AGO: North Providence Did Not Violate APRA In Tax Records Case

NORTH PROVIDENCE, RI — The Office of Attorney General Peter Neronha has ruled that the Town of North Providence did not violate Rhode Island public records law when it it did not provide certain tax delinquency information to a complainant.

Macy Patacsil had filed a request under the Access to Public Records Act, or APRA, seeking a list of addresses where property taxes were six months overdue. The North Providence tax collector's office directed Patacsil to a "tax sale list" available on the town website. When Patacsil asked for addresses not on the website, she was told that the town does not "compose any documents showing outstanding taxes on real estate." The clerk further attested that the the only record available was the one posted to the website, according to the Attorney General's narrative.

Patacsil argued that the response from North Providence violated the APRA, because she was able to obtain such information from other towns.

In ruling against Patacsil, Neronha's office noted that a public body does not violate the APRA by failing to provide records it does not maintain or that do not exist; while Patacsil attested that "such file should exist," she provided no evidence that the files actually do exist.

Live in North Providence? Click here to subscribe to our breaking news alerts delivered to your inbox and mobile devices. You can also download our Patch mobile app on Android or iPhone.

"Because the Town provided the Complainant with all responsive records the Town maintained, we find no violation," Neronha's office wrote.

Patacsil filed a similar complaint in Woonsocket, but in that case, City Solicitor John DeSimone was able to show that the town had in fact provided her with a list of tax-delinquent properties. In his July 19 ruling, Neronha's office found no violation.

Patacsil had also asked the Narragansett Bay Commission to release the street addresses and names of customers who were delinquent on their sewer bills for more than 90 days, and filed a complaint after that information was withheld.

Neronha's office wrote that the NBC was justified in withholding such information under the APRA's privacy exemption. The privacy interests of those affected would outweigh any public interest in releasing the names and addresses, and the "balancing test" would still hold even if the names were redacted, the ruling stated.

Public disclosure of such personal information would not serve to shed light upon the operations of a government agency, the AGO ruled.