Spodnik v. West Warwick Town Council, 122118 RIAGO, AGO OM 18-31

Case DateDecember 21, 2018
CourtSouth Carolina
Spodnik
v.
West Warwick Town Council
AGO OM 18-31
No. OM 18-31
State of South Carolina Office of the Attorney General
December 21, 2018
          Timothy A. Williamson, Esq.          Ms. Anna Spodnik          RE: Spodnik v. West Warwick Town Council          Dear Ms. Spodnik:          The investigation into your Open Meetings Act ("OMA") complaint filed against the West Warwick Town Council ("Town Council") is complete. By email correspondence dated May 2, 2018, you allege that the Town Council violated the OMA when it discussed items at its March 20, 2018 meeting that were not on the agenda. More specifically, you allege that under the agenda item "Ward Reports," the Town Council President delivered personal and retaliatory comments about you.          In response to your complaint, we received a substantive response from the Town Council's legal counsel, Timothy A. Williamson, Esquire. Attorney Williamson states, in pertinent part:
"Town Council President exercised his rights to speak about his Ward during Ward Reports. As he is the elected Town Councilman from Ward 3, he has the ability and the right to address matters in his Ward, the Town or the State. He also has the right to address matters concerning him, especially in his position as a Town Councilman and as President of the Town Council. * * *
The Complainant is wrong when she states that 'this was not part of the agenda and had no place in this meeting.' This part of the meeting is specifically listed as 'WARD REPORTS.' The Town Council [is] free to discuss issues that are of interest in their wards. The Public is not prohibited from speaking about these issues during this part of the meeting. The public can also weigh in about these issues during the 'PUBLIC COMMENT' portion of the meeting.
* * *
How is the Complainant aggrieved as a result of this [ ] violation? Where in her complaint does [Complainant] articulate this aggrievement. Graziano v. State Lottery Commission, 810 A.2d 215 (R.I. 2002).
The Complainant never suggests that the Town Clerk's failure to post a more specific description of what the Ward Reports would entail; or what may be discussed, may or may not have prevented her from attending the meeting."[1]
         We acknowledge your rebuttal.          At the outset, we note that in examining whether a violation of the OMA has occurred, we are mindful that our mandate is not to substitute this Department's independent judgment concerning whether an infraction has occurred, but instead, to interpret and enforce the OMA as the General Assembly has written this law and as the Rhode Island Supreme Court has interpreted its provisions. Furthermore, our statutory mandate is limited to determining whether the Town Council violated the OMA. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8.          The OMA requires all public bodies provide supplemental public notice of all meetings at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the meeting. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-6(b). "This 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." Id. (Emphasis added). The level of specificity that must be detailed for each...

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