R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5 (2026)

Purposes for which meeting may be closed — Use of electronic communications — Judicial proceedings — Disruptive conduct

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A public body may hold a meeting closed to the public pursuant to § 42-46-4 for one or more of the following purposes:

(1) Any discussions of the job performance, character, or physical or mental health of a person or persons provided that the person or persons affected shall have been notified in advance in writing and advised that they may require that the discussion be held at an open meeting.

Failure to provide notification shall render any action taken against the person or persons affected null and void. Before going into a closed meeting pursuant to this subsection, the public body shall state for the record that any persons to be discussed have been so notified and this statement shall be noted in the minutes of the meeting.

(2) Sessions pertaining to collective bargaining or litigation, or work sessions pertaining to collective bargaining or litigation.

(3) Discussion regarding the matter of security including, but not limited to, the deployment of security personnel or devices.

(4) Any investigative proceedings regarding allegations of misconduct, either civil or criminal.

(5) Any discussions or considerations related to the acquisition or lease of real property for public purposes, or of the disposition of publicly held property wherein advanced public information would be detrimental to the interest of the public.

(6) Any discussions related to or concerning a prospective business or industry locating in the state of Rhode Island when an open meeting would have a detrimental effect on the interest of the public.

(7) A matter related to the question of the investment of public funds where the premature disclosure would adversely affect the public interest. Public funds shall include any investment plan or matter related thereto, including, but not limited to, state lottery plans for new promotions.

(8) Any executive sessions of a local school committee exclusively for the purposes: (i) Of conducting student disciplinary hearings; or (ii) Of reviewing other matters that relate to the privacy of students and their records, including all hearings of the various juvenile hearing boards of any municipality; provided, however, that any affected student shall have been notified in advance in writing and advised that the student may require that the discussion be held in an open meeting.

Failure to provide notification shall render any action taken against the student or students affected null and void. Before going into a closed meeting pursuant to this subsection, the public body shall state for the record that any students to be discussed have been so notified and this statement shall be noted in the minutes of the meeting.

(9) Any hearings on, or discussions of, a grievance filed pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement.

(10) Any discussion of the personal finances of a prospective donor to a library.

(b) No meeting of members of a public body or use of electronic communication, including telephonic communication and telephone conferencing, shall be used to circumvent the spirit or requirements of this chapter; provided, however, these meetings and discussions are not prohibited.

(1) Provided, further however, that discussions of a public body via electronic communication, including telephonic communication and telephone conferencing, shall be permitted only to schedule a meeting, except as provided in this subsection.

(2) Provided, further however, that a member of a public body may participate by use of electronic communication or telephone communication while on active duty in the armed services of the United States.

(3) Provided, further however, that a member of that public body, who has a disability as defined in chapter 87 of this title and:

(i) Cannot attend meetings of that public body solely by reason of the member’s disability; and

(ii) Cannot otherwise participate in the meeting without the use of electronic communication or telephone communication as reasonable accommodation, may participate by use of electronic communication or telephone communication in accordance with the process below.

(4) The governor’s commission on disabilities is authorized and directed to:

(i) Establish rules and regulations for determining whether a member of a public body is not otherwise able to participate in meetings of that public body without the use of electronic communication or telephone communication as a reasonable accommodation due to that member’s disability;

(ii) Grant a waiver that allows a member to participate by electronic communication or telephone communication only if the member’s disability would prevent the member from being physically present at the meeting location, and the use of such communication is the only reasonable accommodation; and

(iii) Any waiver decisions shall be a matter of public record.

(5) The university of Rhode Island board of trustees members, established pursuant to § 16-32-2, are authorized to participate remotely in open public meetings of the board; provided, however, that:

(i) The remote members and all persons present at the meeting location are clearly audible and visible to each other;

(ii) A quorum of the body is participating;

(iii) If videoconferencing is used to conduct a meeting, the public notice for the meeting shall inform the public that videoconferencing will be used and include instructions on how the public can access the virtual meeting; and

(iv) The board shall adopt rules defining the requirements of remote participation including its use for executive session, and the conditions by which a member is authorized to participate remotely.

(6) The Rhode Island Life Science Hub board of directors, established pursuant to § 23-99-4, is authorized to participate remotely in open public meetings of the board, in accordance with the provisions of § 23-99-4(c).

(c) This chapter shall not apply to proceedings of the judicial branch of state government or probate court or municipal court proceedings in any city or town.

(d) This chapter shall not prohibit the removal of any person who willfully disrupts a meeting to the extent that orderly conduct of the meeting is seriously compromised.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1982–2020 · leading case: Rhode Island Affiliate, Am. Civil Liberties Union, Inc. v. Bernasconi, 557 A.2d 1232 (R.I. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rhode Island Affiliate, Am. Civil Liberties Union, Inc. v. Bernasconi, 557 A.2d 1232 (R.I. 1989). · cites it 5× “Furthermore, plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the mandates of § 42-46-4 in that defendants failed to cite accurately the correct exception to the open-meetings law as provided in § 42-46-5. This failure, according to plaintiffs, created a sufficient cause of action to…”
Hillside Assocs. v. Stravato, 642 A.2d 664 (R.I. 1994). · cites it 2× “1956 (1977 Reenactment) § 42-46-5(c). In accordance with Roberts , § 42-46-5(c) was amended in 1982 by replacing "judicial proceeding” with “judicial branch of state government or probate court or municipal court proceedings.”
Roberts v. City of Cranston Zoning Bd. of Review, 448 A.2d 779 (R.I. 1982). · cites it 4× “In dismissing the complaint against the board for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the trial justice ruled that § 42-46-5(c), which exempts from the open-meetings mandate “judicial proceedings, or proceedings reasonably related thereto,” applies to…”
Belcher v. Mansi, 569 F. Supp. 379 (D.R.I. 1983). · cites it 3× “Indeed, in this case plaintiff Belcher sought permission to record discussions of a WEA grievance, and permission was refused; that rejection stands as a classic example of content-based censorship through the enforcement of a policy giving public officials plenary power to…”
Ri Affiliate, Acclu v. Bernasconi, 557 A.2d 1232 (R.I. 1989). · cites it 5× “Furthermore, plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the mandates of § 42-46-4 in that defendants failed to cite accurately the correct exception to the open-meetings law as provided in § 42-46-5. This failure, according to plaintiffs, created a sufficient cause of action to…”
Mullen v. Town of Tiverton (D.R.I. 2020). · cites it 5× “R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(1-2). Within the May 5 meeting minutes, agenda item seven provides for a “possible executive session,” which is further detailed with the following: “Motion was made by Ms.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a) — 1 case
Mullen v. Town of Tiverton (D.R.I. 2020). “R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(1-2). Within the May 5 meeting minutes, agenda item seven provides for a “possible executive session,” which is further detailed with the following: “Motion was made by Ms.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(1) — 1 case
Ri Affiliate, Acclu v. Bernasconi, 557 A.2d 1232 (R.I. 1989). “Furthermore, plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the mandates of § 42-46-4 in that defendants failed to cite accurately the correct exception to the open-meetings law as provided in § 42-46-5. This failure, according to plaintiffs, created a sufficient cause of action to…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(2) — 1 case
Mullen v. Town of Tiverton (D.R.I. 2020). “R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(1-2). Within the May 5 meeting minutes, agenda item seven provides for a “possible executive session,” which is further detailed with the following: “Motion was made by Ms.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(3) — 2 cases
Rhode Island Affiliate, Am. Civil Liberties Union, Inc. v. Bernasconi, 557 A.2d 1232 (R.I. 1989). “Furthermore, plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the mandates of § 42-46-4 in that defendants failed to cite accurately the correct exception to the open-meetings law as provided in § 42-46-5. This failure, according to plaintiffs, created a sufficient cause of action to…”
Ri Affiliate, Acclu v. Bernasconi, 557 A.2d 1232 (R.I. 1989). “Furthermore, plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the mandates of § 42-46-4 in that defendants failed to cite accurately the correct exception to the open-meetings law as provided in § 42-46-5. This failure, according to plaintiffs, created a sufficient cause of action to…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(4) — 2 cases
Rhode Island Affiliate, Am. Civil Liberties Union, Inc. v. Bernasconi, 557 A.2d 1232 (R.I. 1989). “Furthermore, plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the mandates of § 42-46-4 in that defendants failed to cite accurately the correct exception to the open-meetings law as provided in § 42-46-5. This failure, according to plaintiffs, created a sufficient cause of action to…”
Ri Affiliate, Acclu v. Bernasconi, 557 A.2d 1232 (R.I. 1989). “Furthermore, plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the mandates of § 42-46-4 in that defendants failed to cite accurately the correct exception to the open-meetings law as provided in § 42-46-5. This failure, according to plaintiffs, created a sufficient cause of action to…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(l) — 1 case
Rhode Island Affiliate, Am. Civil Liberties Union, Inc. v. Bernasconi, 557 A.2d 1232 (R.I. 1989). “Furthermore, plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the mandates of § 42-46-4 in that defendants failed to cite accurately the correct exception to the open-meetings law as provided in § 42-46-5. This failure, according to plaintiffs, created a sufficient cause of action to…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(c) — 2 cases
Hillside Assocs. v. Stravato, 642 A.2d 664 (R.I. 1994). “1956 (1977 Reenactment) § 42-46-5(c). In accordance with Roberts , § 42-46-5(c) was amended in 1982 by replacing "judicial proceeding” with “judicial branch of state government or probate court or municipal court proceedings.”
Roberts v. City of Cranston Zoning Bd. of Review, 448 A.2d 779 (R.I. 1982). “In dismissing the complaint against the board for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the trial justice ruled that § 42-46-5(c), which exempts from the open-meetings mandate “judicial proceedings, or proceedings reasonably related thereto,” applies to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.