Retirement Board of the Employees' Retirement System of the City of Providence v. Frank E. Corrente and Mayor of the City of Providence
15-246, 244, 243
| R.I. | Dec 15, 2017Background
- Frank E. Corrente served two separate terms with the City of Providence, retired after the first term, then returned for a higher-paid second term; pension benefits were adjusted accordingly.
- Corrente was federally convicted in 2002 for crimes related to his public employment; the city Retirement Board (board) suspended his benefits under the Honorable Service Ordinance (HSO), appointed an independent hearing officer (Prof. Ritchie), and later adopted his recommendation to revoke benefits attributable to the second term and reinstate benefits from the first term.
- Prof. Ritchie recommended a tax credit (to account for taxes Corrente paid on revoked benefits); the board discussed but ultimately declined to adopt that recommendation and later denied Corrente’s request for a tax credit after additional proceedings.
- The Mayor and City moved to intervene in the Superior Court action challenging the board’s decision to reduce (rather than fully revoke) Corrente’s pension; the trial justice allowed intervention under Rule 24(a)(2).
- The trial justice treated the board’s Superior Court action as an administrative-style review and applied the APA standard (§ 42-35-15), affirmed the board’s decision to reduce rather than revoke, and denied Corrente’s motion to overturn the tax-credit denial; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention under Rule 24(a)(2) | Mayor/city: timely, have protectable interest, disposition may impair city interest, current parties won’t adequately represent city | Board: city interests aligned with board; presumption that government party will adequately represent city; mayor lacked council authorization | Trial court didn’t abuse discretion; intervention allowed (adequate showing of divergent interests) |
| Appropriate Superior Court standard of review (APA vs de novo) | Intervenors: HSO requires de novo Superior Court review like PEPRRA; municipal board not subject to APA | Board/trial court: HSO’s two-tiered process resembles state retirement board’s administrative process; APA standard appropriate | HSO ambiguous; court adopts APA-style deferential review (substantial-evidence/§ 42-35-15 standard) |
| Merits: reduce vs revoke pension | Intervenors: board’s prior practice favored revocation; reduction here was arbitrary and inconsistent | Board: hearing officer found only second term implicated; severability of terms justified reduction; board provided reasons | Board’s decision to reduce (not revoke) was supported by substantial, legally competent evidence and not arbitrary or capricious |
| Tax credit for returned benefits | Corrente: board had to follow hearing officer’s recommendation unless it gave an adequate rationale for rejection | Board: recommendation was advisory; board had discretion and valid concerns (no proof of taxes paid, authority to grant credit uncertain, fund impact) | Board reasonably denied tax credit; trial court correctly reviewed under APA; no error in upholding denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Ryan v. City of Providence, 11 A.3d 68 (R.I. 2011) (criminal conviction required before municipal board actions under HSO)
- Environmental Scientific Corp. v. Durfee, 621 A.2d 200 (R.I. 1993) (deference rules for two-tier administrative decisionmakers)
- Town of Burrillville v. Pascoag Apartment Associates, LLC, 950 A.2d 435 (R.I. 2008) (agency must explain departures from its settled practice)
- Iselin v. Retirement Board of Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island, 943 A.2d 1045 (R.I. 2008) (standard of appellate review in administrative proceedings)
- Beagan v. Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training, 162 A.3d 619 (R.I. 2017) (scope of review and definition of legally competent evidence in administrative appeals)