The Rhode Island twist: incorporate as a fire district and the answer flips

This is the part that makes the gap visible rather than theoretical. Rhode Island's shoreline communities are frequently organised as chartered fire districts rather than as homeowners associations — and fire districts are public bodies, subject to both the Access to Public Records Act and the Open Meetings Act.

The pairing is almost comic. The Buttonwoods Association is not covered (PR 23-46). The Buttonwoods Fire District is: in OM 26-11, issued April 29, 2026, the AG found a violation because minutes for a February 2, 2026 meeting were not filed within the statutory window — “A copy of official or approved minutes shall be filed with the secretary of state…within thirty-five (35) days of the meeting” — and declined civil penalties only because the lapse was not willful or knowing.²

Same beach, same neighbours, opposite legal universes. And even the fire districts get one exemption: in OM 25-08, Solas v. Weekapaug Fire District, issued March 13, 2025, the AG held that “the OMA does not apply to the…Annual Meeting…because this meeting, in material respects, is analogous to the financial town meeting” — so the annual membership meeting of a Rhode Island fire district is outside the open-meetings law.

A verified negative worth stating plainly: across the complete 2025 and 2026 APRA and OMA dockets, no condominium association, homeowners association or common-interest community appears as a respondent.

No manager licence either

Rhode Island does not license community association managers. The Department of Business Regulation's Division of Real Estate and Commercial Licensing publishes what it licenses, and the list is long: real estate brokers and salespersons, real estate appraisers, appraisal management companies, short-term rentals, mobile and manufactured homes and parks, solar retailers, auto body shops, upholsterers, liquor wholesalers, health clubs, constables. No community association manager, no condominium manager, no property manager.

Nor does the licensing statute reach the work. Section 5-20.5-1 defines a real estate broker as one who, for consideration, “lists, sells, purchases, exchanges, rents, leases, prepares an opinion of value, or auctions any real estate”. Letting property for a fee is licensed activity in Rhode Island. Administering an association — collecting assessments, noticing meetings, procuring common-element maintenance, preparing budgets — is not in the list, and nothing in chapter 5-20.5 mentions associations, condominiums or common-interest communities.

The Condominium Act supplies no substitute. Section 34-36.1-3.02(a)(3) simply lets an association “[h]ire and discharge managing agents and other employees, agents and independent contractors” — with no qualification requirement. And the word “audit” appears nowhere in the Act's seventy-four sections, so a manager handling association money faces no statutory audit.

The contrast is the story: Rhode Island licenses the operator of a manufactured-home park and the person who reupholsters a sofa, and not the person running a two-hundred-unit condominium's bank account.

The 2026 bill that would have changed it, and died

H 7874, introduced February 27, 2026 by Representatives Cortvriend, Speakman and McGaw, would have created a chapter 34-36.2 titled “Oversight and Regulation of Management Committees”, applying “to any and all management committees in existence on or after July 1, 2026.”³

It would have required each management committee or its management company to “file an annual registration with the department, a copy of which shall be filed with the office of land records for the municipality in which the condominium project is located”, containing board members' names and addresses, the management company's name, the “[m]ost recent annual budget”, the “[m]ost recent reserve study, if any”, and a listing of pending litigation.

It would have imposed duties of “good faith and loyalty in relation to unit owners” and prohibited “[i]mproperly commingling funds in an escrow or trustee account” and “[c]ommingling funds of different associations”.

And it would have created the forum that does not exist: “A unit owner may file a complaint with the department regarding violations of this chapter”, with the DBR director empowered to “conduct investigations, audits, or hearings as necessary; issue subpoenas; administer oaths; compel testimony; and order the production of books, records, and documents”, and to “issue orders, fines, or corrective directives”.

House Corporations recommended it be held for further study on March 26, 2026. It had no Senate companion. It died.

So what does an owner actually have?

Rights, but no regulator. The remedies are self-help and the courts:

• Records. Section 34-36.1-3.18: “All financial and other records shall be made reasonably available for examination within thirty (30) days of a request by any unit owner and his or her authorized agent.” Thirty days, and it reaches pre-1982 condominiums. Note what it says: examination. The section confers no express right to copies, sets no fee, lists no exempt categories, and attaches no penalty. Our Rhode Island records inspection page covers how far it goes.
• The special meeting. Twenty percent of the votes forces one, and in Song v. Lemoine (May 19, 2025) the Supreme Court held petitioning owners “were entitled to the meeting they sought”.
• Removal. Two-thirds of those present at a meeting with a quorum, under § 34-36.1-3.03(g).
• Fees. Section 34-36.1-4.17 governs the effect of a violation on rights of action and attorney's fees.
• The corporate route. If the association is incorporated as a nonprofit, chapter 7-6 supplies members' meeting, records and derivative-suit mechanics — as corporate law, not housing law.

What to watch next

The sixteen-member condominium law commission reporting by December 31, 2027 was directed to identify constraints that “impede accessibly and transparency within condominium governance” — the typographical error is in the enrolled resolution — and to examine “best practices for conflict resolution between condominium owners and condominium association”. A recommendation to create a registry, an ombudsman or a licensing regime is the most likely thing to come out of it, and H 7874 is the draft already on the shelf.