PROVIDENCE — The Rhode Island Fishermen’s Alliance is appealing a judge’s decision that said the state doesn’t have to provide the street addresses of licensed commercial fishermen to the alliance, even though those addresses are considered public information.

In April, Superior Court Judge Gilbert V. Indeglia refused to force the state Department of Environmental Management to provide the street addresses to the alliance, saying, “Sometimes the associated privacy interests outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure.”

The alliance filed a notice of appeal June 21.

“We think it’s an erroneous decision because the court found that these are, in fact, public records,” alliance lawyer Robert J. Caron said yesterday. “Even if this balancing act is proper, I don’t see how the privacy interest in this case would outweigh the public’s right to know.”

That’s especially true, Caron said, because the DEM released the information twice before. He said, “The question becomes: Is it just a select few members of the public that get to see what has been deemed public records?”

DEM spokeswoman Gail Z. Mastrati said, “We will respond in accordance with the rules. Beyond that, we will have no further comment.”

The alliance of professional shellfish and fin fishermen wanted the list for mailings to promote membership and to rally opposition to some of the state’s new fishing regulations, which are enforced by the DEM.

The DEM responded by providing the names, hometowns and ZIP codes of the 100 or so commercial fishermen, but did not release their street addresses. The agency argued that those addresses were private information protected from disclosure under the state’s Access to Public Records Act because they constituted a confidential “benefit” to the fishermen — similar to welfare or medical benefits.

The alliance and its president, Richard Fuka, sued the DEM and its director, W. Michael Sullivan, in February, arguing that the street addresses are part of the public record and are not exempt from disclosure. Also, the alliance argued that the DEM gave up its right to deny the information when it previously handed essentially the same information to a University of Rhode Island professor and to the editor of a local magazine.

In a 16-page decision issued on April 17, Indeglia rejected the DEM’s argument that the addresses are a “benefit,” and he rejected the idea that the DEM must hand over the addresses because it previously released similar information.

Instead, Indeglia based his decision on a “balancing test,” saying: “Upon balancing the public and private interests involved in this case, this court finds that the home addresses of the licensees should not be disclosed by the DEM.”

“Rhode Island law is clear that the sole public interest in disclosure under the APRA is allowing the public to have access to the inner-workings of government agencies,” Indeglia wrote. “Here, the list of addresses of the licensees on file with the DEM will provide little insight into the performance of the DEM.”

Caron said the Superior Court transcript has been ordered and the next step will be for the state Supreme Court to issue a scheduling order.

efitzpat@projo.com