Ryan v. City of Providence
11 A.3d 68
| R.I. | 2011Background
- Providence's Honest Service Ordinance (HSO) § 17-189.1 defines crimes related to public employment and provides for reduction or revocation of retirement benefits.
- The city imposed an HSO-based potential action against Ryan after a federal corruption probe implicated city officials; Ryan was not charged criminally.
- Ryan began receiving pension benefits on June 11, 2002; on October 21, 2008 the retirement board notified him of a pre-deprivation hearing to consider reduction/revocation.
- Grounds alleged: (1) accepting under-priced gifts from a city vendor; (2) assisting promotions and providing source sheets; (3) accepting a source sheet before a 1996 captain exam.
- Ryan filed suit in Superior Court (Nov. 18, 2008) seeking declaratory judgment on HSO applicability and an injunction to halt the hearing.
- The trial justice ruled (Sept. 8, 2009) that criminal conviction was not a prerequisite and that the Superior Court had jurisdiction with deference to the board’s findings; this was appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the HSO require a criminal conviction before board action? | Ryan contends conviction is prerequisite for board action. | Ryan's opponents contend the HSO allows action upon non-conviction honorable service failures. | Yes; the court holds that a criminal conviction is required before board action. |
| What is the proper standard of review for Superior Court review of board actions under the HSO? | Ryan seeks de novo review of board findings. | City urges deferential review of board findings. | The issue is unnecessary to resolve for the holding reached; the court vacates that consideration here. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Almeida, 611 A.2d 1375 (R.I. 1992) (honorable service as a pension prerequisite; distinguishable facts)
- D'Amico v. Johnston Partners, 866 A.2d 1222 (R.I.2005) (statutory interpretation standard; de novo vs. deferential analysis context)
- Accent Store Design, Inc. v. Marathon House, Inc., 674 A.2d 1223 (R.I.1996) (plain meaning with context; whole-act rule guidance)
- Sorenson v. Colibri Corp., 650 A.2d 125 (R.I.1994) (whole statute context; legislature intent consideration)
- In re Brown, 903 A.2d 147 (R.I.2006) (avoidance of literalism; interpret statutes in broader context)
- Bailey v. American Stores, Inc./Star Market, 610 A.2d 117 (R.I.1992) (whole-act/contextual statutory interpretation)
- Reardon v. Hall, 104 R.I. 591, 247 A.2d 900 (R.I.1968) (statutory interpretation principles in Rhode Island)