The Complainant alleges the City violated the APRA by withholding two videotapes that she requested. This Office reviewed the evidence and viewed the videotapes in camera. We concluded that the videotapes depicted multiple minors and implicated privacy interests. We also concluded that no...

The Complainant alleged the Department violated the APRA when it denied his request for Department records relating to a call made to the Department regarding a specific private citizen's residence. The Department denied the Complainant's request on the grounds that disclosure of the requested...

The Complainant alleged the City violated the APRA when it failed to respond to her APRA request within ten (10) business days. The City stated that the Complainant's APRA request went to its legal counsel's SPAM (junk mail) folder, but did not dispute the Complainant's contention that the City...

The Complainant alleged that the Town violated the APRA when it failed to respond to an APRA request in a timely manner. The Town acknowledged that it failed to timely respond and attributed this omission to staffing issues and a similar but different APRA request. The Town also indicated that...

The Complainant alleged that the Town violated the APRA when it failed to respond to her request for records within the ten business days required under the APRA. This Office determined that the Town's assertion that responsive records did not exist or that it did not maintain responsive records...

Summary: This supplemental finding provides that the Office will not file suit based on the violations found in Spodnik v. Town of West Warwick, OM 19-28. Nonetheless, we admonished the Town that its conduct violated the OMA and may serve as evidence of a willful or knowing violation in any...

The Complainant alleged that the North Kingstown Interview Committee was a public body under the OMA and was failing to comply with open meetings requirements. The undisputed evidence indicated that the Interview Committee was established by the Superintendent to assist with the selection of a new...

The Complainant alleged that the Commission violated the OMA when it held a site visit where members of the public were separated from the Commission members. The undisputed evidence revealed that during the site visit, a quorum of the Commission engaged in a "collective discussion" outside the...

The Complainant alleged that School Committee members discussed School Committee matters outside the public purview at some time prior to a public meeting. The School Committee submitted uncontroverted evidence in affidavit form that after being elected, the School Committee members did not...

The Complainant alleged that the Fishermen's Advisory Board ("FAB") violated the OMA by meeting outside the public purview and by failing to post timely notice for a meeting. Guided by Rhode Island Supreme Court precedent, we concluded based on the totality of the evidence that the FAB is not a...