Board fined $2,000 for violating Open Meeting Act

John Howell
Posted 7/2/15

As two different municipal entities were responsible for violations of the Open Meeting Act, William DePasquale, acting chief of staff reasons $2,000 in fines assessed by the attorney general should …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Board fined $2,000 for violating Open Meeting Act

Posted

As two different municipal entities were responsible for violations of the Open Meeting Act, William DePasquale, acting chief of staff reasons $2,000 in fines assessed by the attorney general should be shared.

Last week, the attorney general reached a settlement agreement with the Warwick Retirement Board for “a willful or knowing violation” of the act when it held its March 4, 2015 meeting on less than 48 hours notice, and when it discussed matters at its March 18, 2015 closed session meeting without providing an explanation as to how “premature disclosure would adversely affect the public interest,” as required by the law. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Warwick Retirement Board agreed to pay a $2,000 fine.

DePasquale maintained that failure to post the meeting agenda 48 hours in advance to the meeting was a clerical error, and since that function is performed by the City Clerk’s office a portion of the fine should be paid from that budget. As for decision of the board to go into executive session, he noted the board has legal counsel and the board acted according to the advice it was given. Hence, DePasquale reasons the board is responsible and should pay its share. Those funds would come out of the board’s budget.

Former Ward 1 Councilman and School Committee Chairman Robert Cushman, who initiated the complaint, says the Retirement Board is not alone in failing to adhere to the Open Meetings Act. He said the City Council and the School Committee have been less than transparent. Specifically, he cited a letter signed by seven council members concerning enabling legislation for the Warwick Sewer Authority that he argues should have come before the council as a resolution.

“This was a de facto resolution that went to the General Assembly,” he said.

Mayor Scott Avedisian also signed the June 15 letter in opposition to changes in the Senate version of the bill. The objections raised were deleted from the bill, but the measure became the victim to the sudden end to the session.

DePasquale doesn’t see Cushman’s argument as holding any merit. He asks what is the difference between a single letter containing the signatures of officials and multiple letters saying the same thing or having those individuals appear in committee meeting to voice their position?

Cushman was less specific about issues he has with the School Committee. In general, he said the committee’s actions relating to a search for superintendent could be more open.

The Warwick Retirement Board acknowledged it failed to post notice for its March 4 meeting within a minimum of 48 hours before the date of the meeting.  Further, with respect to its March 18 executive session, the Retirement Board acknowledged it failed to provide to the attorney general an explanation as to how the premature disclosure would adversely affect the public interest.

Cushman wanted to attend the board meeting where the city’s actuary outlined the assumptions used in determining the unfunded liabilities of the city’s pension plans. As it turned out, the actuary made basically the same presentation to the City Council in a public meeting that evening.

That didn’t alter the position of the attorney general. 

“Public bodies must provide the public with adequate notice of meetings and must conduct business in open sessions, unless otherwise exempted. These requirements are meant to ensure that the citizenry knows what its government is doing and how decisions may impact the greater community,” said Attorney General Peter Kilmartin in a statement.

 The OMA requires that all public bodies provide written notice of their meetings within 48 hours of the meeting (R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-6(b)).  The notice shall include the date the notice was posted, the date, time and place of the meeting, and a statement specifying the nature of the business to be discussed. 

The OMA further requires that “[a] meeting closed to the public shall be limited to matters allowed to be exempt from discussion at open meeting by § 42-46-5…No public body shall discuss in closed session any public matter which does not fall within the citations to § 42-46-5(a) referred to by the public body in voting to close the meeting, even if these discussions could otherwise be closed to the public under this chapter.”  R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-4.  Pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(7), a public body may hold a meeting closed to discuss “[a] matter related to the question of the investment of public funds where the premature disclosure would adversely affect the public interest.  Public funds shall include any investment plan or matter related thereto, including but not limited to state lottery plans for new promotions.”

Cushman said he thinks elected officials as well as appointed board and commission members should be required to attend the Open Meetings Act and public records training sessions conducted by the Attorney General.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here