes of the February 11[, 2025] … [Board] meeting.” The Complainant included the text of the subject minutes as context. The Complainant subsequently filed a Complaint with this Office, contending she did not receive responses from the Board. 

On June 23, 2025, the Board submitted a substantive Response to the Complaint. The Board conceded that the Complainant made the subject requests, that the records sought were not exempt from public disclosure, and that the Board did not timely respond to those requests per the statute. The Board further conceded that although the requests were sent to the Board’s correct email address, the employee responsible for checking the inbox failed to do so. As a result, the Board failed to respond to the subject requests.

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 Board failed to timely respond to the Complainant’s APRA request, nor did it assert an extension in accordance with the APRA. We thus find that the Board 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 Board, 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, this Office has declined to find willful and knowing or reckless APRA violations wherein the underlying violation came about through a non-recurring failure to check an email inbox. See Stevens v. Woonsocket Housing Authority, Beaudoin v. Woonsocket Housing Authority, PR 25-63 (declining to find a willful and knowing or reckless APRA violation where the Complainants sent in their requests in the manner set forth by the public body’s APRA procedures but the public body failed to timely respond to the requests due to a staffing change that resulted in a failure to check the APRA inbox).

We also do not find that injunctive relief would be appropriate given that the Board has already responded to the request and the Complainant has not raised any objections to the Board’s substantive response. See Kelly v. Kingston Hill Academy, PR 25-57 (finding injunctive relief inappropriate because it was undisputed that the Complainant received the records responsive to the request); see also Neilly v. Nuestro Mundo Public Charter School, PR 23-01 (declining to pursue injunctive relief where it was “undisputed … that the Complainant [was] in possession of the requested documents”).

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