VIA EMAIL ONLY

October 15, 2026

Mr. Robert Bruno

Mark E. Hartmann, Esquire

Assistant Solicitor, Town of Little Compton

Dear Mr. Bruno and Attorney Hartmann:

We have completed our investigation into the Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”) Complaints filed by Mr. Robert Bruno (“Complainant”) against the Town of Little Compton (“Town”). Because the two Complaints involve the same parties, we will combine the Complaints and issue one finding. For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the Town violated the APRA as to the second (February 3, 2026) Complaint only.

The Complainant’s first APRA request, received by the Town on December 22, 2025, sought certain meeting agendas and minutes as well as “[v]ote records and certifications.”[1] The Complainant contends that in response to his request, the Town violated the APRA by directing him to “general online repositories and inviting in-person inspection” as opposed to providing him with a distinct set of responsive records. He additionally contends that upon receipt of this APRA response, he submitted an administrative appeal request and did not receive a response from the Town, which is also in violation of the APRA. Finally, the Complainant contends that the third part of his request was not accounted for in the Town’s APRA response. With his Complaint, the Complainant provided attachments documenting the correspondence between the parties.

The Town’s Assistant Solicitor submitted substantive Responses on behalf of the Town as to both Complaints. Relative to the January 9, 2026 Complaint, the Town argues that “directing [the Complainant] to a publicly accessible database that contains electronic copies of Little Compton Town Council meeting minutes and agendas” was in conformance with the requirements of the statute. Further, the Town contends that its manner of response also satisfied the third part of the Complainant’s request in that “[t]he Town provided [the Complainant with] the ability to access and inspect … meeting minutes, thus the Town provided the [requested] vote certifications.”

Finally, as to the Town’s supposed failure to respond to the administrative appeal request, the Town notes that the Complainant “failed to supplement his Complaint … with the … [administrative appeal response] sent to him … which was sent less than two (2) hours after he lodged his [APRA] Complaint.” In support, the Town included documentation reflecting its administrative appeal response.

We acknowledge the Complainant’s Rebuttal.

·         The Complainant’s February 3, 2026 Complaint

The Complainant submitted a subsequent APRA request dated January 9, 2026. This second request sought records similar to those of the first request, with additional sections seeking: “Pension or Retirement Certifications (2024 & 2025)” and “Communications Referencing Retirement or Investigation.”[2] As to this subsequent request, the Complainant contends that the Town simply failed to respond. The Complainant provided attachments reflective of his purportedly unfulfilled request.

The Town, in response, concedes that its APRA response was ultimately “three (3) business days late.” The Town attributes this tardiness to a confluence of factors, including the “unduly burdensome” nature of the request, winter weather conditions that caused the closure of Town facilities, and an abnormal uptick in APRA requests received by the Town at the time of the request at issue. Nevertheless, the Town submits that it eventually provided a substantive response to the APRA request, and it again provided this Office with the relevant records pertaining to the underlying transaction.

We again acknowledge the Complainant’s Rebuttal.

The record demonstrates that the Complainant submitted his administrative appeal request on December 23, 2025 and that the Town transmitted its response to the Complainant on the morning of January 9, 2026.[3] This January 9, 2026 transmittal rendered the administrative appeal response untimely, albeit negligibly.

That said, this Office has previously determined it unnecessary for us to consider whether a public body violated the APRA when, even if a violation has occurred, there is no appropriate remedy. See Lamendola v. East Greenwich School Committee, PR 20-11; Piskunov v. Town of North Providence, PR 16-38. The reason for this conclusion is because, even assuming a violation occurred, the APRA only provides for two types of remedies: 1) injunctive relief and, 2) civil fines for a willful and knowing or reckless violation. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-9(d). In a case where there is no need for injunctive relief (such as where the complainant receives the requested documents) and no evidence of conduct that would warrant pursuing civil fines, then no action by this Office would be appropriate, even if a violation were found.

Here, there is no need for injunctive relief. The Town avers that in response to the Complainant’s administrative appeal request, the Town “reiterated that [its] initial response was sufficient” but that it also nevertheless “provided all of the records requested by [the Complainant] in PDF [format].”

In rebuttal, the Complainant does not directly dispute that he is now in possession of the records that were the subject of his request. To be clear, the Complainant does challenge certain aspects of the Town’s Response. Nevertheless, these stated objections are meritless and do not undermine our ultimate conclusion that injunctive relief is unneeded. Briefly, the Complainant argues that the Town did not show that it conducted “a reasonable search for the records requested.” Such an argument is a nonstarter, however, because besides contending that the Town did not explicitly attest to the adequacy of its search process, the Complainant provides no argument (nor does the record demonstrate) that the records proved to him were incomplete.[4] See Teamsters Local 251 v. City of Pawtucket, PR 26-20 (declining to find that the public body’s search for certain specified records was inadequate where the Complainant “fail[ed] to present any evidence or argument … that [the public body] did not conduct a reasonable search”).

This same reasoning is largely applicable to the Complainant’s allegation that the Town failed “to affirm [the] existence or nonexistence” of certain requested records. Again, the Complainant provides little specificity as to any records that might be missing and, importantly, the Town has not withheld any records in response to this request.

The Complainant does state that “[t]he Town asserts that certifications would be found in minutes but does not state whether such records exist or do not exist.” This is seemingly in reference to the third part of his request, which sought “[v]ote records and certifications required under the Rhode Island Open Meetings Act.” By his own parameters established by the request, however, the information he is seeking would be contained within the meeting minutes that have been provided to him (both by weblink and then, later, by hardcopy). See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-4(b) (“[a]ll votes taken in closed sessions shall be disclosed once the session is reopened”); see also R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-7(a)(3) (“[a]ll public bodies shall keep written minutes of all their meetings. The minutes shall include, but need not be limited to … A record by individual members of any vote taken.”).[5]

If the Complainant is seeking some sort of “[v]ote records and certifications required under the … [OMA]” that would not be found in meeting minutes, it is unclear from the face of his request what those records would consist of. The burden is on the requester, (in this case, the Complainant), to make that clear from the outset in his initial request. As this Office has noted before, 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)).[6]

Further, nothing in the record demonstrates that the Town acted in a willful and knowing or reckless manner such that civil fines would be appropriate. To begin with, we are unaware of any recent, similar APRA violations committed by the Town, nor does the Complainant bring any to our attention. See Solas v. North Providence School Department, PR 26-11 (declining to find a willful and knowing, or alternatively reckless, APRA violation where “[w]e [were] not aware of any recent, similar violations”).

Moreover, the manner in which the Town responded to the Complainant’s request does not evidence willful and knowing or reckless behavior. Although the APRA provides that a person or entity requesting records “may elect to obtain them in any and all media in which the public agency is capable of providing them,” (see R.I. Gen. Laws §38-2-3(g)), 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. That said, this Office has cautioned that “providing access to documents via a website link may not always satisfy a public body’s burden” and that “[e]ach request must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and the response must be based on the specific circumstances of the request.” See id.

In this matter, directing the Complainant to an online repository was in keeping with the spirit of the APRA, particularly where the Complainant simply sought the records “electronically.” Contrast with Chariho Regional School District v. Kingston Hill Academy, PR 13-05 (noting that under R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-3(g), “even if minutes were electronically available, upon the request of a person or entity to obtain photocopies, a public body would be required to provide photocopies.”).

Consequently, we decline to further analyze this matter, as it is clear that even assuming the Town violated the APRA, no further relief would be appropriate.[7]

·         The Complainant’s February 3, 2026 Complaint

The APRA states that, upon receipt of a records request, 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 providing an explanation as to why an extension of the period to comply is necessary. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-3(e). 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). “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). The public body may extend the time to respond 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.

In this instance, the Town concedes that “its response was three (3) business days late.” Consequently, the Town violated the APRA. See Fung v. City of Cranston, PR 25-31 (finding an APRA violation where “[t]he City concede[d] that ‘its response was late.’”).

We also do not find that injunctive relief would be appropriate. Along with its substantive Response to the Complaint, the Town provided the Complainant with a significant volume of records responsive to the fourth part of his request (the scope of which had been narrowed by agreement of the parties). While the Complainant sought clarification from the Town as to its withholding of certain records, he copied this Office “for awareness.” Given that the Town has already responded to the request and the Complainant has not explicitly objected to the Town’s substantive response, we decline to issue injunctive relief. See GoLocalProv v. City of Central Falls, PR 23-37 (“we do not find injunctive relief to be appropriate because even though the [public body’s] production of certain records was tardy, the [public body] ultimately produced the records to the Complainant with limited redaction and without cost.”).[8]

Please be advised that we are closing these files 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/ Adam D. Roach

Adam D. Roach

Special Assistant Attorney General