Editor's note: This story has been updated to include the submission of written testimony opposed to the bill.

A coalition of advocacy groups hopeful to pass the first update in 13 years to the state’s access to public records law (APRA) was dealt a blow towards those efforts, as their bill was ultimately held for further study when it went before the Rhode Island Senate’s Judiciary Committee on May 22.

The bill in question (S-0909) had been introduced by Sen. Lou DiPalma (D-Dist. 12, Middletown, ​Little Compton, Newport, Tiverton), and was the third attempt in as many years to pass legislation that the bill’s proponents say would increase the public’s access to documents maintained by various government institutions, from their local police departments to the office of the Governor, and everything in between.

With nearly 50 total changes proposed to the existing law, the bill covers a lot of ground, but some of the most notable highlights include the following:

• The fee charged to those seeking public records would be reduced from 15 cents per page to 5 cents per page.
• The bill would double the amount of “free time” allotted to a requester for the retrieval of a public record, from one hour to two. Similarly, government agencies would be required to allot two hours of free time spent redacting sensitive or personal information out of a report before charging the requester (up from one hour in the current law).
• If a person is ultimately denied their APRA request, they could not be charged for the time spent determining that decision.
• Documents discussed at public meetings must be made available to members of the public electronically prior to the meeting occurring or at the request of a citizen during the meeting
• Fines for public officials who knowingly violate the APRA law would double, from $2,000 to $4,000, with fines for “reckless” violations of the law doubling from $1,000 to $2,000.
• All police body camera footage would be required to be accessible via public records request within 30 days.
• Police departments for private universities (such as Brown University PD), would be subject to the same standards as public police departments
• 9-1-1 call recordings would be made more easily available to those involved in the incidents
• Arrest logs would be required to include a narrative of what led to the arrest, and be made available within 30 days of the request.
• All final reports of investigations of public officials conducted by internal affairs would be accessible via public records requests, provided personal information is properly redacted
• The bill would create a process for government entities to deal with “vexatious” requests, meaning requests made solely with the intent to disrupt the workings of the agency
  
  

The argument for the bill
At a press conference held at the State House Library on May 21, representatives from multiple advocacy groups representing public access to information and government transparency gathered to express their support for the bill.

Dylan Giles, Operations Manager for the Providence Street Coalition, made the argument that faulty public records laws cause a threat to public safety. His group had tried for years to access data to create a map of all crashes occurring between pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles in Providence. When they went to the Rhode Island Department of Transportation to ask for that data, they were denied under the notion of complying with a nondescript federal law.

“That law does not exist,” Giles said.

While the Providence Police Department handed over their crash data in a comprehensive table, the coalition continuously ran into roadblocks from other municipal police departments, who said they were unable to generate a report like Providence due to using different technology for reporting their accidents.

“This makes Rhode Island DOT the de facto gatekeeper of all of the crash data in Rhode Island,” Giles said. “When the government hides information like crash data from the public, it is not just advocates and journalists that suffer, it is every Rhode Islander who walks, bikes, drives, takes public transit, or relies on emergency services. It is every family seeking answers after a tragedy. It is every voter trying to hold public institutions accountable. Rhode Island should not remain a national outlier in secrecy. We deserve better.”

Charlie Galligan, a Bristol resident and private investigator for defense attorneys, provided the perspective of someone who has been forced to interact with the state’s inconsistent handling of APRA issues for over 30 years.

“Sadly, it became evident to me early on in my career many years ago that all too often the default, baseline position when I would go seeking records was to discourage me from even filing a records request, to delay letting me know whether they would or would not comply with the law, and to deny whenever possible,” he said. “I have often made it a practice to go above and beyond what's required and then simply to get through actual records. But I don't always have that luxury.”

Galligan said that he has often been told that a records clerk is not available to help him (the bill creates language specifically saying this is not a valid excuse for an agency to not fulfill a records request). Other times, he has been peppered with questions about why he is accessing a record, or asked to provide his credentials through various licenses, or to provide the request written on legal letterhead.

“None of which the law has ever required me to do,” he said.

At the hearing before the Judiciary Committee on May 22, former Providence Journal reporter and current member of the board of the New England First Amendment Coalition (NEFAC, a supporter of the bill), Mike Stanton, testified that bringing greater consistency to APRA requests and how they are handled was vitally important.

“Look at how the costs that the governor assessed different reporters were all over the map when they sought inspection reports for the Washington Bridge,” Stanton said.

Scott Pickering, the President of Access Rhode Island (and the publisher of East Bay Media Group), made the argument that legislators should have faith that the groups supporting the bill — such NEFAC, Access Rhode Island, the Rhode Island ACLU, etc.) — were groups with long histories of advocating for the public good.

“These groups protect civil liberties, they advocate for good government, they defend First Amendment rights, they stand for equal and fair voting rights, they demand safe streets and safe neighborhoods and safe public transit, and they support the role of a free press in our democracy,” he said. “These are not radical groups hoping to undermine the government.”

Opposition from multiple angles
While those in favor of the bill appeared to be focused on satisfying government officials in high places, such as Governor Dan McKee, who publicly opposed the bill last year when it came before the general assembly, the initial opposition for this year’s bill didn’t come from government administrators; at least not in verbal testimony.

Instead, the friction came fast and strong from advocates for police departments.

Sidney Wordell, Executive Director of the Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association, testified during the Judiciary Committee hearing that they opposed the bill due to the provision about requiring the release of all final reports of internal affairs investigations.

“What we’re talking about is internal investigations by the vast majority regard incidents within an agency that are minor infractions or violations of policy,” he said. “If we make every single one of those reports available, that’s the next thing that’s going to be on the media, and some officer that’s having an issue, whether it’s marital or substance, whatever it is, the department is not able to work with them and handle that internally.”

Wordell said that the updates to the Law Enforcement Bill of Rights (LEOBOR) that were finalized last summer already addressed making reports public when an officer was being considered for termination.

“Discipline is meant to correct behavior of an individual which you feel is still worthy and an asset of the agency,” he said. “If you’re going for termination, those are the types of cases that are outlined in the LEOBOR.”

John Rossi, President of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers (Local 569), testified in agreement, saying their union (which represents 27 of 39 municipal departments in the state) opposed the bill for the same reasons.

But one former member of law enforcement threw his support behind the bill — at least one provision, that is, regarding holding university police departments to the same standards as municipal departments.

“What I witnessed for 18 years working for Brown, was that they could send the police department to an incident that should have been handled by Providence Police, and they could then by doing so take what should have been public record, and turn it into private record,” said Michael Greco, who spent 18 years as a member of the Brown University Department of Public Safety. “So whatever happens with this bill, it’s really important to me, and I think it’s really important to the safety of the public and the safety of Providence and the Brown University community that those two lines stay in there.”

Greco testified that the imbalance in reporting responsibilities led him to be involved in dangerous situations that were then kept from public scrutiny, one involving a knife fight between two people at a university building, and one involving a potential active shooter on campus in 2021.

“He stated if anyone approached the building he was in, he would shoot any police officer that approached,” he told the committee. “Brown told us we were not allowed to use our radios. They didn’t say ‘Switch channels in case you’re being monitored’, they told us we couldn’t use our radios; which are monitored by the Providence Police. Then they had us stand in front of the building that he said he’d shoot police officers from.”

“Those kinds of incidents happen because of perverse incentives and those perverse incentives take place because they’re not held to the same standards of the rest of the police departments in the state,” he continued.

And although representatives for police departments supplied the only vocal testimony against the bill, written testimony submitted to the Senate showcased a much more widespread, uniform resistance to the proposed updates to the public records bill from some of the most powerful entities in local government.

Those submitting written testimony opposed to the bill include the following:

• The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
• The Rhode Island Department of Transportation
• The Rhode Island Department of Health
• The Rhode Island Department of Human Services
• The Rhode Island Department of Public Safety
• The Rhode Island Department of Administration
• Governor Dan McKee
• The Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns
• The Rhode Island Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals
• The Rhode Island Office of Commerce
• The Rhode Island Department of Revenue
• The Rhode Island Department of Corrections
• The Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of RI
• The Office of Rhode Island Public Defender
  
  

What happens next?
The bill has a companion version in the House of Representative (H-6273), introduced by Rep. Patricia Serpa. That has been referred to the House State Government & Elections Committee, but has yet to receive a hearing date.