Markey v. South Kingstown School Department, 122118 RIAGO, AGO PR 18-37

Case DateDecember 21, 2018
CourtRhode Island
Markey
v.
South Kingstown School Department
AGO PR 18-37
No. PR 18-37
Rhode Island Attorney General Opinion
State of Rhode Island And Providence Plantations
December 21, 2018
          Peter F. Kilmartin, Attorney General           Joseph M. Cooper, Esq.          Ms. Sarah Markey          RE: Markey v. South Kingstown School Department          Dear Ms. Markey:          The investigation into your Access to Public Records Act ("APRA") complaint filed against the South Kingstown School Department ("SKSD") is complete.          You filed an APRA request to the School Department on March 18, 2018, requesting the following:
"1) A Copy of any email sent by any member of the School Committee pertaining to the Legacy planning since September 1, 2017 [;]
2) A copy of any emails sent by the School Committee Chair pertaining to the Legacy planning since September 1, 2017 [;]
3) A copy of all emails received by each School Committee member from the public about the Legacy project since January 1, 2018 [;]
4) A copy of all communications, including email, between the Superintendent and the representatives of Education Legacy Planning since January 1, 2017 [;]
5) A copy of all communications, including email, between the School Committee Chair and the representatives of Education Legacy Planning since January 1, 2017."
         In its response, the SKSD declined to provide documents responsive to Requests 1, 2, and 3 pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(M). However, the SKSD provided responsive documents to Requests 4 and 5, but redacted portions of those documents pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(K).          Thereafter, you filed the instant Complaint, alleging, in pertinent part:
"While the APRA exclusion does in fact cover communications by elected officials in their official capacities, the School Committee Chair is not elected. He was appointed by the Town Council in October 2017. * * *
I am filing this complaint because I believe that the District did not include every email communication that falls under the request and because some information may have been unnecessarily redacted."[1]
         In response to an inquiry from this Department as to what information you alleged was improperly redacted, what the basis was for that conclusion, and what information you had to support your contention that there are additional responsive email communications that were not provided, you provided the following:
"Two other emails support that there is correspondence between the School Committee Chair and the Robert Hendricks team[.] *** Scan 4 Page 73 email is entirely redacted but Roland [the School Committee Chair] is included in the cc'd addresses. ***
I believe the District's interpretation of [R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(K)] is too strict and not in accordance with the intent of the APRA exclusion in state statute. It is virtually impossible to believe that the information that was shared with me, [sic] is the full picture of discussions between the School Committee Chair, Superintendent, and/or the company hired to facilitate the legacy project. *** Frankly, I don't have evidence. I heard from two community members that the Superintendent in one instance and the IT Director in another instance essentially told them that this information request would yield little information and that they were planning to exclude emails. I am in no position to prove this, however, so [I] understand if the AG's office cannot proceed to investigate this specific concern."
         In...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT