Background and Arguments

The Complainant submitted a public records request to the City seeking the following records related to “Phase 1A Bonds for the Tidewater Landing Project”:

(1) “electronic copies of all notices to the Public Finance Management Board”

(2) “evidence of public hearings on this matter (IRS Section 147(f) or other basis)”

(3) “emails and other documents to the Coastal Resources Management Council regarding its approval or recommended changes to its application for this project in 2022, 2023 and 2024.”

The Complainant specifically requested “[e]lectronic records if possible.”

The City responded to the Complainant’s request by assessing him a prepayment estimate of $150.00. The Complainant then amended his request to no longer seek items (1) and (3). In turn, the City no longer required a prepayment and asserted a twenty-day extension.

The Complainant then submitted an administrative appeal to the Mayor. In his appeal, the Complainant reiterated his amended request and provided a check for $150.00.

The City responded to the Complainant’s request by informing him that:

“any and all responsive records are posted electronically on the website of the Secretary of State, https://opengov.sos.ri.gov/openmeetings, in accordance with the Open Meetings Act. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-6(b) (“Public bodies shall give supplemental written public notice of any meeting within a minimum of forty-eight (48) hours, excluding weekends and state holidays in the count of hours, before the date.”); see also R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-6 (f) (“All notices required by this section to be filed with the secretary of state shall be electronically transmitted to the secretary of state in accordance with rules and regulations that shall be promulgated by the secretary of state.”). The requested records can be accessed and obtained via the website.”

The City further informed the Complainant that it had never deposited his $150.000 check and returned his voided check to him.

The Complainant then submitted the instant Complaint with this Office. He asserts that “[a]s I understand prior Attorney General opinions, for an answering body (such as the City of Pawtucket) to tell the requester to look on the Internet for documents without giving specific instructions as to where the documents are, implies that the documents exist.” He then asserts that he is unable to locate any responsive records online and “[n]ot being given a location to pick up the documents is equivalent to a denial of access to the same.”

The City submitted a substantive response through its legal counsel Michael P. Robinson, Esq. The City asserts that “the onus is on the requester to indicate what documents are being sought under the APRA.” (quoting Howard v. Department of Environmental Management, PR 11-35). It asserted that the Complainant requested notices of a public meeting and such notices are required to be posted on the Secretary of State’s website in accordance with the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”). Thus, “to the extent any responsive documents exist, those documents are readily available to [the Complainant] on the Secretary of State’s website.” It asserts that directing the Complainant to the Secretary of State’s website to locate the meeting notices was sufficient as the APRA does not require the City to collect and produce records that have already been made available to the public.

We acknowledge the Complainant’s rebuttal.

Based on the Complainant’s amendment of his request and the scope of the Complaint, the only issue before this Office is the City’s response regarding Part (2) of the request.

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.

Upon receipt of a public records request, a public body “shall permit the inspection or copying within ten (10) business days” of non-exempt public records. R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-3(e). “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 within ten (10) business days of the request and indicating the procedures for appealing the denial. Except for good cause shown, any reason not specifically set forth in the denial shall be deemed waived by the public body.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-7(a). Furthermore, “[a]t the election of the person or entity requesting the public records, the public body shall provide copies of the public records electronically, by facsimile, or by mail in accordance with the requesting person or entity’s choice, unless complying with that preference would be unduly burdensome due to the volume of records requested or the costs that would be incurred.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-3(k).

Here, the Complainant sought certain public hearing notices. The City directed the Complainant to the Secretary of State’s website where it is required to post notice of meetings being conducted  pursuant to the OMA and represents that to the extent the City maintains any notices responsive to the Complainant’s request, they could be found there. As we have previously noted, “this Office has previously found that directing a requester to an online resource containing the requested records may be sufficient to satisfy a public body’s obligation to provide access to public records under the APRA, especially when the request did not indicate a desire to receive the records in any specific media.” See Save the Bay v. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, PR 20-62.

The Complainant objects to the City’s response which directed him to the Secretary of State’s website and asserts in his Complaint that the City violated the APRA because “[n]ot being given a location to pick up the documents is equivalent to a denial of access to the same.” Indeed, the APRA instructs public bodies to “provide copies of the public records electronically, by facsimile, or by mail in accordance with the requesting person or entity’s choice, unless complying with that preference would be unduly burdensome.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-3(k). But here, the Complainant’s assertion that the City violated the APRA by not giving him a location to pick up the records (implying the production of physical records) directly contradicts his own request which expressly sought “[e]lectronic records.” We find that the City reasonably construed the Complainant’s request for “[e]lectronic records” to not be seeking the production of physical records.

The Complainant also takes issue with the fact that the City generally directed him to a website where public hearing notices are posted rather than providing him with the specific hearing notices that are responsive to his particular request. As we have previously noted, the “burden is on the requestor to ‘frame requests with sufficient particularity … to enable the searching agency to determine precisely what records are being requested.” See ARCHaiTECH LLC v. City of Newport, PR 25-59 (quoting Assassination Archives and Research v. Central Intelligence Agency, 720 F. Supp. 217, 219 (D.D.C. 1989)). Here, the Complainant’s request did not identify specific hearing notices he was seeking. For example, the Complainant did not seek a hearing notice for a particular date. Instead, the Complainant sought “evidence of public hearings on this matter (IRS Section 147(f) or other basis).” The APRA governs the public’s right to access public documents but does not mandate that public bodies answer questions or conduct research or reach legal conclusions. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-1 (“The purpose of this chapter is to facilitate public access to public records”); see also Blais v. Revens, No. C.A. PC-01-1912, 2002 WL 31546103, at *9 (R.I. Super. Nov. 7, 2002) (“Public bodies are repositories of records, not libraries; and their administrators are not research assistants who should cull, compile or consolidate the data sought based upon their own idea of what is appropriately extrapolated from the existing records given the discernable objectives behind the request”). As the Complainant’s request failed to identify specific records he was seeking, and instead asked the public body to conduct analysis and research and draw conclusions about what documents may “evidence” something, it was not a proper APRA request. In these particular circumstances where the  Complainant was essentially asking the public body to conduct research and reach conclusions rather than to produce specific identified records, we do not find that it violated the APRA for the City to simply direct the Complainant to the public website where he could access potentially relevant records from which he could draw his own conclusions.

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/ Patrick Reynolds

Patrick Reynolds

Special Assistant Attorney General