When the Charlestown Citizens Alliance ran the town, we were a case study for abusive use of open records loopholes
By Nancy Lavin, Rhode Island Current
Attempts to compromise haven’t appeared to reduce the state administration’s objections to reforming Rhode Island’s public records law. 
When the CCA's guy Mark Stankiewicz
responded to open records, the town demanded
payment up front for the maximum charged
allowable by law. After you paid, you got
documents that looked like the above
This year, advocates didn’t bother consulting with Gov. Dan McKee’s office for feedback prior to unveiling proposed changes to the Access to Public Records Act.
Instead, they made the case directly to lawmakers, and the public, at a State House press conference Wednesday, one day before an initial Senate panel hearing on the legislation.
“Last year, we made a number of changes after dozens of meetings with the administration, and we still got opposition,” said John Marion, executive director of Common Cause Rhode Island. “We didn’t want to compromise against ourselves this year.”
Indeed, the companion bills introduced by Sen. Lou DiPalma, a Middletown Democrat, and Rep. Pat Serpa, a West Warwick Democrat, are nearly identical to the sweeping set of reforms pitched during the 2024 session. The bills failed to advance out of committee in either chamber last year, buried in a mountain of objections by state agencies.
Scott Pickering, publisher of East Bay Media Group and president of ACCESS/RI, called the administration’s past concerns “exaggerated” and “intended to create fear.”
“I don’t buy it,” Pickering said of arguments that the proposed reforms burdened state agencies and jeopardized sensitive information. “Look at the groups supporting it. These are not radical groups hoping to undermine the government. These are groups devoted to the best interests of our democracy with noble intentions rooted in the public interest.”
Supporters also include the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, the New England First Amendment Coalition, the League of Women Voters of Rhode Island and the Rhode Island Press Association, of which Rhode Island Current is a member.
McKee’s office did not respond to inquiries for comment Wednesday.
Despite Pickering’s adamant refusal to kowtow to “scare tactics,” one new addition this year aims to assuage objections by municipalities. Among the 48 proposed amendments to the 1978 law — last updated in 2012 — is a section addressing “vexatious requests.” The caveat weeds out requests intended to “disrupt government operations,” authorizing the chief administrator of any public body subject to open records laws to seek a Rhode Island Superior Court order exempting them from fulfilling a records request.
Across the country, and in Rhode Island, public bodies are seeing records requests for no other reason than to take them away from their regular duties. Marion referred to a coordinated effort on the heels of the 2020 election to bombard local elections officials with requests about voting equipment, with the intent to “gum up the works of election offices around the country.”
DiPalma stressed the “fine line” between nuisance requests and those with good intentions, but noted that the proposed bill still requires public bodies to proceed with filling “vexatious” requests if and until a court orders otherwise. Under the proposed legislation, anyone who obtains records through a request later determined to be vexatious will have to reimburse the public body for the time and cost to complete the task.
Reducing fees, adding clarity
Much of the remaining reforms, however, aim to make it easier, and more affordable, for the public to request and obtain various forms of public information, including body camera footage, traffic accident data and investigations into police misconduct.
“We’re really here to make sure members of the public have access to public information without having to pay burdensome costs, and when the government withholds it, they do it for a good reason,” said Michael McDermott, a board member for ACCESS/RI.
For example, the reform bill clarifies that university police departments given power to make arrests are subject to the same public disclosure of arrest records as other public law enforcement groups. Brown University’s police department has argued it is exempt from the state public records law, said Steven Brown, executive director for the RI ACLU.
Another paragraph specifies that traffic accident data is subject to public records laws, reflecting the Rhode Island Department of Transportation’s use of existing loopholes to refuse to provide crash data requested by community advocates with the Providence Streets Coalition.
Other changes reflect modern technology which was nonexistent, or at least less heavily relied upon, when the law was last updated more than a decade ago. Police body camera footage is among the new types of records that would be added to the law under the legislation, as well as text messages and emails sent in official government capacity — previously exempt but now subject to sharing unless they are unrelated to official government business. Another nod to the shift to the digital age: requiring public bodies to upload any documents related to their meetings online beforehand, like a contract for a new hire or a proposed policy change.
The proposal also reduces the cost charged for locating and sharing public records — increasing the number of free hours of work from one to two hours while cutting the cost-per-page for copies of information from 15 to five cents. And it specifies that fees for records requests “shall” be waived if the person requesting them can demonstrate the information is of public interest. The existing law offers the option that fees “may” be waived for public interest reasons.
Several tweaks aim to head off privacy concerns voiced by state agencies during the 2024 session hearings, narrowing the scope of medical records subject to public disclosure, for example, and allowing identifying information in police misconduct reports to be redacted to protect privacy.
Charlie Galligan, a criminal defense private investigator, was optimistic that the amendments would pass muster with McKee’s office.
“I can only imagine [the amendments have] addressed concerns and removed concerns by Governor McKee and other entities that have objected to previous versions of this legislation,” Galligan said.
New Senate leaders on board
DiPalma was less certain of the administration’s viewpoint, but pointed to the change in Senate leadership as a potential advantage; newly elected Senate President Valarie Lawson and Senate Majority Leader Frank Ciccone are both co-sponsors on the Senate bill. The bill is scheduled to have a first hearing before the Senate Committee on Judiciary Thursday night.
“As a former history teacher, I am very mindful of the importance of robust public records laws to the strength of our democracy, and to maintaining public trust,” Lawson said in an emailed statement Wednesday. “I am grateful to Senator DiPalma for his passion and his tireless work on this issue. When concerns were raised with previous versions of this proposal, Chairman DiPalma worked to bring parties together and address those concerns. Subsequent to the Senate hearing tomorrow evening, I will review the testimony regarding this year’s version of the bill with an open mind.”
House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi, however, noted past opposition from the administration, without taking a position on the bill either way.
“I look forward to reviewing Senator DiPalma’s amended language after his bill is heard in the Senate,” Shekarchi said in an emailed statement Wednesday.
A hearing on the House companion bill has also not been scheduled as of Wednesday.
Rhode Island Current is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Rhode Island Current maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janine L. Weisman for questions: info@rhodeislandcurrent.com.
