Jessica Marie Purcell v. Clay Johnson Clay Johnson in his capacity as Council Appointee to the Chariho Regional School Committee v. Chariho Regional School Committee ( 2023 )

Supreme Court
(Dissent begins on Page 18)
Jessica Marie Purcell :
v. : No. 2023-26-M.P.
Clay Johnson et al. :
Clay Johnson, in his capacity as :
Council Appointee to the Chariho
Regional School Committee, et al.
v. : No. 2023-28-M.P.
Chariho Regional School :
Committee.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision
before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers
are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme
Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence,
Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone 222-3258 or Email
opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov of any typographical or
other formal errors in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is published.
Supreme Court
(Dissent begins on Page 18)
Jessica Marie Purcell :
v. : No. 2023-26-M.P.
Clay Johnson et al. :
Clay Johnson, in his capacity as :
Council Appointee to the Chariho
Regional School Committee, et al.
v. : No. 2023-28-M.P.
Chariho Regional School :
Committee.
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.
OPINION
Justice Lynch Prata, for the Court. These are petitions in equity in the
nature of quo warranto, which came before the Supreme Court for oral argument on
April 13, 2023. Jessica Marie Purcell (Purcell) brings an action in quo warranto,
seeking a determination by the Supreme Court that Clay Johnson (Johnson) be
removed from the Chariho Regional School Committee (the School Committee) and
ordering the Town Council (the Council) of the Town of Richmond (the Town) to
appoint Purcell to the School Committee. Similarly, Johnson brings an action in quo
warranto, seeking a determination that he rightfully retain his membership on the
-1-
School Committee following his appointment to same by the Council. 2 For the
reasons set forth herein, we grant Purcell’s petition and deny Johnson’s petition.
Facts and Travel
The facts giving rise to the instant dispute are taken from the parties’ agreed-
upon statement of facts, as well as from their submissions to this Court. The Chariho
Regional School District (the School District) includes the towns of Charlestown,
Richmond, and Hopkinton, and its operating authority is the School Committee. The
jurisdiction of the School Committee is governed by the Chariho Act. See P.L. 1958,
ch. 55, as amended by P.L. 1986, ch. 286. The Chariho Act was adopted to authorize
the towns of Charlestown, Richmond and Hopkinton, to incorporate and join a
regional School District, providing for the issuance of bonds, construction and
operation of a regional school system for the joint use of the participating towns. Id.
At present, each member town elects four individuals to the twelve-member School
2
The Town and Johnson indicated in their brief that their quo warranto petition was
filed
“prior to the School Committee meeting at which Johnson
was to be seated – after counsel for the Chariho School
Committee represented that he would advise his client not
to recognize the new appointee as a member. On the night
of the meeting, however, counsel relented, and advised
that Johnson should be seated while Purcell’s quo
warranto petition was resolved, thus obviating the need for
the Town/Johnson petition.”
However, our record indicates that Johnson’s petition has not been withdrawn and
remains before the Court.
-2-
Committee. The School Committee members are elected to four-year terms on a
“staggered two-year election cycle,” meaning that each town elects two members of
the School Committee every two years. In the event of a vacancy on the School
Committee, § 10(1)(c) of the Chariho Act provides, in pertinent part, that:
“the town council of the member town in which
such vacancy occurs shall fill such vacancy by election by
a majority vote of the town council of said town for the
unexpired term of the member whose office is thus
vacated.”
The Town adopted a Home Rule Charter (the Charter) in 2008, which was
later ratified by the General Assembly in 2009. See P.L. 2009, ch. 12. Article 2,
§ 5(B) of the Charter, entitled “Vacancy in elective office[,]” provides, in part, if “a
school committee seat becomes vacant, the Town Council shall appoint the
unelected candidate who received the greatest number of votes for that office in the
most recent general or special election.”
On November 8, 2022, members of the Town elected two residents to their
town’s vacant seats on the School Committee; those positions were filled by Patricia
Pouliot, who received 1,549 votes, and Kathryn Colasante, who received 1,496
votes. The certified results indicated that Purcell received the third-highest number
of votes (1,469 votes), making her the unelected candidate with the highest number
of votes. On or about January 5, 2023, Gary Ligouri (Ligouri) submitted his
-3-
resignation from the School Committee to the Town Council.3 On January 19, 2023,
the Town Council voted to appoint Johnson to the resulting vacancy to serve the
remainder of Ligouri’s term. Johnson was thereafter sworn in and seated on the
School Committee.
On January 23, 2023, Purcell filed a petition in equity and memorandum of
law for writ of quo warranto against Johnson, the Council, and the School
Committee, seeking an order that removes Johnson from the School Committee and
requires the Council to appoint Purcell thereto, as prescribed by the Charter.4 The
next day, on January 24, 2023, Johnson and the Town filed an emergency quo
warranto petition, claiming right and title to the public office pursuant to the Act. 5
Jurisdiction
This Court has recognized that “‘an action to test one’s title to office is an
action in quo warranto,’ whereby one may bring a petition in equity in the nature of
quo warranto, asserting his or her right to the office at issue.” Felkner v. Chariho
Regional School Committee, 968 A.2d 865, 869 (R.I. 2009) (quoting McKenna v.
Williams, 874 A.2d 217, 228, 229 (R.I. 2005)). An action in quo warranto, “or an
3
Ligouri was elected to the School Committee from the Town in 2020, and his term
would have expired in 2024.
4
Purcell and Johnson are both residents of the Town.
5
Of note, the School Committee did not submit a brief in this matter. Furthermore,
neither the School District, nor the Towns of Charlestown and Hopkinton sought to
intervene. These actions were consolidated by an order entered on January 31, 2023.
-4-
information in the nature of quo warranto, is a common law remedy or proceeding
whereby the state directs an individual to show by what warrant he holds public
office and to oust him from its enjoyment if the claim is not well found.” Fargnoli
v. Cianci, 121 R.I. 153, 161, 397 A.2d 68, 72 (1979). A petitioner who prevails
“obtains a decree which not only ousts the respondent from office but also declares
that the petitioner is the rightful holder of the office in dispute.” Fargnoli, 121 R.I.
at 162, 397 A.2d at 73. The petitioning party “bears the burden of establishing by a
fair preponderance of the evidence that the respondent is not entitled to the office
and should be ousted and that the petitioner is the rightful holder of the office.”
Seemann v. Kinch, 606 A.2d 1308, 1310 (R.I. 1992).
Jurisdiction over such claims is vested exclusively in the Supreme Court when
brought by a private citizen. See G.L. 1956 § 10-14-1 (“The title to any office, to
determine which the writ of quo warranto lies at the common law, may be brought
in question by petition to the [S]upreme [C]ourt.”); see also McKenna, 874 A.2d at
229 (“A private citizen who questions the right of an incumbent to hold office may
employ only a petition in equity in the nature of quo warranto, and jurisdiction over
such petitions is exclusively vested in the Supreme Court.”). 6
6
Pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 10-14-2:
“In any proceeding upon writ of quo warranto, or by
information or by petition in the nature of quo warranto,
the [C]ourt may determine the title of the relator or
-5-
Discussion
The ultimate question presented by the instant petitions is whether the Council
followed the proper procedure in appointing Johnson to fill the vacancy on the
School Committee subsequent to Ligouri’s resignation. More specifically, whether
the Council properly elected Johnson pursuant to § 10(1)(c) of the Chariho Act, or
whether the Council violated Article 2, § 5(B) of the Charter by not appointing
Purcell, the unelected candidate who received the greatest number of votes for that
office in the most recent general or special election.
We must start by addressing the threshold question of whether the Charter has
been ratified. This Court has stated that “no provision affecting education contained
within a home rule charter, so called, can effectively regulate the conduct of school
committees as agents of the state unless expressly validated by an act of the general
assembly.” Royal v. Barry, 91 R.I. 24, 30, 160 A.2d 572, 575 (1960). However, “if
[the General Assembly] chooses to do so it may by appropriate legislation validate
petitioner as well as that of the respondent; and in any such
proceeding, all or any persons claiming the same office by
whatever title, or claiming different offices depending
upon the same election or appointment, may be made
parties, and their respective rights may be ascertained and
determined; and the court may consolidate for the
purposes of healing and adjudication all such proceedings
if brought separately.”
-6-
any provision in a home rule charter which is inconsistent with this [requirement].”
Opinion to the House of Representatives, 80 R.I. 288, 296, 96 A.2d 627, 631 (1953).
Purcell maintains that the General Assembly expressly ratified the entire
Charter in section 1 of P.L. 2009, ch. 12 and, further, that the Chariho Act and the
Charter can be read congruently. She emphasizes that this Court has said that to be
considered expressly ratified, the ratification of a charter as a whole is sufficient.
Purcell argues that, if the Chariho Act and the Charter are in conflict, the canons of
statutory construction mandate that the Charter prevails because it is more specific
than the Chariho Act and that it became effective and is more recent in time than the
Chariho Act.
Johnson’s most emphatic argument is that the vacancy provision of the
Charter was not expressly ratified by the General Assembly because the Chariho Act
was not referenced in either section 1 or 2 of the public law ratifying the Charter
and, therefore, it did not attain the status of a state law. Specifically, Johnson asserts
that the voters of the Town approved a Charter that would supersede any inconsistent
legislation enacted by the General Assembly specifically for the benefit of the Town,
and, thus, the Chariho Act does not qualify because it governs three municipalities.
Moreover, Johnson points to the Rhode Island Constitution, which gives authority
to the General Assembly over all aspects of public education as a matter of statewide,
not local concern. Johnson maintains that “the General Assembly passed a specific,
-7-
limited ratification” of the Charter that did not repeal the Chariho Act’s vacancy-
filling provision because the Chariho Act applies to three municipalities and is not a
statute of general statewide application, nor does it apply to just the Town.
Therefore, according to Johnson, the Chariho Act controls. If the Court deems the
Charter ratified, then Johnson argues that the statutes cannot be harmonized because
they are incompatible and, therefore, the Chariho Act should control.
The initial question before us is what constitutes “express validation.” The
Town voted on and adopted the Charter in 2008. The General Assembly ratified the
Charter in 2009. In pertinent part, P.L. 2009, ch. 12, states:
“SECTION 1. In all respects in which the Home Rule
Charter adopted by the electors of the Town of Richmond
on November 4, 2008 may require ratification,
confirmation, validation or enactment by the General
Assembly, but in no other respects, the provisions of the
Home Rule charter of the Town of Richmond are hereby
ratified, confirmed, validated and enacted. It is the express
intent of the General Assembly by the passage of this Act
to give effect and to ratify, confirm, validate and enact
those provisions of the said Home Rule Charter of the
Town of Richmond that require ratification, confirmation,
validation or enactment, and by the passage of this Act,
the General Assembly does hereby ratify, confirm, validate
and enact said Home Rule Charter, but nothing in this Act
shall be construed to abrogate or impair the powers now
or hereafter granted to the towns by Article XIII of the
Constitution of the State of Rhode Island or those rights
retained by said Town of Richmond.
“SECTION 2. All special acts or portions of special acts
of the General Assembly enacted solely for the benefit of
the Town of Richmond that are inconsistent with the
-8-
provisions of the Home Rule Charter adopted by the
electors of the Town of Richmond on November 4, 2008
are hereby repealed, including but not limited to Chapter
1674 of the Public Laws of 1930 (election of town
officers), Chapter 3705 of the Public Laws of 1956
(election of town officers), Chapter 264 of the Public Laws
of 1968 (tax assessor and board of review), Chapter 106 of
the Public Laws of 1969 (tax assessor and board of
review), Chapter 362 of the Public Laws of 1978 (fees
collected by public officials), Chapter 35 of the Public
Laws of 1988 (tax bills), Chapter 79 of the Public Laws of
2002 (Planning Board alternates), Chapter 124 of the
Public Laws of 1986 (street acceptance), Chapter 39 of the
Public Laws of 1967 (budget committee), Chapter 17 of
the Public Laws of 1990 (budget committee), Chapter 52
of the Public Laws of 1990 (financial town meeting),
Chapter 17 of the Public Laws of 1993 (financial town
meeting); and Chapter 51 of the Public Laws of 1990
(board of finance).” (Emphasis added.)
Ratification of a charter as a whole by the General Assembly has been
sufficient to expressly ratify a provision of the charter. See Foster Glocester
Regional School Building Committee v. Sette, 996 A.2d 1120, 1125-26 (R.I. 2010)
(holding that an inconsistent special act creating a regional school district and a
ratified Home Rule Charter must be analyzed using statutory construction); see also
P.L. 1991, ch. 55. Here, the General Assembly expressly ratified the entire Charter.
Section 1 of P.L. 2009, ch. 12 provides that “[i]n all respects in which the Home
Rule Charter * * * may require ratification, confirmation, validation or enactment
by the General Assembly, but in no other respects, the provisions of the Home Rule
charter of the Town of Richmond are hereby ratified, confirmed, validated and
-9-
enacted.” See P.L. 2009, ch. 12, § 1 (emphasis added). As was the case in Sette, the
public law ratifies the Charter with broad language, thereby enacting all provisions
that required it. See P.L. 1991, ch. 55; P.L. 2009, ch. 12. 7 We “presume[] that the
General Assembly knows the state of existing relevant law when it enacts or amends
a statute.” Power Test Realty Company Limited Partnership v. Coit, 134 A.3d 1213,
1222 (R.I. 2016) (quoting Retirement Board of Employees’ Retirement System of
Rhode Island v. DiPrete, 845 A.2d 270, 287 (R.I. 2004)). To require the General
Assembly to enumerate each provision of a municipal charter, after stating its
express intent to ratify, confirm, validate or enact all of the provisions therein that
require it, would be an absurd result. Mendes v. Factor, 41 A.3d 994, 1002 (R.I.
2012) (“[U]nder no circumstances will this Court construe a statute to reach an
absurd result.”) (internal quotations marks omitted).
7
As is true in the present case, P.L. 1958, ch. 109, the act creating the Foster-
Glocester Regional School District, provided a comprehensive statutory structure
that laid out procedures and authorizations for the operation of a regional school
district. See Foster Glocester Regional School Building Committee v. Sette, 996
A.2d 1120, 1122-23 (R.I. 2010). In pertinent part, P.L. 1958, ch. 109, § 1 states:
“There is hereby established a regional school district
comprising the towns of Foster and Glocester in
accordance with the terms of the agreement filed with the
town councils of the towns of Foster and Glocester by the
regional school district planning board established under
the provisions of general laws, 1956, 16-3 and accepted by
the town of Foster at a financial town meeting held on
March 3, 1958 and by the town of Glocester at a financial
town meeting held on March 8, 1958.”
- 10 -
It is clear that the language used by the General Assembly in section 1 of P.L.
2009, ch. 12 enacts all provisions of the Charter, including Article 2, § 5(B). Section
2 repeals all special acts or portions of special acts enacted by the General Assembly
“solely for the benefit of the Town of Richmond that are inconsistent with the
provisions of the Home Rule Charter,” and it specifically enumerated those acts. See
P.L. 2009, ch. 12, § 2 (emphasis added). No portion of the Chariho Act was listed
among the statutes to be repealed. 8 See id. Under the Home Rule Amendment that
is set forth in article 13 of the Rhode Island Constitution, a municipality may adopt
charter provisions that affect education, as long as such charter provisions are
ratified by an explicit legislative act. See Town of Johnston v. Santilli, 892 A.2d 123,
128 (R.I. 2006).
Next, we must determine if the Chariho Act and the Charter can be
harmonized. It is “an especially well-settled principle of statutory construction” that
when two laws are in pari materia, the Court will harmonize them whenever
possible. Horn v. Southern Union Co., 927 A.2d 292, 295 (R.I. 2007); see also Kells
v. Town of Lincoln, 874 A.2d 204, 212 (R.I. 2005). Even if the laws appear at first
to be inconsistent, the Court will make every effort to construe the provisions “in
such a manner so as to avoid the inconsistency.” Kells, 874 A.2d at 212 (quoting
8
At oral argument, both sides conceded that the Chariho Act was not amended or
repealed either in whole or in part.
- 11 -
Montaquila v. St. Cyr, 433 A.2d 206, 214 (R.I. 1981)). “This rule of construction
applies even though the statutes in question [may] contain no reference to each other
and are passed at different times.” State v. Ahmadjian, 438 A.2d 1070, 1081 (R.I.
1981).
Purcell’s contention is that there is no impediment to the Council’s conduct
being in harmony with both the Charter and the Chariho Act. She reasons that to
follow the procedures for filling a vacancy set forth in the Charter, the Council does
not necessarily need to breach the procedure mandated by the Chariho Act.
Conversely, Johnson maintains that the ministerial procedure of appointing the next
highest vote-getter set out in the Charter cannot be harmonized with the discretionary
procedure, giving the Council the authority to choose the next School Committee
member, in the Chariho Act. Johnson suggests that the possibility of the Council
appointing Purcell without violating the Chariho Act is not the proper standard, and
that the question is whether the Charter’s mandated appointment is inconsistent with
the Chariho Act’s discretionary appointment.
The Chariho Act is silent as to whom the Council may appoint. That silence
places no limitation on whom the Council may elect. Orthopedic Specialists, Inc. v.
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., 120 R.I. 378, 387, 388 A.2d 352, 357 (1978)
(“[W]here the Legislature is silent, we cannot break their silence and fill any
perceived statutory voids by judicial interpretation or implication.”). Therefore, the
- 12 -
Chariho Act leaves the discretion of who is elected to the Council. Conversely, the
Charter is specific in requiring that the Council “shall appoint the unelected
candidate who received the greatest number of votes for that office in the most recent
general or special election.” Richmond Town Charter, Art. 2, § 5(B). It is clear that
there is no discretion within the Charter’s procedures as to filling a vacancy on the
School Committee. The direction of the Council’s conduct in the Charter is clearly
inconsistent with the discretion provided to the Council in the Chariho Act. In
attempting to harmonize the inconsistent provisions, the discretion of the Chariho
Act is effectively nullified. Section 10(1)(c) of the Chariho Act and Article 2, § 5(B)
of the Charter cannot be harmonized.
We must now turn to the applicable canons of statutory construction to
identify which of the conflicting laws controls. “When this Court engages in
statutory construction, ‘our ultimate goal is to give effect to the purpose of the act as
intended by the Legislature.’” Powers v. Warwick Public Schools, 204 A.3d 1078,
1085 (R.I. 2019) (quoting State v. Whiting, 115 A.3d 956, 958 (R.I. 2015)). This
Court follows the rule of statutory construction that, when faced with “competing
statutory provisions that cannot be harmonized, we adhere to the principle that ‘the
specific governs the general * * *.’” Felkner, 968 A.2d at 870 (quoting Morales v.
Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 384 (1992)). “When a specific statute
conflicts with a general statute, our law dictates that precedence must be given to the
- 13 -
specific statute.” South County Post & Beam, Inc. v. McMahon, 116 A.3d 204, 215
(R.I. 2015) (quoting Warwick Housing Authority v. McLeod, 913 A.2d 1033, 1036-
37 (R.I. 2007)). “[I]t is a ‘general rule of statutory construction that when a statute
of general application conflicts with a statute that specifically deals with a special
subject matter, and when the two statutes cannot be construed harmoniously
together, the special statute prevails over the statute of general application.’” City of
Woonsocket v. RISE Prep Mayoral Academy, 251 A.3d 495, 501 (R.I. 2021)
(deletion omitted) (quoting Whitehouse v. Moran, 808 A.2d 626, 629-30 (R.I.
2002)). If a statute cannot be construed as more specific, we will adopt the statute
more recent in time. Berthiaume v. School Committee of City of Woonsocket, 121
R.I. 243, 248-49, 397 A.2d 889, 893 (1979) (“Only when the two statutory
provisions are irreconcilably repugnant will a repeal be implied and the last-enacted
statute be preferred.”).
Originally enacted in 1958, the Chariho Act set forth a statutory structure that
created the Chariho Regional School District and took governing jurisdiction over
the School District. See P.L. 1958, ch. 55. The statutory structure laid out procedures
and authorizations for special elections, corporate powers, bond authorizations,
committee meetings, curricula, building committees, and budgets, among other
things. See id. This expansive statutory structure did not, however, account for a
vacancy on the School Committee in any provision. In 1986 the General Assembly
- 14 -
authorized amendments and additions to the 1958 form of the Chariho Act. See P.L.
1986, ch. 286. The amendments and additions included amendments concerning
special elections, bonds, budgets, meeting procedures, and the addition of a School
Committee vacancy-filling provision. See id.The Charter was originally adopted in 2008 and was later ratified by the
General Assembly in 2009. See P.L. 2009, ch. 12. It provides that it was enacted “to
secure for [the citizens] and for future generations the right to local self-government
guaranteed to us by Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of Rhode Island[.]”
Richmond Town Charter, Preamble. Thereafter, amendments to the Charter were
adopted in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2015 and 2022.9 The relevant language from Article
2, § 5(B) of the Charter, entitled “Vacancy in elective office[,]” has never been
amended from its original 2008 form.
The primary question of statutory construction before us is which statute is
more specific, the Charter or the Chariho Act. We have been clear that when “the
specific terms are controlling, this Court will defer to the more precise language
governing a particular subject.” Felkner, 968 A.2d at 870. As was discussed above,
Sette made clear that a charter ratified by the General Assembly prevails over a
9
The Charter’s 2022 amendments have just recently been ratified by the General
Assembly and became effective without the Governor’s signature at the time of this
writing with legislation that mirrors the ratification language of P.L. 2009, ch. 12,
with the exception that there is no explicit repeal of inconsistent laws in the recent
legislation.
- 15 -
statewide law and that an act limited to regional school issues cannot be fairly
characterized as a general state law. Sette, 996 A.2d at 1125-26. However, in the
event of conflict, we will construe “the provisions of a municipal charter in
accordance with the customary rules of statutory construction.” Id. at 1126. In Sette,
this Court said that a home rule charter that has been ratified “by an explicit
legislative act” carries the same weight as a special act. Id. at 1125. More
specifically, like in the instant case, the ratified legislation’s purpose was to establish
and manage a regional school district. See id. at 1122-23. We were clear in Sette
that a charter ratified by the General Assembly prevails over an inconsistent
provision of a law of statewide application. Id. at 1125-26. This Court concluded
that Glocester’s charter had been explicitly ratified; therefore, in the event of a
conflict, the question becomes one of specific versus general. Id. at 1126.
The Chariho Act provides a simple mechanism where the Council by a
majority vote shall fill a vacancy on the School Committee. There is no guidance as
to who the new appointee will be, with complete discretion given to the Town
Council. These general terms of the Chariho Act are applicable across three towns
with just one procedure in place.10 See P.L. 1958, ch. 55, as amended by P.L. 1986,
ch. 286, § 10(1)(a). At oral argument, counsel acknowledged that it sets out a
Again, we note that the School Committee, the School District, and the Towns of
10
Charlestown and Hopkinton opted to not seek to be heard in these matters.
- 16 -
completely discretionary procedure. By comparison, the Charter precisely sets forth
a process by which the Council shall appoint “the unelected candidate who received
the greatest number of votes for that office in the most recent general or special
election.” Richmond Town Charter, Art. 2, § 5(B). Furthermore, the Charter outlines
an entire procedure to fill the vacancy in the event that appointee is not available by
selecting, “in sequence the unelected candidates who received the next greatest
number of votes.” Id. If no appointee in that sequence is available, the Charter gives
authority to the Council to “appoint a qualified elector to serve the remainder of the
term.” Id. The Charter is specific in its outline of a substantive procedure to fill the
vacancy and precise in who the appointee will be. The Charter is clearly more
specific. For these reasons, the Charter controls.
Our ultimate goal is to give effect to the purpose of the statutes as intended by
the General Assembly, and we presume that the Legislature knew that the Chariho
Act included a general vacancy provision for the School Committee when it
approved the Charter that included a more specific vacancy-filling provision for the
School Committee. See Power Test Realty Company Limited Partnership, 134 A.3d
at 1222. It is clear that it was the will of the voters in the Town to have procedures
in place to fill a vacancy on the School Committee with an individual who had shown
some effort and desire to be on the School Committee by running for the seat. Article
2, § 5(B) of the Charter fills the vacancy with the next-highest vote-getter in the most
- 17 -
recent general or special election. While the Chariho Act affects three towns, all of
the towns have an equal number of seats on the School Committee. The procedures
by which an empty seat is filled by one community has no bearing on the other
communities.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Johnson’s petition is denied and dismissed.
Accordingly, Purcell’s petition is granted, and she is legally entitled to the office of
Chariho Regional School Committee member. A judgment of ouster from the office
of school committee member in the Chariho Regional School District shall be
entered against Johnson.
Justice Goldberg, dissenting. Because I am convinced that the decree and
judgment of ouster issued by the majority has been wrongfully decided, I dissent. 1
Under this Court’s long-standing and well-established jurisprudence unless, when it
ratified the Richmond Home Rule Charter (Richmond Town Charter or Charter), the
General Assembly expressly ratified and validated a specific provision—Article 2,
§ 5(B) of the Richmond Town Charter—the provision addressing the filling of
vacant seats on the Chariho Regional School Committee, an elected body, vested
1
I confine my analysis in this dissenting opinion to the petition of Jessica Marie
Purcell.
- 18 -
with “all the powers and duties conferred by law in this state upon school committees
of towns,” P.L. 1958, ch. 55, § 10(3) as amended (the Chariho Act), the Charter
provision is void as to the Chariho Regional School Committee.
The responsibility of resolving conflicts that arise where the state and a
municipality have each legislated on the same subject matter is left to the courts.
Marro v. General Treasurer of City of Cranston, 108 R.I. 192, 196, 273 A.2d 660,
662 (1971). After carefully examining the relevant statutory provisions upon which
petitioner Purcell relies, including the various iterations of the Chariho Act that span
sixty-five years and this Court’s numerous and clear pronouncements when
confronted with a provision in a home rule charter that concerns the constitutional
authority over education and elections reserved to the General Assembly, I am of the
opinion that Article 2, § 5(B) of the Richmond Town Charter does not supersede the
Chariho Act under article 13 of the Rhode Island Constitution.
This Court has declared that “the regulation of elections, Opinion to the House
of Representatives, 80 R.I. 288, 96 A.2d 627 [(1953)]; education, Royal v. Barry, 91
R.I. 24, 160 A.2d 572 [(1960)]; licensing, State v. Krzak, [97 R.I. 156, 196 A.2d 417(1964)]; Newport Amusement Co. v. Maher, [92 R.I. 51, 166 A.2d 216 (1960)]; and
the conduct of business, Nugent ex rel. Hurd v. City of East Providence, 103 R.I.
518, 238 A.2d 758 [(1968)], were matters with respect to which the state had not
- 19 -
surrendered its sovereignty to a home rule municipality.” Marro, 108 R.I. at 196 n.5,
273 A.2d at 662 n.5.
I am of the opinion that Article 2, § 5(B) of the Richmond Town Charter strips
the town council of its discretion, by election of a majority vote of the town council,
to fill a vacancy on the Chariho Regional School Committee, a separate body politic
statutorily created by the General Assembly. Because Article 2, § 5(B) mandates
the appointment of an unelected candidate from the last election, it is in conflict with
the General Assembly’s exclusive jurisdiction over elections and education and it
does not supersede the Chariho Act.
In accordance with this Court’s long-standing and well-established
jurisprudence, this Court should conclude, in the exercise of our original jurisdiction,
that the Charter provision was not expressly ratified by the General Assembly, as
that requirement has been defined by this Court. The majority’s reliance on the
general ratification provision for the Richmond Town Charter, found in P.L. 2009,
ch. 12 is erroneous, in my opinion. It is my belief that express ratification is a
manifestation of assent by the General Assembly that a specific provision of a charter
that affects the plenary powers of the General Assembly over school committees and
education has been delegated to a city or town, after the enactment of a home rule
charter.
- 20 -
I also disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Article 2, § 5(B) of the
Richmond Town Charter meets this Court’s long-standing canons of statutory
construction that is the more specific provision before us. As will be discussed
herein, when an act of the General Assembly conflicts with a charter provision that
has been expressly validated by the General Assembly, as the majority concludes,
the charter provision takes precedence over the statute and the analysis is at an end.
Statutory construction is unnecessary.
I also disagree with the conclusions reached by the majority that the provision
in the Richmond Town Charter is the more specific enactment before us. The
majority failed to examine the Chariho Act in its entirety and the sixty-five-year
history of the General Assembly’s authority over this regional school district. The
majority, erroneously I conclude, confined its analysis to a single subsection of
Section 10 of the Chariho Act.
The vacancy provision of the Chariho Act that is the subject of this petition
was first enacted and approved by the voters of three towns in 1986; Section 10 was
amended twice after 1986, in 2006 and in 2016, and each amendment restated the
vacancy provision. Section 10 of the Chariho Act addresses, in every aspect, the
creation, election, duties, and authority vested in a regional school district. It spans
several pages of text and sets forth in comprehensive detail the number of seats on
the School Committee, the number of members, who must be elected (not appointed)
- 21 -
in direct proportion to its population in the district, and be qualified electors of the
town, and, significantly, it sets forth how a vacancy must be filled by each of the
three member towns. Although it is my opinion that statutory construction is
unnecessary in this case, it is safe to conclude that Article 2, § 5(B) is not the more
specific of the two.
Quo Warranto
When this Court presides over a petition in equity in the nature of quo
warranto, in accordance with G.L. 1956 § 10-14-1, we exercise our original
jurisdiction, in which the petitioner asserts his or her right to the office at issue.
McKenna v. Williams, 874 A.2d 217, 229 (R.I. 2005). “A successful petitioner
obtains a decree which not only ousts the respondent from office but also declares
that the petitioner is the rightful holder of the office[] in dispute.” Fargnoli v. Cianci,
121 R.I. 153, 162, 397 A.2d 68, 73 (1979). Accordingly, the Court proceeds by
carefully examining the claim or claims before us, with cautious attention to the
warrant upon which the petitioner seeks to establish his or her own title to the office
and to oust a purported holder of that office. See Whitehouse v. Moran, 808 A.2d
626, 628-29 (R.I. 2002) (citing Fargnoli, 121 A.2d at 162, 397 A.2d at 73). I begin
with the Chariho Regional School Committee, the body to which the petition relates
and the Act of the General Assembly giving rise to the Chariho Regional School
District.
- 22 -
The Chariho Act
Sixty-five years ago, the General Assembly enacted enabling legislation
authorizing “the Towns of Charlestown and Richmond together, or together with the
Town of Hopkinton, to join a Regional High School District,” P.L. 1958, ch. 55,
upon vote of the qualified electors of the three towns, at a special election, id. § 1,
after which the towns “jointly together [were] hereby incorporated into a regional
high school district as a body corporate and politic * * *.” Id. § 2 (emphasis added).
After voter approval by each municipality, the regional high school district
committee became operational. The 1958 enabling act set forth the authority of the
regional high school district to issue bonds and construct a regional high school, after
approval by a majority of the qualified voters at a meeting of the regional high school
district.2 See P.L. 1958, ch. 55, § 1. Section 10 of the enabling act provided for a
regional high school committee “consisting of three (3) members from each member
town, each of whom shall be a duly elected or appointed member of the school
committee of the respective towns.” Id. § 10. Thus, these members were drawn from
the existing school committees of each town, which, of course, continued to operate
their respective school systems, except the high school. Section 10 also specifically
detailed the selection of future members in the event “the school committee of any
2
A quorum for regional high-school district meetings was seventy-five qualified
voters. See P.L. 1958, ch. 55, § 9(5).
- 23 -
member town is or shall be increased in size from the now existing three (3)
members[,] the school committee of such town shall choose from among its own
membership the three (3) members to serve on the regional high school committee.”
Id. (emphasis added).
Twenty-eight years later, in 1986, the General Assembly again turned its
attention to education in the towns of Charlestown, Hopkinton, and Richmond and
amended the 1958 enabling act significantly, including the name. Public Laws 1986,
ch. 286, entitled “An Act in Amendment of and in Addition to Chapter 55 of the
Public Laws, 1958 * * *,” was enacted, approved by the voters and created a regional
school district. The 1986 Act amended every section of the 1958 enabling act—
including the name. It has become known as the Chariho Act and the body politic
that was formed after the requisite voter approval is the Chariho Regional School
Committee.
The 1986 Act granted authority for the regional school district “[t]o adopt a
name and to adopt and use a corporate seal” and “acquire, take over, operate and
control all regional schools including lands, buildings, equipment, furnishings * * *
for the joint and common use of the member towns * * * for the education of pupils
attending grades kindergarten through 12 inclusive * * *.” Public Laws 1986, ch.
286, § 2(1), (3).
- 24 -
Section 10 of the 1986 Act provided for the creation of a regional school
committee consisting of eleven members, with each town represented “in direct
proportion to its population as determined by the most recent population census
figures.” Public Laws 1986, ch. 286, § 10(1)(a). Section 10(1)(a) was
comprehensive. It set forth with precision the manner in which the members are to
be elected, the number and length of terms for the initial years and thereafter, and
the filling of vacancies. Section 10 of P.L. 1986, ch. 286 provides in relevant part
as follows:
“(1)(a) There shall be a regional school committee for said
district consisting of eleven (11) members, each member
town shall be represented on the committee in direct
proportion to its population as determined by the most
recent population census figures. The total population of
the district shall then be divided by eleven (11) and the
resulting quotients thus obtained shall be used as the basis
for determining the proportionate representation of each
said member town on said committee, and realizing that
the mathematical divisions of said formula will not obtain
absolute evenness, fractions of .5 or more shall be
construed as 1 point and fractions less than .5 shall be
construed as 0. Subject to limitations aforesaid, the
members of said committee from each of the member
towns to be elected or appointed for terms hereinafter set
forth shall be determined as of the time of each bi-annual
election and each of the said member towns, based upon
the census aforesaid. The first such regional school
committee shall be elected in the general election in
November, 1988. In the general election 1988 each town
electing three (3) members of the school committee shall
elect two (2) members to serve a term of four (4) years and
one (1) member to serve a term of two (2) years. A town
electing more than three (3) representatives shall elect
- 25 -
three (3) members for a term of two (2) years and
additional members for a term of four (4) years.
Thereafter members shall be elected for a term of four (4)
years. Until such time as those elected in that election
shall be certified and qualified, the existing Chariho
Regional High School District Committee shall serve as
the Regional School Committee. In the event of any
vacancy by death, resignation or incapacity to serve of any
term of any member of said regional school district
committee, the town council of the member town in which
such vacancy occurs shall fill such vacancy by election by
a majority vote of the town council of said town for the
unexpired term of the member whose office is thus
vacated.” (Emphasis added.)
While it is clear that in enacting P.L. 1986, ch. 286, the General Assembly
exercised its plenary authority over both education and the election and terms of
school committees, my focus in this dissent is the authority of the General Assembly
over education. The highlighted final sentence in Section 10(1)(a) in the 1986
enabling act, although restated by the General Assembly over the years, has
remained unchanged, the last iteration in 2016 a mere seven years ago. The 2016
amendment, P.L. 2016, ch. 86, provides in relevant part as follows:
“SECTION 1. Section 10(1) of Chapter 286 of 1986 Public
Laws, * * * is hereby amended to read as follows:
“SECTION 10. (l)(a) There shall be a regional school
committee for said district. * * * Each member town shall
be represented on the committee in direct proportion to its
population. * * * On the effective date of this amendment,
one seat shall be added to the school committee, for a total
of twelve (12) seats. The Richmond Town Council shall
appoint a qualified elector to the twelfth seat for a term
that expires in November 2018. In the general election of
- 26 -
2018, Richmond voters shall elect a school committee
member to the twelfth seat to serve a four-year (4) term
that expires in November 2022.
“* * *
“(1)(c) In the event of any vacancy by death, resignation,
or incapacity to serve of any term of any member of said
regional school district committee, the town council of the
member town in which such vacancy occurs shall fill such
vacancy by election by a majority vote of the town council
of said town for the unexpired term of the member whose
office is thus vacated.” 3 (Emphasis added.)4
My examination of the amendments to the Chariho Act over the years
convinces me that the General Assembly has thoughtfully fulfilled its constitutional
obligations for education over this, one of the first regional school districts in the
state, and has shepherded its development for more than six decades. The Chariho
Regional School Committee is an independent corporate body and the operational
authority for the Chariho Regional School District. It is currently composed of
twelve members, an increase from the eleven-member threshold in the 1986 Act,
based on a population increase in the town of Richmond. See Felkner v. Chariho
Regional School Committee, 968 A.2d 865, 869 (R.I. 2009) (“The Chariho Regional
3
Thus were I to conclude that statutory construction was necessary to my analysis
in this case, the 2016 amendment to the Chariho Act is the most recent
pronouncement by the General Assembly.
4
Public Laws 2016, ch. 91 is the identical House version of the 2016 amendment to
the Chariho Act.
- 27 -
School Committee is composed of eleven members, with representation from each
of the three towns in proportion to their respective populations.”).
In the 2016 amendment, the General Assembly increased the membership to
twelve members and, importantly, mandated that the new seat would be temporarily
filled by the Richmond Town Council, which “shall appoint a qualified elector to
the twelfth seat for a term that expires in November 2018[,]” until the 2018 general
election, when “Richmond voters shall elect a school committee member to the
twelfth seat to serve a four-year (4) term that expires in November 2022.” Public
Laws 2016, ch. 86, § 10(1)(a) (emphasis added). Thus, in 2016, the General
Assembly enacted a vacancy-filling provision in tandem with Section 10 of the
Chariho Act—by majority vote of the town council—and preserved the discretion
vested in the Richmond Town Council by the Chariho Act.
Additionally, the 2016 amendment sets forth another complex formula, to
calculate the minimum (10), and the maximum (14), number of seats, based on the
population schedules of the most recent federal decennial census, beginning with the
2022 general election and every ten years thereafter, in order to “provide the most
equal representation in proportion to population for all three (3) towns in the
district.” Public Laws 2016, ch. 86, § 10(1)(b). As noted, the 2016 amendment
restates and preserves unchanged the vacancy provision of the 1986 enabling act
- 28 -
and provides for the new, temporary seat to be filled in accordance with that section.
Id. § 10(1)(c); see P.L. 1986, ch. 286, § 10(1)(a).
Accordingly, the General Assembly has enacted legislation concerning the
composition of the Chariho Regional School Committee several times 5 and on each
and every occasion has provided that in the event of a vacancy, “the town council of
the member town in which such vacancy occurs shall fill such vacancy by election
by a majority vote of the town council of said town for the unexpired term of the
member whose office is thus vacated.” See P.L. 2016, ch. 86, § 10(1)(c) (emphasis
added); P.L. 2006, ch. 419, § 10(1)(a) (emphasis added). This orderly,
comprehensive, and consistent statutory scheme convinces me that the General
Assembly has been actively engaged in exercising its plenary authority over all
aspects of education in this bucolic southwestern corner of our state, such that the
Chariho Regional School District is an established and well recognized “body
corporate and politic,” vested with “all the powers and duties conferred by law in
this state upon school committees of towns.” Public Laws 1958, ch. 55, §§ 2, 10(3).
Having carefully reviewed the 1958 enabling act and the subsequent amendments, it
is apparent throughout that the General Assembly has also seen fit to ensure that
each member town was treated equally and with the utmost fairness.
5
In 2006, the General Assembly amended a portion of Section 10 of the Chariho
Act, but did not amend the vacancy provision. See P.L. 2006, ch. 419, § 10(1)(a).
- 29 -
Significantly, the General Assembly has distinguished circumstances in which
a town council of a member town may fill a vacancy by appointment, which
appointments are rare and temporary, from occasions when a member must be
elected by a majority of the members of the town council of a particular town is
mandated. Elections to fill vacancies on the Chariho Regional School Committee
by the town councils in Charlestown and Hopkinton apparently have occurred over
the years. According to the papers filed by respondent Johnson, “Hopkinton filled
vacancies in 2020 and 2021, while Charlestown filled a vacancy in 2002” in
compliance with Section 10(1)(c) of the Chariho Act.
The Richmond Town Charter
Richmond adopted its Home Rule Charter in 2008 and included Article 2, §
5(B), entitled “Vacancy in elective office.” This subsection provides that in the
event of a vacancy on the town council or the school committee,
“the Town Council shall appoint the unelected candidate
who received the greatest number of votes for that office
in the most recent general or special election. If that
person is unavailable, the Town Council shall appoint in
sequence the unelected candidates who received the next
greatest number of votes.” Richmond Town Charter, Art.
2, § 5(B).
The town council has no discretion in making this appointment and must
name an individual who was not elected by the voters, nor the town council. Clearly,
this provision cannot be reconciled with the Chariho Act, such that no further
- 30 -
discussion is warranted. In my opinion, although this provision applies to a town
council vacancy and would apply should the town terminate its membership in the
regional school district and revert to local education, this provision does not trump
the Chariho Act.
The law with respect to the General Assembly’s plenary authority over
education is quite clear: “[N]o provision affecting education contained within a
home rule charter, so called, can effectively regulate the conduct of school
committees as agents of the state unless expressly validated by an act of the general
assembly” because sole responsibility for education is “expressly and affirmatively
reserve[d] to the legislature” in the state constitution. Royal v. Barry, 91 R.I. 24, 30,
160 A.2d 572, 575 (1960) (emphasis added); see also Coventry School Committee
v. Richtarik, 122 R.I. 707, 713, 411 A.2d 912, 915 (1980).
Because Article 2, § 5(b) of the Richmond Town Charter directly, and
irreconcilably conflicts with a special act of the General Assembly concerning the
election of school committee members, our jurisprudence has been clear and
unequivocal: The charter provision must be explicitly validated by the General
Assembly to be operative. See Royal, 91 R.I. at 30, 160 A.2d at 575. That is, the
specific charter section must be expressly validated and textually apparent. A
generalized, catch-all provision by the General Assembly does not carry the day in
this constitutional realm, in my opinion, and there is no law to the contrary. This
- 31 -
general validation language appears in several charter ratification acts and has never
qualified as an express validation of conflicting law.
This is not the first occasion in which this Court has been called upon to decide
whether a provision in a municipal charter takes precedence over a matter within the
exclusive constitutional province of the General Assembly, or a state law of general
application. “Notwithstanding the right of towns and cities to regulate local matters,
we have held previously, that ‘[w]hen local laws conflict with general laws of
statewide application, the former must defer to the latter.’” Town of Johnston v.
Santilli, 892 A.2d 123, 128-29 (R.I. 2006) (quoting Local No. 799, International
Association of Firefighters AFL-CIO v. Napolitano, 516 A.2d 1347, 1349 (R.I.
1986)).
The long-recognized exception to this rule, however, arises “when the
conflicting charter provision has been legislatively ratified” by the General
Assembly. Santilli, 892 A.2d at 129. “In such instances, we view the conflicting
charter provision as ‘a special act [that] takes precedence over any inconsistent
provisions of the general laws.’” Id. (quoting Napolitano, 516 A.2d at 1349). In the
case at bar, the majority’s conclusion that a specific provision of the Richmond
Town Charter has been expressly ratified by P.L. 2009, ch. 12, the charter ratification
special act, is incorrect, in my opinion, because the Richmond Town Charter does
not contain any provision in which the voters referred to the Chariho Act and
- 32 -
certainly there is nothing, anywhere, that would suggest to me that the General
Assembly even referenced the Chariho Act in general, or Section 10, in particular.
The Charter is silent and the ratification statute was equally silent.
My conclusion that the Richmond Town Charter does not comply with the
mandate of express ratification arises from our well-established jurisprudence over
the last seventy years. As has long been the case, “the Legislature continues to
exclusively occupy the fields of education, elections, and taxation, thereby
precluding any municipality’s foray into these areas, absent specific legislative
approval.” Amico’s Incorporated v. Mattos, 789 A.2d 899, 903 (R.I. 2002). Our
analysis has never wavered. The requirement that in order to trump the statute, the
charter provision must be expressly ratified by the General Assembly was born
shortly after the Home Rule Amendment was approved by the voters after the 1951
constitutional convention. See Opinion to the House of Representatives, 80 R.I. 288,
297, 96 A.2d 627, 631 (1953). The General Assembly “may[,] by appropriate
legislation validate any provision in a home rule charter which is inconsistent” with
the General Assembly’s constitutional authority. Id. at 296, 96 A.2d at 631
(emphasis added). Express ratification of a conflicting charter provision is not
accomplished by implication; the specific section of the charter must be “ratified by
an explicit legislative act.” Foster Glocester Regional School Building Committee v.
Sette, 996 A.2d 1120, 1125 (R.I. 2010) (emphasis added). The term “explicit” is
- 33 -
defined as: “Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.” The American
Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 625 (5th ed. 2011). The term “express”
means:
“Clearly and unmistakably communicated; stated with
directness and clarity.” Black’s Law Dictionary 726 (11th
ed. 2019).
While employed interchangeably at times, these terms are not identical.
“Usage: Explicit and express both apply to something that
is clearly stated rather than implied. Explicit applies more
particularly to that which is carefully spelled out: explicit
instructions. Express applies particularly to a clear
expression of intention or will: an express promise or an
express prohibition.” The American Heritage Dictionary
of the English Language 478 (2d College ed. 1982).
Because we are faced with a special act of the
General Assembly, the Chariho Act, that falls within the General Assembly’s
exclusive constitutional authority over education and, additionally, concerns a
charter provision concerning the filling of an elective office, our law is clear: to
supersede the Chariho Act, § 10 must be expressly validated and ratified, that is, in
my opinion, set forth in words. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the
provision was expressly ratified.
Express Ratification and Validation
In Opinion to the House of Representatives, 80 R.I. 288, 96 A.2d 627 (1953),
this Court was confronted with fifteen questions propounded by the House of
- 34 -
Representatives concerning the validity of certain provisions that allowed for
nonpartisan nominations and that fixed the time for a municipal election that were
contrary to state law, as set forth in a recently adopted charter in an unnamed
community. Id. at 289-93, 96 A.2d at 627-29. This Court concluded that the charter
provisions intruded upon the General Assembly’s exclusive authority over elections
and were not valid. Id. at 294, 96 A.2d at 630. Notably, we issued our advisory
opinion on April 23, 1953; after a municipal election had been held, two weeks
earlier, on April 7, 1953, in the city of Woonsocket.6
After careful review of the issues raised in the request for an advisory opinion,
the justices succinctly answered each of the first thirteen questions 7 “by saying that
all matters pertaining to the conduct of municipal general elections referred to in
such questions are exclusively within the province of the general assembly and are
subject to existing general laws.” Opinion to the House of Representatives, 80 R.I.
at 296, 96 A.2d at 631 (emphasis added). The justices hastened to advise the
Legislature how it could remedy this situation. Id. at 296-97, 96 A.2d at 631. The
6
In answering the request for an advisory opinion, (after the election had been held),
the justices declared that they had “given these questions long and serious study,
even to the extent of taking time from the consideration of a lengthy list of litigated
cases which have been heard and are awaiting our determination.” Opinion to the
House of Representatives, 80 R.I. 288, 293, 96 A.2d 627, 629-30 (1953).
7
Because we concluded that questions fourteen and fifteen related to the rights of
individuals with little bearing on the provisions of a charter, we declined to address
them. Opinion to the House of Representatives, 80 R.I. at 297, 96 A.2d at 631.
- 35 -
justices declared that provisions in a home rule charter that intrude upon the authority
of the General Assembly, or otherwise conflict with the general laws could be
reconciled. Id. We advised as follows:
“Of course if it chooses to do so [the General Assembly]
may by appropriate legislation validate any provision in a
home rule charter which is inconsistent with this opinion.
Such an act would be an exercise of the general assembly’s
plenary power over the conduct of elections as it was
reaffirmed by section 7 of article XXIX of amendments.”
Id. at 296-97, 96 A.2d at 631.
Two months later, on the heels of Opinion to the House of Representatives,
the General Assembly, on June 17, 1953, enacted P.L. 1953, ch. 3235, “An Act
Pertaining to Municipal Primaries and Elections in the City of Woonsocket State of
Rhode Island, and Also Validating Certain Provisions in City of Woonsocket Rhode
Island Home Rule Charter.” (Emphasis added.) It did so with explicit language that
textually manifested the General Assembly’s express intentions:
“[I]t is the express intention of the general assembly of the
state of Rhode Island by the passage of this act to give
effect to all of the provisions of the city of Woonsocket
Rhode Island home rule charter, said charter having been
duly adopted by the qualified electors of said city in a
general election held on November 4, 1952, in accordance
with the provisions of article XXVIII of the amendments
to the constitution of the state of Rhode Island and
whereas, it is the express intention of the general assembly
by the passage of this act to give effect, more especially,
to those certain provisions in said home rule charter
pertaining to municipal primaries and elections in said
- 36 -
city; now, therefore, in the conduct of city primaries and
city elections in said city of Woonsocket for the purpose
of nominating and electing city officers under said home
rule charter[.]” Public Laws 1953, ch. 3235 (emphasis
added).
Additionally, as suggested by the justices in the advisory opinion, “to avoid
the possibility of a contest over the legality of a municipal general election”—that
had already taken place—the General Assembly was advised by the justices to “also
provide in the act for the conduct of such election consistently with existing law; or
else it should expressly provide by special act for all necessary [election] procedures
to be followed in the * * * holding of a municipal general election in a particular city
or town.” Opinion to the House of Representatives, 80 R.I. at 297, 96 A.2d at 631
(emphasis added). The enabling act set forth a series of election laws that applied
solely to the City of Woonsocket and specifically declared,
“[I]t is the express intention of the general assembly by the
passage of this act to give effect, more especially, to those
certain provisions in said home rule charter pertaining to
municipal primaries and elections in said city; now,
therefore, in the conduct of city primaries and city
elections in said city for the purpose of nominating and
electing city officers under said home rule charter[.]”
Public Laws 1953, ch. 3235.
Furthermore, in a separate provision, the 1953 Act went on to specifically
ratify and validate the election that previously was held in Woonsocket on April 7,
1953, in accordance with the newly enacted city charter, “as if this act had been
- 37 -
enacted prior to the date of the holding of said election, and all persons elected in
said election shall be deemed to have been lawfully elected.” Public Laws 1953, ch.
3235, § 31.
Thus, this Court’s jurisprudence concerning the constitutional authority of the
Legislature to enact laws in areas that are constitutionally committed to the General
Assembly in harmony with the Home Rule Amendment and the prerogatives of the
cities and towns to self-govern came to be and is well established. Our subsequent
caselaw has been consistent and exact.
This Court’s opinion in Royal is instructive. Royal presented an actual case
or controversy concerning § 4-1806 of the Pawtucket City Charter that mandated
that all meetings of the school committee shall be in open session that conflicted
with a state statute concerning the General Assembly’s plenary authority over
education. Royal, 91 R.I. at 30, 160 A.2d at 575. We rejected the contention that a
special act of the General Assembly, issued in accordance with this Court’s opinion
in Opinion to the House of Representatives, which validated charter provisions
concerning elections, also served to validate other provisions of the charter because
there was no provision that expressly validated the provisions of the charter relied
upon by the petitioner. Id. at 30-31, 160 A.2d at 575-76. Because there was nothing
in the validating legislation for the Pawtucket Home Rule Charter that either
expressly or impliedly ratified the charter requirement for open-meetings, the
- 38 -
provision was invalid. Id. In contrast, in Coventry School Committee, 122 R.I. 707,
411 A.2d 912, an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the
authority of the Coventry School Committee to retain counsel separate from the
solicitor’s office, the parties conceded that the Coventry town charter had been
expressly validated by the General Assembly in all respects; this Court examined the
charter as a whole. Id. at 709, 713-14, 411 A.2d at 912-13, 915. Notably, in deciding
this case the Court was not confronted with two conflicting statutory provisions. Id.Turning to the City of Providence, in 1980, the citizens of Providence enacted
a home rule charter and our caselaw concerning charter ratification was further
refined. One case of note arose in 1986, that challenged the residency requirement
for new employees of the City of Providence, after the home rule charter was
adopted. Napolitano, 516 A.2d at 1347. In Napolitano, the union and thirty-one
members of the fire department sought to enjoin enforcement of § 1210 of the
Providence charter, which mandated that all employees hired after January 3, 1983,
reside within the city. Id. The plaintiffs alleged that § 1210 was superseded by
several provisions of the general laws, specifically G.L. 1956 § 45-2-15, providing
that no city or town may require an individual to reside within the city or town as a
condition for appointment in a police or fire department, and G.L. 1956 § 16-12-9
(same as applied to school teachers). Id. at 1348.
- 39 -
This Court affirmed the trial justice’s conclusion that because § 1210 was
expressly validated by P.L. 1981, ch. 37, “[t]he clear and unambiguous language of
this enactment indicates that the Legislature intended to validate § 1210 of the home
rule charter.” Napolitano, 516 A.2d at 1349. The General Assembly’s declared
intent to unambiguously validate § 1210 (and several other provisions) of the
Providence Home Rule Charter, satisfied this Court that § 1210 superseded state law.
Id.
Conclusively, in my opinion, § 1210 was textually referenced by the General
Assembly in the ratification statute, and its absence with respect to the Richmond
Town Charter is fatal to the petition before the Court. In ratifying the Providence
Home Rule Charter, the General Assembly provided in P.L. 1981, ch. 37, in relevant
part:
“Section 1. In all respects in which the home rule charter
of the city of Providence, approved on November 4, 1980,
may require ratification, confirmation, validation or
enactment by the general assembly, but in no other
respects, the provisions of the home rule charter including,
but not limited to sections 201, 204, 208, 209, 707, 908,
1210 and 1404 so adopted are hereby ratified, confirmed,
validated and enacted.” Public Laws 1981, ch. 37
(emphasis added).
Significantly, after setting forth the specific provisions of the Charter it expressly
intended to ratify, the General Assembly then included the general
charter-ratification language that is almost identical to the provision exclusively
- 40 -
relied upon by the majority in its conclusion that the vacancy filling provision of the
Charter was expressly ratified.
Notably, in Napolitano, we were confronted with a charter provision that was
in conflict with a state law of general application. Napolitano, 516 A.2d at 1348.
The decision rested on our conclusion that because § 1210 of the home rule charter,
the residency requirement, was expressly validated by P.L. 1981, ch. 37, § 1210, it
“supersedes §§ 45-2-15 and 16-12-9 to the extent that it conflicts with these
provisions.”8 Id. In deciding Napolitano, we again looked to Opinion to the House
of Representatives, and echoed our long-standing holding that the General Assembly
may “grant permission to a municipality to legislate in areas already regulated by
the general laws” if it does so in conformity with that holding. Id. at 1349. We
declared that the General Assembly “may by appropriate legislation validate any
provision in a home rule charter * * *.” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Opinion to
the House of Representatives, 80 R.I. at 296, 96 A.2d at 631). Importantly, we
declared that P.L. 1981, ch. 37 “specifically provides that § 1210 of the home rule
charter is ‘hereby ratified, confirmed, validated and enacted.’” Id. The “clear and
8
We also noted that just prior to the time the trial justice issued his decision, on June
7, 1985, the General Assembly amended G.L. 1956 § 45-2-15 to specifically exclude
the city of Providence from its application. Local No. 799, International Association
of Firefighters AFL-CIO v. Napolitano, 516 A.2d 1347, 1348 (R.I. 1986). We
deemed that amendment to be irrelevant to our decision, which rendered it
meaningless in light of our unequivocal holding. Id. at 1348-49.
- 41 -
unambiguous language of this enactment indicates that the Legislature intended to
validate § 1210 of the home rule charter.” Id. This was not the case in Richmond.
The General Assembly ratified the Richmond Town Charter in 2009. That
act, P.L. 2009, ch. 12, does not refer to Article 2, § 5(B), the vacancy-filling
provision, nor does the act refer to the school committee in general or the Chariho
Regional School Committee in particular. In my opinion, Purcell’s petition must be
denied because there is no express and unambiguous validation of Article 2, § 5(B)
(vacancy filling provision) of the Charter and it therefore cannot take precedence
over the Chariho Act.
Additional cases concerning the City of Providence and its Home Rule
Charter are also of note. There were eight separate provisions in the Providence
Home Rule Charter that were explicitly ratified by the General Assembly in section
1 of P.L. 1981, ch. 37. This Court has had occasion to address several of them. Our
opinion in Retirement Board of Employees’ Retirement System of City of Providence
v. City Council of City of Providence (Retirement Board), 660 A.2d 721 (R.I. 1995),
is most instructive. That case concerned two provisions of the Providence Home
Rule Charter that were textually and explicitly ratified by the General Assembly in
P.L. 1981, ch. 37. Retirement Board, 660 A.2d at 725. The Providence City Council
enacted an ordinance that transferred the authority to invest pension funds to the
Board of Investment Commissioners, that was created by ordinance. Id. The
- 42 -
plaintiff, the Providence Retirement Board, took exception to the diminution of its
authority and brought suit, claiming that “the [ordinance] was in reality an attempt
to amend the city’s Home Rule Charter and thus required a citywide referendum.”
Id. at 723.9 This Court reversed the judgment of the Superior Court and declared
that under the 1980 Home Rule Charter, “the retirement board was designated a
board of the city in § 908 of the charter” and, further, that § 908 was “ratified,
confirmed, validated and enacted” by the General Assembly in P.L. 1981, ch. 37, §
1. Id. at 725, 729. Section 908 was among the eight charter provisions expressly
ratified by the General Assembly. See P.L. 1981, ch. 37, § 1.
Turning to the authority of the city council to direct who can invest the city’s
pension funds, we looked to charter provision § 1404, entitled “Inconsistent acts and
ordinances” which provides:
“Upon the taking of effect of this Charter and the
validation of this section by the General Assembly, this
Charter shall be deemed to have superseded Chapter 832
of the Public Laws of 1940 and all acts in amendment
thereto which are inconsistent with this Charter and shall
be deemed to have superseded all other acts and parts of
acts applicable to the City of Providence which are
inconsistent with this Charter. Upon the taking of effect
of this Charter, all ordinances and resolutions inconsistent
9
A companion case by seven members of the Employees’ Retirement System,
alleging individual harm was consolidated by order of the Superior Court.
Retirement Board of Employees’ Retirement System of City of Providence v. City
Council of City of Providence (Retirement Board), 660 A.2d 721, 723-24 (R.I.
1995).
- 43 -
therewith shall be deemed to have been repealed, and all
ordinances and resolutions which are consistent therewith
shall remain in effect until amended or repealed by the city
council in conformity with the terms of this Charter.”
Retirement Board, 660 A.2d at 727 (emphasis added).
Based on § 1404, which was adopted by the voters and textually validated by the
Legislature and § 908, which was also expressly validated by the General Assembly,
this Court concluded that the retirement board became a city board and its “status as
an independent corporate entity did not survive its incorporation into the charter.”
Id. at 728. In so doing, we again referenced and highlighted the General Assembly’s
express ratification of the charter in P.L. 1981, ch. 37, § 1 “which specifically ratified
the section establishing the retirement board: ‘[T]he provisions of the home rule
charter including, but not limited to sections 201, 204, 208, 209, 707, 908, 1210 and
1404 so adopted are hereby ratified, confirmed, validated and enacted.’” Id. This
analysis was focused on the specific provision of the Providence Home Rule Charter
set forth in the ratification statute and not the general ratification language. Id.
Of particular note, in my opinion, is Retirement Board of the Employees’
Retirement System of the City of Providence, which concerned a special act of the
General Assembly, the Retirement Board Act, that created the Retirement Board,
and was inconsistent with a provision in the Providence Home Rule Charter.
Retirement Board, 660 A.2d at 725-26. We concluded that the charter superseded
- 44 -
the special act by § 908 of the charter. Id. at 728.10 Because the charter provision
trumped the special act, we did not engage in statutory construction.
Our decision in Bruckshaw v. Paolino, 557 A.2d 1221 (R.I. 1989), also
concerns a special act, but in a different context. Public Laws 1985, ch. 468, was
enacted by the General Assembly after home rule and was in conflict with § 908,
which had been expressly ratified by the General Assembly. Bruckshaw, 557 A.2d
at 1222-23. The General Assembly was found to have intruded upon the home rule
prerogatives of the City of Providence when it enacted the special act concerning the
purchase of retirement benefits for certain employees of the Providence retirement
system. Id. at 1222. After the Retirement Board refused to comply with the special
act, the plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment seeking a judicial determination of
its validity. Id. This Court affirmed the trial justice’s holding that the charter
provision prevailed over the special act because, inter alia, the authority to regulate
city employee pensions was vested in the city by the charter that was ratified by the
General Assembly; the regulation of pensions was a matter of local concern and,
because the special act did not apply to the state as a whole, nor was it submitted to
the voters of Providence, it was invalid and unenforceable. Id. at 1224.
10
This Court also rejected the Retirement Board’s argument that the source of its
authority to continue to invest retirement funds derived from § 908 of the charter.
Retirement Board, 660 A.2d at 728.
- 45 -
Furthermore, the second part of the ratification statute, P.L. 1981, ch. 37, § 1,
which is the general catch-all ratification provision that is found in various special
acts that ratify home rule charters, is almost the identical language upon which the
majority relies in the instant case:
“It is the express intention of the general assembly by the
passage of this act, to give effect to, ratify, confirm,
validate and enact those certain provisions of the home
rule charter of the city of Providence approved on
November 4, 1980, which require ratification,
confirmation, validation or enactment, but nothing in this
act shall be construed to abrogate or impair the powers
now or hereafter granted to towns and cities by Article
XXVIII of the amendments to the constitution and other
applicable laws of the state of Rhode Island or those rights
retained by said city in said charter.”
I am hard-pressed to view this general ratification as qualifying as an explicit
validation of a specific provision of a home rule charter that satisfies the
constitutional requirements of express validation. Public Laws 2009, ch. 12
provides:
“SECTION 1. In all respects in which the Home Rule
Charter adopted by the electors of the Town
of Richmond on November 4, 2008 may require
ratification, confirmation, validation or enactment by the
General Assembly, but in no other respects, the provisions
of the Home Rule charter of the Town of Richmond are
hereby ratified, confirmed, validated and enacted. It is the
express intent of the General Assembly by the passage of
this Act to give effect and to ratify, confirm, validate and
enact those provisions of the said Home Rule Charter of
the Town of Richmond that require ratification,
confirmation, validation or enactment, and by the passage
- 46 -
of this Act, the General Assembly does hereby ratify,
confirm, validate and enact said Home Rule Charter, but
nothing in this Act shall be construed to abrogate or impair
the powers now or hereafter granted to the towns by
Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of Rhode
Island or those rights retained by said Town
of Richmond.”
In my opinion, this general ratification simply cannot qualify as an express
ratification and validation of Article 2, § 5(B) of the Richmond Town Charter as
required by the Constitution. Article 2, § 5(B) concerns a matter over which the
General Assembly has exclusive constitutional authority and any delegation thereof
must be explicitly set forth, as in every case that has come before us.
I also note that when it ratified the Richmond Town Charter, the General
Assembly referenced a multitude of special acts “enacted solely for the benefit of
the Town of Richmond that are inconsistent with the provisions of the Home Rule
Charter * * *.” See P.L. 2009, ch. 12, § 2. Section 2 of P.L. 2009, ch. 12 provides:
“SECTION 2. All special acts or portions of special acts
of the General Assembly enacted solely for the benefit of
the Town of Richmond that are inconsistent with the
provisions of the Home Rule Charter adopted by the
electors of the Town of Richmond on November 4,
2008 are hereby repealed, including but not limited to
Chapter 1674 of the Public Laws of 1930 (election of town
officers), Chapter 3705 of the Public Laws of 1956
(election of town officers), Chapter 264 of the Public Laws
of 1968 (tax assessor and board of review), Chapter 106 of
the Public Laws of 1969 (tax assessor and board of
review), Chapter 362 of the Public Laws of 1978 (fees
collected by public officials), Chapter 35 of the Public
Laws of 1988 (tax bills), Chapter 79 of the Public Laws of
- 47 -
2002 (Planning Board alternates), Chapter 124 of the
Public Laws of 1986 (street acceptance), Chapter 39 of the
Public Laws of 1967 (budget committee), Chapter 17 of
the Public Laws of 1990 (budget committee), Chapter 52
of the Public Laws of 1990 (financial town meeting),
Chapter 17 of the Public Laws of 1993 (financial town
meeting); and Chapter 51 of the Public Laws of 1990
(board of finance).”
This convinces me that the General Assembly was well aware of its prior
enactments that solely affected the Town of Richmond before home rule and was
certainly aware of the Chariho Act and its numerous amendments, which not only
concerned education, but also encompassed two other communities. One could
conclude that the omission of any reference to the Chariho Act was deliberate.
Lastly, there are two opinions cited by the parties that are of little relevance
to the case at bar, in my opinion, because neither case deals with charter ratification:
Santilli, 892 A.2d 123, and Sette, 996 A.2d 1120. In Santilli, this Court was
confronted with competing arguments concerning whether, under the provisions of
the Johnston Town Charter, the Johnston School Committee could engage “the
services of attorneys not affiliated with the town solicitor’s office[,]” despite the
charter’s “clear language” that the town solicitor “is to ‘be the attorney for the town
and legal advisor to the Mayor, town council, and all other departments, offices and
agencies of the town government.’” Santilli, 892 A.2d at 125 (emphasis added).
However, in 1998, the town council enacted Ordinance 1029, which authorized the
school committee to hire its own lawyer. Id. at 126. This harmony was short-lived
- 48 -
in Johnston and, in July 2002, the Johnston Town Solicitor informed the school
committee that, in accordance with the charter, his office would provide legal
services to the school committee. Id. Because the school committee continued to
employ outside legal counsel, Ordinance 1029 was repealed and the town filed a
complaint for declaratory relief. Id. The school committee counterclaimed and
sought declaratory and injunctive relief to retain legal counsel, independent from the
town council. Id.Although this Court began by recognizing the constitutional implications
concerning the General Assembly’s “responsibility to ‘promote public schools * * *
and to adopt all means which it may deem necessary to secure to the people the
advantages and opportunities of education,’” Santilli, 892 A.2d at 128 (quoting R.I.
Const., art. 12, § 1, that is juxtaposed with article 13, the Home Rule Amendment),
we decided this case on the basis of the duties of the town solicitor as legal
representative for all town departments, id. at 131. We began by addressing the
“interplay between the Legislature and town governments in regulating public
education,” and we looked to the seminal holding in Royal that “no provision
affecting education contained within a home rule charter, so called, can effectively
regulate the conduct of school committees as agents of the state unless expressly
validated by an act of the general assembly.” Id. at 128 (quoting Royal, 91 R.I. at 30,
160 A.2d at 575). We further elucidated that when the conflicting charter provision
- 49 -
has been legislatively ratified, the conflicting charter provision is viewed as “a
special act [that] takes precedence over any inconsistent provisions of the general
laws.” Id. at 129 (quoting Napolitano, 516 A.2d at 1349).
In Santilli, because only one of the two relevant provisions of the Johnston
Town Charter had been ratified by the General Assembly, this Court eliminated the
unratified provision from our discussion. 11 Santilli, 892 A.2d at 129. We concluded
that the school committee could not retain independent legal counsel based on the
restrictions found in the language of § 6-4 of the charter, id. at 131, which provides
in relevant part as follows:
“Sec. 6-4 Duties.
“The town solicitor shall be the attorney for the town and
legal advisor to the mayor, town council, and all other
departments, offices and agencies of the town government
and shall direct the work of the assistant solicitors.” Id. at
127 (original emphasis omitted; new emphasis added).
Despite our conclusion about the legislative validation and precedence of
charter provision § 6-4, the school committee persisted in its argument that the
committee was not a “department” of the town. Santilli, 829 A.2d at 129. We
looked to Cummings v. Godin, 119 R.I. 325, 377 A.2d 1071 (1977), in which we
held that “school committees, although exercising a portion of the state’s power
11
The Johnston Town Charter was ratified in May 1963 in P.L. 1963, ch. 187.
Notably, the charter’s election procedures were explicitly ratified. See P.L. 1963, ch.
187, § 1.
- 50 -
over education, are, nonetheless, municipal bodies, and their employees * * * are
municipal employees.” Id. (quoting Cummings, 119 R.I. at 330, 377 A.2d at 1073).
Our decision in Coventry School Committee was also of note because in that case,
this Court concluded that the Coventry School Committee lacked the authority to
retain its own counsel based on a town charter provision that the parties stipulated
had been legislatively ratified. Id. at 130. Turning to Johnston’s town charter, “we
faile[d] to see any meaningful distinction between the charter provision in
[Coventry School Committee] and the one at issue here[,]” and held that § 6-4 of the
Johnston Town Charter provision prevailed. Id. at 131.12 We did not engage in
statutory construction.
In Sette, 996 A.2d 1120, four members of the Glocester Town Council who
voted to remove a member of the Foster Glocester Regional School Building
Committee by declaring his seat vacated, appealed from a declaratory judgment in
favor of the building committee by a justice of the Superior Court. Sette, 996 A.2d
at 1122. This Court affirmed the decision of the trial justice that in order for the
town council to have removal authority, “there must be explicit legislation to that
effect.” Id. at 1122-23. We decided that there was no state law before us authorizing
12
The Court in Town of Johnston v. Santilli, 892 A.2d 123 (R.I. 2006), went on to
address those situations in which “the solicitor’s ethical and professional
obligations” prevents the solicitor from serving as counsel to the school committee,
a discussion not relevant to this case. Santilli, 892 A.2d at 131.
- 51 -
removal. Id. at 1128. Because there were no provisions in the enabling act that
created the regional school district, nor any other legislative acts, that granted
removal authority to the town council, we concluded that the council lacked the
requisite authority to remove the member. Id. at 1127-28.
The defendants argued to this Court that the council was vested with removal
authority in Article XIV, § C 14-2 of the Glocester Town Charter, which provides
that the term of office of members of boards and commissions was concurrent with
the term of the town council. Sette, 996 A.2d at 1124. 13 We began our analysis as
always, by referencing Article 12, § 1 of the state constitution that assigns
responsibility to the General Assembly “to promote public schools * * * and to
adopt all means which it may deem necessary and proper to secure to the people the
advantages and opportunities of education * * *.” Id. at 1125 (quoting R.I. Const.,
art. 12, § 1). We contrasted this provision with article 13 of the constitution, the
Home Rule Amendment, that permits a municipality to “adopt charter provisions
that affect education, as long as such charter provisions are ratified by an explicit
legislative act.” Id. (citing Santilli, 892 A.2d at 128).
Although unnecessary to the ultimate holding in Sette, after referring to the
long-standing rule of Royal that “[n]o provision affecting education contained
13
The defendants also argued alternatively that there was an implied power to
remove members of committees it had appointed. Foster Glocester Regional School
Building Committee v. Sette, 996 A.2d 1120, 1125 (R.I. 2010).
- 52 -
within a home rule charter, so called, can effectively regulate the conduct of school
committees as agents of the state unless expressly validated by an act of the general
assembly[,]” we declared that the Court would “not assume that the town council
possesses the authority to remove a member of a regional school body, such as the
[building committee] in the absence of legislation that expressly grants that
authority.” Id. at 1125, 1127. After examining the charter, the Court concluded that
“the municipal charter does not authorize the town council to remove members of
the [building committee.]” Id. at 1127. We looked to the enabling act, P.L. 1958,
ch. 109, and likewise concluded that nothing in that act authorized the town council
to remove members. Id. at 1128 n.5. Thus, in Sette, this Court was not confronted
with conflicting provisions between a town charter and a special act of the General
Assembly. Id. at 1128; see also Marro, 108 R.I. at 194, 196, 273 A.2d at 661, 662(in answering the question whether a provision in a home rule charter permitted the
city of Cranston to transfer to an employee retirement board the powers and duty
over the disability and retirement of police officers that was assigned to the mayor
and city council under a prior enabling act of the General Assembly, the Supreme
Court declared that police and public safety were matters of state control).
Although Santilli and Sette are emblematic of the clear and consistent path
this Court embarks upon when confronted with municipal charters and state law,
neither case concerned the ultimate issue in the case at bar: whether the General
- 53 -
Assembly has expressly ratified a provision of a municipal charter that concerns a
matter within its exclusive jurisdiction. Indeed, the charter provision in Santilli
concerned the duties of the town solicitor, a purely local matter. See Santilli, 892
A.2d at 127. Because the case before us presents an issue of constitutional
dimension, committed to the judiciary for resolution, I am not in agreement with
the majority’s conclusions.
Statutory Construction
As noted herein, it is my opinion that where a charter provision that concerns
a matter over which the General Assembly has exclusive authority is found to have
been expressly validated, as set forth in our caselaw, we do not engage in statutory
construction, the charter provision is given precedence because it serves as a
delegation of that authority to the city or town. I therefore disagree with the
majority’s entry into this realm and respectfully suggest that the majority has
deviated from the well-settled and appropriate standards for statutory interpretation.
When undertaking statutory interpretation, this Court is “oblig[ed] to give, if
possible, effect to all of the act’s provisions, with no sentence, clause, or word
construed as unmeaning or surplusage.” In re Rhode Island Commission for Human
Rights, 472 A.2d 1211, 1212 (R.I. 1984). We do not confine our analysis to a single
provision or subsection of an act. “Where one provision is part of the overall
- 54 -
statutory scheme, the legislative intent must be gathered from the entire statute and
not from an isolated provision.” State v. Caprio, 477 A.2d 67, 70 (R.I. 1984).
The majority has confined its analysis of Section 10 of the Chariho Act to a
single subsection and has, in my opinion, deviated from our statutory interpretation
principles. The majority’s analysis should begin with the Chariho Act as a whole,
and end with Section 10, which is extensive.
As noted herein, in 1986, the General Assembly comprehensively amended
the Chariho Act, including the election, tenure, and authority of the body politic, that
embraces three communities. Section 10 of P.L. 1986, ch. 286 provides in relevant
part as follows:
“Sec. 10. (1) (a) There shall be a regional school
committee for said district consisting of eleven (11)
members, each member town shall be represented on the
committee in direct proportion to its population as
determined by the most recent population census figures.
The total population of the district shall then be divided by
eleven (11) and the resulting quotients thus obtained shall
be used as the basis for determining the proportionate
representation of each said member town on said
committee, and realizing that the mathematical divisions
of said formula will not obtain absolute evenness, fractions
of .5 or more shall be construed as 1 point and fractions
less than .5 shall be construed as 0. Subject to limitations
aforesaid, the members of said committee from each of the
member towns to be elected or appointed for terms
hereinafter set forth shall be determined as of the time of
each bi-annual election and each of the said member
towns, based upon the census aforesaid. The first such
regional school committee shall be elected in the general
election in November, 1988. In the general election 1988
- 55 -
each town electing three (3) members of the school
committee shall elect two (2) members to serve a term of
four (4) years and one (1) member to serve a term of two
(2) years. A town electing more than three (3)
representatives shall elect three (3) members for a term of
two (2) years and additional members for a term of four
(4) years. Thereafter members shall be elected for a term
of four (4) years. Until such time as those elected in that
election shall be certified and qualified, the existing
Chariho Regional High School District Committee shall
serve as the Regional School Committee. In the event of
any vacancy by death, resignation or incapacity to serve
of any term of any member of said regional school district
committee, the town council of the member town in which
such vacancy occurs shall fill such vacancy by election by
a majority vote of the town council of said town for the
unexpired term of the member whose office is thus
vacated.” (Emphasis added.)
This provision convinces me that the General Assembly has expressed its
clear intent to legislate exclusively with respect to the Chariho Regional School
Committee, statutory construction need go no further.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, I respectfully dissent.
- 56 -
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
Licht Judicial Complex
250 Benefit Street
Providence, RI 02903
OPINION COVER SHEET
Jessica Marie Purcell v. Clay Johnson et al.
Title of Case Clay Johnson, in his capacity as Council Appointee to
the Chariho Regional School Committee, et al. v.
Chariho Regional School Committee.
No. 2023-26-M.P.
Case Number
No. 2023-28-M.P.
Date Opinion Filed July 18, 2023
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and
Justices
Long, JJ.
Written By Associate Justice Erin Lynch Prata
Source of Appeal N/A
Judicial Officer from Lower Court N/A
For Plaintiff:
Jeffrey L. Levy, Esq.
Attorney(s) on Appeal
For Defendant:
Joseph S. Larisa, Jr., Esq.
SU-CMS-02A (revised November 2022)