Latest news with #Driver'sPrivacyProtectionAct
Boston Globe
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Bill to increase access to public records in R.I. will die in committee — again
DiPalma, a Middletown Democrat, said that while the governor's office and an array of state agencies opposed the bill, the administration offered few, if any, recommendations on how to improve the state's public records law. Advertisement 'Categorically, it is going to take someone at the top saying, 'Here is how we can get it done,' ' DiPalma said. 'It's OK to say 'no.' But you need to come to the table with suggestions on how to make it better — unless you believe it's perfect.' Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up DiPalma, seen as a potential lieutenant governor candidate in 2026, said he will seek to have the bill heard earlier in next year's legislative session. 'I am not stopping,' he said. 'This is just cueing me to work harder.' DiPalma said he feels sorry for 'all the people who are impacted by this — those seeking information — and also for the cities and towns and others that asked us to address 'vexatious' records requests. That is falling on deaf ears.' Advertisement McKee spokesperson Laura Hart said, 'Transparency is in the public's interest — that's not in dispute — but the state must balance transparency with privacy rights and costs to the taxpayer. State and municipal experts who do this work every day have brought up numerous privacy concerns.' Among other issues, she said, 'Disclosing the names of preferred license plate owners violates the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. Disclosing subpoenas prematurely could negatively impact investigations,' and 'Narrowing the exceptions for doctor/patient communications could put health care privacy at risk.' Hart said the public records law was designed with the ability to charge fees to cover the costs of document collection, review, and redactions 'and to discourage overly broad requests that take staff time and taxpayer dollars to complete.' 'Requiring public records officer, instead of the courts, to determine fee waivers based on 'public interest' or when there is a 'denial' will add significant risk and expense, both in staff time and in unnecessary litigation, all financed by taxpayer dollars," Hart said. Steven Brown, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, said the McKee administration 'bombarded' legislators with objections to the bill. 'We just have to keep at it,' Brown said. 'At some point, I am hopeful the legislature will recognize that reform is absolutely essential, notwithstanding bogus objections from the executive branch.' John M. Marion, executive director of Common Cause Rhode Island, said, 'It's sad that the legislature just doesn't find it a priority to advance transparency in government. That's the single bill that would do the most, of the thousands of bills before them, to advance open government in Rhode Island at a time when people don't have a lot of trust in government.' Advertisement Advocates need to continue to link the legislation to people's everyday lives, Marion said. 'We also need to convince every legislator that this is really a bread-and-butter issue for them,' he said. 'This is about how government runs and how people can find out how government runs.' Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition, said, 'Government decisions affect the life of every Rhode Islander. From the Washington Bridge to local law enforcement, these are issues that matter to everyone. This APRA bill would allow us to better understand the decisions government makes and how our tax dollars are being spent. The bill will get passed one way or another, this year or next. Transparency and accountability are far too important to give up on.' This story first appeared in Rhode Map, our free newsletter about Rhode Island that also contains information about local events, links to interesting stories, and more. If you'd like to receive it via e-mail Monday through Friday, Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at
Boston Globe
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Governor McKee's administration opposes bill to overhaul R.I. public records law
Advertisement Legislators also received letters of opposition from the state departments of Administration; Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities & Hospitals; Environmental Management; Health; Human Services; Revenue; and Transportation. Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up In her five-page letter, Richards first took aim at a section of the bill that would provide access to the names of those who receive 'preferred license plates' through the governor's office, to the extent allowed by federal law. She emphasized that the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act ' completely prohibits the disclosure of this information and imposes civil and criminal penalties against state entities and individuals who violate its mandates.' She also said a 2024 state Superior Court decision affirmed that federal law's privacy protections specifically for 'preferred plate' holders. Richards also objected to a section of the bill that would provide the public with access to any subpoena 'issued by a governmental entity to a public body or a public official regarding official business.' Advertisement DiPalma, a Middletown Democrat, has said that proposal stems from McKee's refusal to disclose whether his administration received subpoenas in the investigation of a controversial education contract for up to $5.2 million awarded to the ILO Group in 2021. In October 2024, Attorney General Peter F. Neronha concluded In her letter, Richards argued that disclosing subpoenas would undermine criminal investigations. She said governmental bodies are often asked to respond to subpoenas and to keep them confidential, and many subpoenas served on governmental entities target third parties rather than the government itself. 'Disclosure of the existence and content of these subpoenas could impede ongoing state and federal investigations, ultimately harming the public,' Richards wrote. Another section of the bill would require public bodies, the attorney general, and court to reduce or waive public records fees if the request is made 'in the public interest.' Advocates have said that provision is tailored after the federal Freedom of Information Act, which allows requesters to appeal that public interest exemption to the agency providing the records. Advocates said many requests come from commercial entities clearly not motivated by public interest but that members of the media are seen as requesting documents in the public interest. Richards argued that courts are best equipped to make that determination. 'Public bodies should not be in the business of determining whose request is in the public's interest and whose is not,' she wrote. Advertisement Richards claimed that every request made by a member of the public could be considered 'in the public interest,' leaving the government unable to collect fees for any records requests. She said the ability to charge fees forces people to carefully tailor their requests and it deters 'abusive requests that are unreasonably broad, unduly burdensome, or intended to disrupt the public body's business.' DiPalma said he added one new provision to this year's bill to address concerns, raised by the Richards objected to a section of the bill that would prohibit public bodies for charging for the denial of a records request. She said records requests are often denied 'in part,' so the bill would keep public bodies from 'charging a reasonable fee for the labor-intensive, yet necessary, function of review and redaction.' Richards also objected to the proposed doubling of fines for 'knowing and willful' violations of the public records law from $2,000 to $4,000 and for 'reckless' violations from $1,000 to $2,000. 'State taxpayers will bear the burden of fines levied against state public bodies because those fines would be directed to certain municipalities,' she wrote. 'To the extent the fines are instead levied against an individual public records officer, the fines may discourage public servants from serving the important role of public records officer.' In his letter, Department of Transportation Director Peter Alviti Jr. objected to a provision that would require his department to release traffic accident data. 'RIDOT is deeply concerned that this language could compel the release of data that federal law explicitly protects from discovery, admissibility, or use in litigation,' he wrote. Advertisement Advocates said 42 other states make crash data available to the public, and some states go further by making data available through online portals so the public can see where crashes are occurring and demand safety improvements. But Alviti said, 'Requiring RIDOT to disclose federally protected data may place the state in direct conflict with federal law and compromise our ability to receive federal highway funding.' Also, he said the department would have to spend a lot time figuring out what data may be released according to federal and state law. 'It is important to note that RIDOT collects and maintains crash data solely for the purpose of designing and improving roadway safety,' Alviti wrote. 'The information referenced in this section is already available to the public through the Rhode Island State Police and local municipal police departments.' Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at
