The denial of internal affairs reports relating to a particular incident did not violate the APRA. The Complainant provided no public interest and the privacy interests of the affected individuals outweighed this non-asserted interest.
The City of Providence violated the APRA when its extension provided nearly verbatim the language set forth in R.I. Gen. Laws 38-2-3(e) and was not "particularized to the specific request made." The Complainant took no issue with the fact that the City had "good cause" to assert an extension. ...
The Complainant alleged a violation based on the failure to timely respond within ten (10) business days, however, after review, this allegation was determined to be unfounded and a timely response was provided. Moreover, the Complainant alleged that other aspects of the public body's response...
The Rhode Island Department of Education ("RIDE") did not violate the APRA since the evidence established that RIDE did not receive the Complainant's APRA request. While it was unclear why RIDE did not receive the Complainant's APRA request, the Complainant did not provide any rebuttal to...
The Central Coventry Fire District ("Fire District") violated the OMA when it untimely filed three (3) of its meetings minutes on the Secretary of State's website. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-7(b)(2). With respect to the Complainant's allegation that the minutes for two (2) of its meetings did...
The Complainant alleged the City violated the APRA when it withheld unfiled deposition transcripts. The City claimed it purchased the transcripts from a third party court reporter and, as such, considered them to be 'trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person,...
The City did not violate the APRA when it exempted from public disclosure a videotape played at a public meeting depicting an assault on a private individual. The Complainant presented no evidence or argument that the public interest would be advanced through disclosure and R.I. Gen. Laws 38-2-2(4)
The Town Council did not violate the OMA as there was no evidence that a quorum of its members discussed outside the public purview (on June 7, 2016) the disclosure of a press release and/or a Resolution. Rather, the undisputed evidence revealed that the Town Clerk/Town Manager authorized the...
The Complainant alleged the Newport Housing Authority and the Newport Development Corporation ("Authority and Corporation") violated the OMA when it did not post notice for its July 14, 2016 meeting. We found no violation since the Complainant did not provide any evidence that a meeting in fact...
The Complainant challenges the City response that responsive e-mails were "overly redacted" and/or not provided. Of the 68 e-mails that were provided in a redacted manner, 63 of these e-mails were in the Complainant's possession prior to making the instant APRA request. Accordingly, it was...
