VIA USPS ONLY

April 6, 2026

Mr. Jason I. Simmons

Celina M. Andrade, Esquire

Legal Counsel, Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training

Dear Mr. Simmons and Attorney Andrade:

We have completed our investigation into the Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”) complaint filed by Mr. Jason I. Simmons (“Complainant”) against the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training (the “DLT”). For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the DLT did not violate the APRA.

“a copy of the complaint, investigation outcomes, and any and all enforcement actions taken by the [DLT’s] Professional Regulation [Unit][1] against [a specific general contractor] and/or D/B/A: ‘[the specific] General Contractor.’ On the [DLT] Professional Regulation website there are violation #'s 7710, 7733 listed for [the specific general contractor].”

The Complainant objects to the DLT invoking Exemption (P) in partially denying this request. He concedes that, as to the records he seeks, “investigatory notes, etc. would not be disclosable through [the APRA]” … but that “records of final actions taken … would be.” The Complainant submits that such “records of final actions taken” are all that he seeks, and that the two (2) records provided by the DLT in response to his request did not amount to the same. In support of his Complaint, the Complainant provided copies of request “25-140” and the DLT’s response, the substantive records provided by the DLT, and additional records related to his underlying request.

The DLT argues that its response to the Complainant’s request, including its production of “Delinquent Debt Referral Forms” and “Notices of Intent to Refer Debt To The Department of Revenue Central Collections Unit” complied with the strictures of Exemption (P) because such records constitute the DLT’s “records of final actions taken.” The DLT explains that these provided records “reflect [the DLT’s] final enforcement actions regarding violation numbers 7710 and 7733 that the Complainant referenced in his request.” The DLT further affirms that all remaining records are nonpublic pursuant to Exemption (P), and that it consequently did not violate the APRA.[2]

We acknowledge the Complainant’s Rebuttal.

In his Complaint, the Complainant stated that he is seeking to “obtain final actions taken against [the specific general contractor]” and that ‘this is the only portion of [the DLT’s] determination that [he is] challenging.” Thus, the scope of this finding will be narrowly limited to determining whether the DLT produced all “records of final actions taken,” consistent with Exemption (P).

To that end, examination of the records provided to the Complainant is instructive.[3] Beginning first with the “Delinquent Debt Referral Forms” stemming from both “violation numbers 7710 and 7733,” these records include sufficient indicia evidencing that their purpose is to provide notice of “violations or noncompliance.” For example, each form contains a sworn statement by a DLT “Supervising Administrator” attesting to the DLT’s conclusion that the general contractor’s underlying debt was “delinquent by a minimum of thirty (30) days,” “valid,” and “legally enforceable in the amount stated” (and that “requisite due process [was] completed”). More to the point, the readily apparent purpose of each form, which is to “refer” the underlying matter(s) to the “Central Collections Unit” of the State Department of Revenue (a separate State entity), serves to mark the completion of the DLT’s debt-investigation process and the conclusion of its investigation(s). The “Delinquent Debt Referral Forms” are therefore by their very nature “records of final actions taken” by the DLT.

Similarly, the “Notices of Intent to Refer Debt To The Department of Revenue Central Collections Unit” include all the characteristics of finality one would expect from “records of final actions taken.” The title and, by extension, the clear purpose of these records make that evident enough. The function of these records is to “[r]efer” debt collection to the “Department of Revenue.” It is patently apparent that this referral action concludes the DLT’s investigation and moves such matters to a separate and distinct public entity. Closer review (beyond mere examination of the title of these records) only further buttresses such a conclusion. Providing just some examples, these forms include the following conclusive language: “the fine imposed by the Director of [the DLT] has not been paid,” “[i]f you wish to appeal the decision,” and “[a]ll other, substantive appeals in this matter have been exhausted.” Again, the intrinsic qualities and very purpose of these records embody the conclusiveness inherent in “records of final actions taken.”

Several of our findings have provided examples of what do and do not constitute “records of final actions taken.” In Minson v. Cumberland School Department, PR 26-04, we determined that a publicly produced “Record of Final Action Taken” following an investigation into the potential “unfair treatment of a student athlete” constituted such a record. In Amaral v. BHDDH and DOA, PR 24-13, we concluded that certain memoranda did not constitute “records of final action taken” because these memoranda merely provided “recommendations” as opposed to “directives,” where the inclusion of “directives” would have “len[t] more credence” to the argument that the memoranda “denot[ed] final actions taken.” Finally, in Lefoley v. RIDOH, PR 23-11, we determined that “a singular document” constituted a non-public “investigatory record” under Exemption (P) because at the time RIDOH was engaging in a “still … open and unfinished investigation.” Each of these examples, when compared to the documents at issue here, further buttress our conclusion that the records provided to the Complainant were created at the end of the DLT’s investigation(s) and constituted “records of final actions taken.”

Finally, while the Complainant argues that he is seeking to “obtain final actions taken against [the subject of his October of 2025 requests]” and therefore impliedly argues that what he received do not constitute such records, we find this argument to be unavailing.[4] The speculative posture of this Complaint contrasts with the DLT’s authoritative Response affirming that it provided the Complainant with its “records of final actions taken.” See Arocho v. Community College of Rhode Island, PR 23-24 (“[t]he burden is on the Complainant to frame the request clearly identifying the records being sought”); see also DuBois v. City of Pawtucket, PR 25-08 (“this Office has consistently held that the APRA does not require a public body to produce a record it does not maintain.”). We have not been presented with sufficient evidence that the DLT maintains any additional responsive records of final actions taken, and the fact that we have concluded that the records already provided constitute records of final actions taken supports the reasonableness of DLT’s representation that it has already provided the responsive public records.

For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the “Delinquent Debt Referral Forms” and “Notices of Intent to Refer Debt To The Department of Revenue Central Collections Unit” constituted “records of final actions taken” and that the DLT’s response complied with the APRA. We find no violation.[5]

As noted, we issue this finding without prejudice as to any potential further review if the Complainant subsequently specifically seeks the above-referenced “Notice[s] of Violation” and, if denied, wishes to file a Complaint specifically arguing why these “Notice[s] of Violation” in particular are subject to production. Principally given that the record indicates that these Notices of Violation that we reference were initial steps taken at the start of the investigation, which does not appear to be the focus of the Complaint, that precise issue was not clearly articulated in the Complaint nor addressed in the initial filings, so it is not properly before us.