AG Rules Woonsocket Violated Open Records Law Twice

The AG's office says Woonsocket violated Open Records Law twice by not providing Attorney Michael Kelly documents related to the Water Treatment Plant Project Advisory Committee in a timely manner, some not at all.

Kelly requested the documents Dec. 21, but didn't receive most of them until April 3, more than two months later, and is still waiting on some that have been witheld without explanation, according to the RI Attorney General Office's ruling.  

The city left out materials Kelly requested in item #8: "Any and all documents, correspondence and communications, including but not limited to a purchase agreement, that relate to the acquisition of land for the new water treatment plant," according to the ruling.
 
Woonsocket City Clerk Andrea Bicki, also the clerk in charge of responding to public records requests, noted in an affidavit to the AG's office that she was on vacation when the request was received, and didn't see it until Jan. 2. 

Bicki said she sent the request, which was voluminous and required documents difficult to gather, to Mayor Leo Fontaine and Director of Public Works Sheila McGauvran, letting them know they had to respond by Jan 16 (10 business days after the request) or Feb. 13 (an additional 20 business days after the request with an extension) according to RI Open Meeting Law. Bicki testified in the affidavit that she then requested an extension, ultimately sending the documents April 2.

Bicki stated her response to the request was hampered by her duties as clerk for the Woonsocket Budget Commission, which are "excessively time consuming," she wrote. 

"While there certainly was a violation in that the documents were not delivered on a timely basis, I believe that I made a good-faith effort to comply with the request; ultimately satisfied the request and that the delay was not the result of knowing and willful actions," Bicki wrote. 

The Attorney General's office did not give the city the benefit of the doubt. In the ruling, Maria R. Corvese, Special Assistant Attorney General, notes the city was charged with responding within 10 business days of receipt of the request, regardless of whether the officer in charge of records was present to receive it. In such cases, Corvese noted, it is the public body's responsibility to have measures in place to respond in the record-keeper's absence. 

"Even with an extension of of an additional twenty (20) business days, the City should have responded to your request by February 6, 2013, and its failure to do so violated the APRA (Access to Public Records Act)," Corvese wrote in the ruling.

Corvese continues, noting that even if measured by the date Bicki saw the request, and using the city's deadline date of Feb. 13, the city didn't provide the requested documents until April 3, 2013 more than a month after that date. "The fact that even by the city's calculation the city was six (6) weeks late with its response is of great concern to this department and raises the specter of a knowing and willful violation," Corvese wrote.

Corvese said the city has also not provided its reasons for witholding the documents Kelly requested in item #8, as required under APRA, a second violation of the law. She notes the city has also violated APRA three times in the past, also due to not responding to requests within the legal deadline. "Our concern with the city committed a knowing and willful violation in the instant matter is heightened by previous violations found against the city..." Corvese writes. 

In the ruling, the city is given 10 business days to respond explaining why the violations should not be ruled "willful and knowing", and "reckless". The city also failed to respond to that deadline. 

The city could face a civil fine of up to $2,000 for a knowing and willful or violation, and up to $1,000 for a reckless violation.