This supplemental finding addressed whether the APRA violations found in Hicks v. Rhode Island Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, PR 17-14 were willful and knowing, or reckless. After reviewing all the evidence presented, and although a close question, we found insufficient evidence of a willful and knowing, or reckless, violation. The RICDHH's actions did not indicate a "specific intent" to violate the APRA or a conscious disregard for the APRA's requirements. See Carmody v. Rhode Island Conflict of Interest Comm'n, 509 A.2d 453, 459 (R.I. 1986); see also Catanzaro v. East Greenwich Police Department, PR 13-08.
