The Complainant alleged that the City violated the APRA when it made approximately 500 redactions when producing over 5,000 calendar entries. Based on our in camera review, we found each redaction proper under the APRA. Numerous entries – such as those regarding interviewees who were not hired, those regarding a public official's safety, and those regarding the attorney-client privilege – were appropriately redacted in a manner consistent with our precedent and case law. Other entries were appropriately redacted where the public interest in disclosure did not outweigh the implicated privacy interests. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(A)(I)(b). We also noted that the Complainant did not submit any evidence that any City employee had engaged in any improper conduct nor did our in camera review disclose any such evidence. We concluded that the information redacted by the City did not advance the public interest in knowing "what their government is up to," U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 773 (1989), and/or was otherwise properly redacted. We found no violations.