Wyatt Board
violated both the Open Meetings Act and the Access to Public Records Act,
determines RI Attorney General in pair of decisions
“Accordingly, in accordance with the
APRA, the Corporation is directed to respond to the Complainant within ten
business days regarding the specifics as to [detainees’] name, age, country of
origin, and specifics of why the [detainee) is being detained.”
The Rhode
Island Attorney General‘s office just ruled in favor of UpriseRI and against the Central Falls Detention Facility Corporation (CFDFC), the controlling body of the Wyatt Detention Center, on both an Access to Public Records Act (APRA) complaint and an Open
Meetings Act (OMA) complaint.
The complaint was made by this
reporter, Steve Ahlquist, the publisher of
UpriseRI.
In the OMA complaint, I made,
broadly speaking, two claims. One, the meeting was scheduled on an early Sunday
morning without proper notice and with less than 48 hours of public notice, and
two, that the content of the published agenda was not specific enough. The
CFDFC also held a vote during the meeting, though exactly what the board was
voting on was not specified.
“Based on the evidence presented, we also conclude that the Corporation did not fail to post notice of the emergency meeting as soon as reasonably practicable – within half a working day following its meeting with Chief Judge Smith, giving the public approximately forty-four (44) hours of advance notice. The Complainant did not dispute the contention recorded in the Board’s meeting minutes that the notice was posted as soon as practicable given the need to consult with counsel concerning what developed during the prior day’s court conference. We conclude that taking approximately half a business day to consult counsel and to schedule and post notice of the emergency meeting did not violate the OMA under the circumstances. Additionally, rather than scheduling the meeting for Friday or Saturday, the Corporation scheduled the meeting for Sunday, April 14th, which provided a longer notice period.”
On the second point, the Attorney
General ruled:
“Based on the totality of the circumstances, and consistent with the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s precedent, we find that the agenda item cited by the Corporation did not sufficiently specify the nature of the business to be discussed and therefore the Corporation violated the OMA.”
The emergency meeting and vote were
held under the orders of Judge William Smith, who
is overseeing a lawsuit brought by the Wyatt Bondholders against the CFDFC,
members of the Central Falls City Council and
Central Falls Mayor James Diossa. Smith
ordered the board to “rescind the April 14th vote ‘staying for thirty days the
aforesaid April 5, 2019, vote suspending the ICE Addendum.'”
Though the Attorney General did not
find the OMA violation to be “willful,”
“…we are mindful that this is now the second time in the last several months the Corporation has been found to have violated the OMA by failing to provide sufficient notice in an agenda item” and, “Although we do not find evidence of a knowing or willful violation in this case, this finding serves as notice to the Corporation that the conduct discussed herein violates the OMA and may serve as evidence of a willful or a knowing violation in any similar future situation.”
The APRA violation was much more
open and shut. When it was first revealed that the Wyatt was going to be
housing ICE detainees, under President Donald Trump‘s zero-tolerance border policy, I requested information
about who the detainees were, specifically the “prisoner’s name, age, country
of origin, and specifics of why the prisoner is being detained.”
This request was flatly denied, and
frankly, the lawyers for the CFDFC did a poor job defending their decision to
deny the information.
The Attorney General writes,
“Accordingly, in accordance with the APRA, the Corporation is directed to respond to the Complainant within ten business days regarding the specifics as to [detainees’] name, age, country of origin, and specifics of why the [detainee) is being detained.”
The CFDFC must also provide this
information free of charge.
The Attorney General adds that
“[A]lthough injunctive relief may be appropriate, for the reasons discussed, we
believe it appropriate to first allow the Corporation an opportunity to comply
with this finding. At this time, we do not find that the Corporation committed
a willful and knowing, or reckless, violation, but we may revisit that issue
based on future developments.”
See the Attorney General decisions here:
Steve Ahlquist is a frontline
reporter in Rhode Island. He has covered human rights, social justice,
progressive politics and environmental news for half a decade. Uprise RI is his
new project, and he's doing all he can to make it essential
reading. atomicsteve@gmail.com