This lawsuit makes little sense on its face. The unions purport to be protecting their members non-public documents and information, but the public records law only applies to "public records" as defined under the statute (emphasis added):
(4) "Public record" or "public records" shall mean all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data processing records, computer stored data (including electronic mail messages, except specifically for any electronic mail messages of or to elected officials with or relating to those they represent and correspondence of or to elected officials in their official capacities), or other material regardless of physical form or characteristics made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency. For the purposes of this chapter, the following records shall not be deemed public:
(A)(I)(a) All records relating to a client/attorney relationship and to a doctor/patient relationship, including all medical information relating to an individual in any files.
(b) Personnel and other personal individually identifiable records otherwise deemed confidential by federal or state law or regulation, or the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy pursuant to 5 U.S.C. ยง 552 et seq.; provided, however, with respect to employees, and employees of contractors and subcontractors working on public works projects that are required to be listed as certified payrolls, the name, gross salary, salary range, total cost of paid fringe benefits, gross amount received in overtime, and any other remuneration in addition to salary, job title, job description, dates of employment and positions held with the state, municipality, or public works contractor or subcontractor on public works projects, employment contract, work location, and/or project, business telephone number, the city or town of residence, and date of termination shall be public. For the purposes of this section "remuneration" shall include any payments received by an employee as a result of termination, or otherwise leaving employment, including, but not limited to, payments for accrued sick and/or vacation time, severance pay, or compensation paid pursuant to a contract buy-out provision.
As described in the Complaint, Solas seeks "public records":
22. The requests include, but are not limited to, requests for records that may relate to labor relations Which do not constitute public records. For example, 0n May 16, 2021, Solas submitted Request N0. 48 Which calls for "digital copies pertaining to the AFL-CIO in the last four months." App. B, p. 1
23. The "AFL-CIO" is an acronym for the American Federation 0f Labor and Congress Industrial Organizations. It is a federation of unions that includes the NEA.
24. Solas also submitted Request N0. 100 Which calls for "digital copies 0f public documents relating t0 Patrick Crowley in the months of March, April, and May 2021." App. B, p. 1.
25. Patrick Crowley is a NEARI employee and Rhode Island AFL-CIO official.
The Complaint alleges a large document production on July 13 by the district, but does not allege that that production included records outside the scope of "public records" under the statute:
45. Based 0n the scope of the requests concerning Savastano's e-mails, upon information and belief, a response would call for communications between teachers Who are NEA members and Savastano that are not public records or would otherwise not be subject t0 disclosure because disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
46. On or about July 13, 2021, the Defendant School Committee responded t0 one of the recent APRA requests by releasing a total of about 6,500 pages of documents.
I don't know what those 6,500 pages contained, but if it's anything like what South Kingstown produced to Legal Insurrection Foundation pursuant to our request for records regarding a School Committee statement about Solas, it probably almost entirely redacted based on the exemptions in the statute:
[South Kingstown Letter to Legal Insurrection Foundation asserting exemptions]
[South Kingstown Redaction of Record to Legal Insurrection Foundation]
Another curious item. It seems that the unions are concerned that their actions regarding CRT and Solas will be disclosed by the district (emphasis added):
65. It is anticipated that teacher records will be produced that will be of a personal nature and will contain the identities of the teachers engaged in the personal communication as well as other communications that relate to personnel issues, disciplinary issues, performance issues, medical issues and issues not related t0 the official business of the School Department.
66. It is further anticipated that teacher records will be produced that may or will contain discussions about union-related activities which are not public records subj ect t0 disclosure.
67. It is further anticipated that teacher e-mails will be produced that may or will contain discussions about critical race theory curriculum or other issues 0f "interest" to the requestors that will contain individual teachers' names and personally identifiable information.
70. Given the circumstances 0f the requests, it is likely that any teachers who are identifiable and have engaged in discussions about things like critical race theory will then be the subject of teacher harassment by national conservative groups opposed to critical race theory.
The Rhode Island School Superintendents Association, with help from unions, has sought to amend the public records law, a matter first reported on by Legal Insurrection. Anticipate another push by the unions in light of this lawsuit.