Paul E. Pontarelli v. Rhode Island Board Council on Elementary and Secondary Education
151 A.3d 301
| R.I. | 2016Background
- Paul E. Pontarelli, a RIDE hearing officer, sued RIDE and the Board Council on Elementary and Secondary Education alleging Open Meetings Act (OMA) violations: inadequate notice for a Sept. 8, 2014 council meeting (count 1) and failure to give notice and keep minutes for meetings of RIDE’s Compensation Review Committee (CRC) (count 2).
- The Sept. 8, 2014 agenda posted on the Secretary of State website listed agenda item "Approval of RIDE’s Executive Pay Plan and Organizational Chart" with a reference to "Enclosure 7b," but the 7b enclosure was not accessible on the Secretary of State site (it was available on RIDE’s site); Pontarelli had received the enclosure two weeks before the meeting.
- At the Sept. 8 meeting the council approved four retrospective executive pay plans (FY2012–FY2015) proposed by RIDE.
- The CRC is a six-member, internal, informal advisory working group at RIDE that reviews compensation and organizational matters and forwards recommendations to the commissioner; it does not meet regularly, does not post public notice, and does not keep written minutes.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding adequate notice for the council meeting and that the CRC was not a public body subject to the OMA. Pontarelli appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Sept. 8, 2014 agenda gave "fair notice" under § 42-46-6 of the OMA that multiple, retrospective executive pay plans would be considered | Pontarelli: singular wording "Pay Plan" and absence of Enclosure 7b on the Secretary of State site failed to fairly inform the public that multiple years (2012–2015) would be approved | Defendants: totality of circumstances sufficed; public was fairly informed and plaintiff had received the enclosure in advance | Reversed Superior Court as to count 1: notice inadequate under the OMA because the agenda omitted that multiple retrospective pay plans would be considered; remanded for remedy/fees under § 42-46-8 |
| Whether the CRC is a "public body" subject to the OMA | Pontarelli: CRC is a designated committee performing public-advisory functions and thus must provide notice and minutes under the OMA | Defendants: CRC is an informal, ad hoc, strictly advisory internal working group that does not meet regularly and lacks independent authority | Affirmed Superior Court as to count 2: CRC is not a public body under the OMA on these facts and thus not subject to its notice/minute requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Anolik v. Zoning Board of Review of Newport, 64 A.3d 1171 (R.I. 2013) (OMA notice requirement judged by a flexible "totality of the circumstances" standard; no "magic words")
- Tanner v. Town Council of East Greenwich, 880 A.2d 784 (R.I. 2005) (public bodies must give "fair notice" of nature of business to be discussed)
- Solas v. Emergency Hiring Council of the State, 774 A.2d 820 (R.I. 2001) (a body with supervisory or advisory authority over public matters can be a "public body" under the OMA)