Chariho Regional School District v. Gist, 91 A.3d 783

Plaintiffs Chariho Regional School District and Cranston School Department sought a writ of mandamus against Commissioner Deborah Gist and Treasurer Frank Caprio to compel reimbursement of salaries, fringe benefits, and travel expenses for directors and guidance counselors under Regulations IV(A)(2)-(3).
Commissioner dismissed the action citing GL 16-7.1-19 as creating a vocational-technical equity fund that superseded the Regulations.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Board of Regents while the Regents’ review was pending.
On June 30, 2010, plaintiffs filed suit in Superior Court alleging mandatory payment of funds for 2010 under the Regulations.
The Commissioner and Treasurer moved to dismiss under Rule 12(e) (treated as Rule 12(c) motions); dismissal was granted on the theory of adequate legal remedy and discretionary funding.
Rhode Island Supreme Court affirms the Superior Court’s dismissal, ruling plaintiffs have no clear legal right to the funds and that mandamus is unwarranted

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs have a clear legal right to funds under the Regulations	Chariho contends 100% reimbursement is mandated	Regulations conflict with enabling statute and later appropriations	No clear legal right to the funds
Whether the Commissioner's reimbursement duty is ministerial or discretionary	Duty is ministerial and non-discretionary	There is discretion in funding decisions	Duty is not ministerial; discretion exists
Whether plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law besides mandamus	Board of Regents appeal provides adequate remedy	Remedy at law is adequate; mandamus inappropriate	Yes, adequate remedy at law; mandamus not warranted

Muschiano v. Travers, 973 A.2d 515 (R.I. 2009) (mandamus prerequisites; ministerial vs discretionary duties)
Bergin-Andrews v. Providence School Board, 984 A.2d 629 (R.I. 2009) (rules governing mandamus and administrative actions)
Providence Teachers Union Local 958, AFT/RIFT, AFL-CIO v. Providence School Board, 748 A.2d 270 (R.I. 2000) (mandamus and remedy principles in education context)
Town of Smithfield v. Churchill & Banks Companies, LLC, 924 A.2d 796 (R.I. 2007) (statutory trumping of administrative rules by newer statutes)
Little v. Conflict of Interest Commission, 397 A.2d 884 (R.I. 1979) (agency cannot modify statutory power; framework for ministerial vs deliberative action)
Ridgewood Homeowners Association v. Mignacca, 813 A.2d 965 (R.I. 2003) (conflict between ordinances; hierarchy of legal instruments)
Krivitsky v. Town of Westerly, 849 A.2d 359 (R.I. 2004) (clear legal right prerequisite for mandamus; due process of ordinance provisions)