Portsmouth Violated Public Records Law Responding to Police Union, AG Rules

The town of Portsmouth violated the Access to Public Records Act earlier this year when it responded to a request from the local police union with a summary document and did not provided actual records as backup, the Rhode Island Attorney General’s office has ruled.

The International Brotherhood of Police Officers Local 302, the police union, requested “all documents relating to payment of attorney fees and other expenses” incurred during arbitration between the town and the union.”

In response, the town provided a brief report showing the amount spent on interest arbitration, but the union “did not receive any supporting documentation to substantiate such claim,” wrote Michael C. Arnold, president of the police union in a Sept. 29 complaint filed with the AG’s office.

In response, the town replied on Oct. 7 and said the union asked for information about legal fees, witnesses, actuary costs from Jan. 1 of 2013 through July 1 of 2014. Town Finance Director James Lathrop ”reasonably interpreted this to be a request for information — not records,” the response stated.

In the ruling, Malena Lopez Mora, special assistant attorney general, said the spirit of the APRA law compels access to actual documents and records no matter what the interpretation of the request might be.

The union, Mora wrote, submitted their request on the town’s designated “Public Records Request Form” and any conclusion on the contrary would be “contrary to the APRA.”

According to the complaint, the union said conversations between the union and the town about the records had occurred “at length” and was advised that the documents were being “prepared or not available due to a meeting that needed to be scheduled” between Town Administrator John Klimm and Lathrop, which the town did not refute.

“Here the town makes no argument that the request is not susceptible to document production,” Mora wrote. “Indeed, the town admits that [Lathrop] ’conducted the necessary research to determine the amount of the Town’s expenditures.”

Mora cited a prior case out of Tiverton in which a resident quested “all written materials and records concerning legal fees and expense” and instead of getting copies of the records, a written summary was provided.

The AG’s office concluded that the summary was a violation of the APRA by not allowing the complainant to “inspect and/or copy” the actual records, which is clearly spelled out on the APRA law.

A list of numbers or a paragraph describing the information does not qualify as a valid response, Mora concluded.

Mora also rejected the town’s assertion that the union needed to indicate exactly which specific documents they want, since some information may be contained in documents that would be impossible for someone to know to exist in the first place.

The town has been ordered to turn over the documents within 10 business days of the Dec. 8 finding and will not face a fine as the violation was not ”knowing and willful” or “reckless” violation.

Click HERE to view the complete ruling.