Complainant alleged that the Town Council violated the OMA when it changed an agenda item with less than forty-eight hours' notice and when an agenda item was insufficient. Because the Complainant did not provide any indication that the alleged violations specifically prevented her or other members of her organization from attending the meetings, and failed to provide any evidence that they were disadvantaged by the alleged violations, we found that Complainant had not met her burden under the Graziano standard. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8(a); see also Graziano v. Rhode Island State Lottery Commission, 810 A.2d 215 (R.I. 2002). As such, we found that Complainant was not an "aggrieved" party and therefore had no standing to allege the OMA violations contained in her complaint. See Curt-Hoard v. Woonsocket School Board, OM 14-20. Notwithstanding, even assuming, arguendo, that the Complainant had standing to bring these allegations, we found no violations because there was no evidence that the agenda item was changed or that the agenda item failed to "fairly inform the public of the nature of the business to be discussed or acted upon[.]" Anolik v. Zoning Board of Review of the City of Newport, 64 A.3d 1171, 1175 (R.I. 2013).
