The Complainant alleged the AIPC violated the OMA with respect to improper notice for its February 24, 2015 and March 28, 2015 meetings. There was no question that the Complainant attended both meetings and the OMA provides that only "aggrieved" citizens may file a complaint regarding an alleged violation. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8(a); Graziano v. Rhode Island Lottery Commission, 810 A.2d 215 (R.I. 2002)(The Rhode Island Supreme Court found that it was "unnecessary" to address the merits of the OMA lawsuit because the plaintiffs had no standing to raise this issue since both plaintiffs were present at the meeting and were therefore not aggrieved by any defect in the notice.) The AIPC did not violate the OMA as there was no evidence that it discussed a subject-matter, other than what was noticed on the agenda, outside the public purview. With respect to the Complainant's APRA violations, we concluded that the AIPC did not violate the APRA with respect to her January 19, 2015 request as the evidence revealed she was provided responsive documents. The AIPC violated the APRA by failing to respond to the Complainant's March 3, 2015 APRA request wherein she sought the approved minutes for the AIPC's December 16, 2014 & January 13, 2015 meetings. No evidence has been presented of a willful and knowing, or reckless violation. Also, as the Complainant now has access to both sets of approved minutes, injunctive relief was not appropriate.