In PR 20-23, this Office concluded that the City violated the APRA when its initial response to Complainant's request did not provide any specific reasons for the denial and instead only made the general assertion that the withheld documents were not public records. We directed the City to provide...

The Complainant alleged that the Board violated the OMA when two of its three members met outside the public purview to discuss and/or decide issues related to retaining special counsel, and that these discussions resulted in an agenda item related to the Board being placed on the Town Council...

The Complainant alleged that the Town violated the APRA when it withheld executive session minutes and audio recordings, which the Complainant argued had been unsealed by the Town Council's adoption of a certain policy regarding executive session minutes. The Town asserted that the minutes and...

The Complainant alleged that the City violated the APRA when it: (1) asserted it did not maintain certain responsive records; and (2) withheld three email threads under Exemption (B). Regarding the first allegation, we found that the undisputed evidence indicated that the City did not maintain the...

The Complainant alleged that the Office of Auditor General violated the APRA when it failed to respond to his public records request. The undisputed evidence indicated that the request, which was sent by mail, was not received because of the Auditor General's failure to update its website and APRA...

The Complainant alleged that the OPC violated the APRA when it (1) asserted that it did not maintain certain documents responsive to some of his requests about a job position; and (2) withheld a public employee's resume under R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(A)(I)(b). Although the Complainant asserted...

The Complainant alleged that the RISP violated the APRA by redacting certain information from the requested records. The RISP asserted that the implicated privacy interests outweighed the public interest in disclosure of this information, such that disclosure could reasonably be expected to...

The Complainant alleged that RIPTA violated the APRA when it failed to provide monthly ridership reports in its initial response to his request for "all ridership reports" and when it redacted student and faculty identification numbers on the monthly ridership reports. Based on the undisputed...

The Complainant alleged that the Town violated the APRA when it: (1) failed to cite the statutory exemption in its denial; (2) withheld notes that were allegedly "submitted" at a Town Council meeting; and (3) did not provide for an administrative appeal. Based on the undisputed evidence, we found...

The Complainant alleged the DOC violated the APRA when it denied a request pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(E) and § 38-2-2(4)(F) and failed to state whether any portions of the documents were reasonably segregable. Having reviewed the withheld documents in camera, we determined that at...