*1 1H9 modi- reinstate arbitrator’s supplemental fied and awards. et al.
Francis PELLEGRINO ETHICS RHODE ISLAND et al. COMMISSION 2000-132-Appeal. No. Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
Jan. *2 McKenna, Providence,
Keven A. Plaintiff. Partington,
Rebecca Tedford Cumber- land, for Defendant. WILLIAMS, C.J.,
Present: LEDERBERG, BOURCIER, FLANDERS, GOLDBERG, JJ.
OPINION
PER CURIAM. A state pub- certain officials, lic were formerly who members of governmental agency, a state to receive a designated compensation agency meetings during specific period. H21 deficit, is- budget state large crisis and the defendant Can immunity to suspending invoke treasurer order sued executive attempt fend off the officials’ Rhode persons serving on Island of all concerning obtain agencies, and administrative state boards *3 statutory the alleged right their to recover Shortly there- including commission. the attending to for compensation due them after, Assembly ratified the the General meetings? these Because the state has by passing various acts action Governor’s sovereign immunity by enacting waived its of commission mem- suspending pay the for providing a statute the 15, 1991, Thus, the February on bers. question public and because the officials’ P.L.1991, ch. art. Legislature passed alleged con- performance pay of the commission suspending the obtaining payment ditions for created for the rest of 1991 and for fiscal members of to legitimate claim entitlement this stat- Thereafter, however, on June year 1992. benefit, utory question we this answer Assembly enacted the General negative. the P.L.1991, al- ch. art. This article plaintiffs, The members of defen- former who lowed those members commissions dant, Rhode Island Ethics ‘Commission functions, adjudicatory includ- performed (commission),1 the Superior contend to receive ret- ing plaintiffs, erred when it concluded that the Court 15,1991. Thereafter, February roactive doctrine of immunity barred 14, 1992, Assembly July General suing them from and the P.L.1992, ch. art. which passed Treasurer State of Rhode Island suspended pay of members commis- (state), to obtain and other year and for with- sions boards fiscal concerning compensation alleg- relief previous exception for retaining out edly owing attending due and them for adju- performed who commission members meetings various commission in 1991 and Assembly dicatory functions. The General 1992. They appeal from a dis- suspend pay of commis- continued missing complaint pursuant to Rule year from fiscal sion members 12(b)(1) (6) of Superior and through 1998. pre- Rules Civil Procedure. After conference, briefing justice single of this 14—8(i), Under G.L.1956 commis- 36— parties Court ordered cause show sion members were entitled receive $100
why summarily the appeal should not be day compensation for attendance per “as party decided. Because neither done * * * meetings but not to exceed so, proceed to appeal decide the with- ($6,000) annu- of six thousand dollars sum briefing argument. out further each member.” ally
Facts Travel clearly provides Section 36-14-13 adjudicative powers. 1, 1991, commission exercises then January On Governor Sundlun, banking plaintiffs argue that as commission Bruce to a The response Mayer plaintiffs originally Nancy Pellegrino, Mi- named 1. The are Francis Davis, her Cheryl party to this action in Morry, Topf, Mel Peter defendant chael Treasurer, Gains, McAllister, Fisher, given capacity as state John official Paul Richard Rizzini, O’Brien, Roger office that she has ceased hold William Hall action, during suc- Giampietro. pendency her Joan M. The defendants are cessor, Tavares, automatically sub- Ethics Paul has been Rhode Island Commission and 25(d) (Tavares), Rule capacity party as a herein. See as Treasur- stituted Tavares his (state). Civil Procedure. Given Court Rules of er of the State of Rhode Island members performing adjudicatory func- rendered to the commission violates the tions, they were entitled to just-compensation guarantees in the state P.L.1991, ch. for and federal protecting them constitution — various commission government’s uncompensated 15, 1991, February 14, 1992, July takings of their private property the date when Assembly the General sus- use—because possessed a vested pended commission members’ property right statutory stipend to the including exception per- members the meetings they attended forming adjudicatory Believing functions. when the General As- they were not entitled to payment sembly demand provided for them to receive such from the *4 they commission while still were and because defendants’ fail- members, serving plaintiffs waited until ure to pay them took this expired their terms filing before this action from them for public’s use without September They sought, 1998. compensation. among relief, the compensation that plaintiffs The argue further that they were denied for the period from Feb- Assembly’s General enactment of 36-14- 15, 1991, ruary to July Their 8(i) P.L.1991, and ch. art. provid- 77— complaint against the defendant commis- specific for them to receive a monetary sion and the state included counts for stipend commission meet- (count 1), breach of contract ings necessarily waived the state’s sover- — counts for violation of article eign immunity for claims to recover the section of the Rhode Island Constitu- stipend. They express contend that tion, P.L.1991, and violation of ch. provisions of these laws demonstrate that (counts 3), 2 and promissory estoppel they were entitled to be compensated for (count 4), (count 5). and quantum meruit attending meetings during period in Thereafter, essence, defendants filed a question. motion to In they argue, 12(b)(1) (6). dismiss pursuant to Rule and above legislation, providing for compensa- Viewing the case as an action for back tion to be to the commission members wages, justice the motion concluded that who attended the in question, defendants had not operated waived the state’s sov- to waive the sovereign ereign immunity. Believing that the immunity. Finally, doc- they suggest, the mo- therefore, trine of sovereign immunity, justice in failing erred to declare the lawsuit, barred this justice the motion parties. granted the motion to dismiss and entered The defendants respond plaintiffs’ that
judgment in favor of defendants. nature, claim statutory not constitu-
On appeal, plaintiffs argue that leg- tional. They maintain that the General islation suspending pay their Assembly “constitu- had the power suspend pay- adjudicative tional officers” during their ments to through commission members la- terms of office was They unconstitutional. legislation. They suggest ter-enacted that assert sovereign doctrine of im- may rely theory, not on contract munity cannot defeat their against property rights, claims estoppel doctrines to legislation ques- defendants because the limit Assembly’s prerogative the General tion “is tantamount abolishing po- concerning revise the com- sitions” and “undermines a pensation constitutional due to commission members. They addition, function.” also aver that defendants’ In they argue, plaintiffs’ claims failure to them for they the services from February
H23 complaint in the contained through July allegations are barred the doc true, the light and examine the facts immunity. They con sovereign trine of nonmoving party.” to the most favorable expressly tend state has Sherman, A.2d at 473. in Estate sovereign immunity waived its suit seeking actions related benefits Statutory and Entitlement posit employment. They Immunity Sovereign immunity sovereign express must be in this key legal issue case waived, argue ly and that the state whether the doctrine only concerns sounding has done so for actions plaintiffs claims for monies bars involving pub tort for certain owing to them addition, allegedly due lic-works contracts. defen that entitled them receive insist, immunity specifical dants compensation from the commission for ly precludes declaratory-judgment actions their attendance at various commission citing Rhode Island assume, also meetings. We shall Turnpike Bridge Authority Nu deciding, though even (1962). gent, Fi entity nonpartisan es independent, maintain, nally, ac plaintiffs’ defendants *5 Assembly pursu by the General tablished because, is tion time barred even if the 3, 8, of the Rhode Island ant to art. sec. sovereign immunity, state had waived its Constitution, it possesses still sufficient usually limitations applicable period to invoke sover governmental attributes waived-immunity three years for cases. immunity if doctrine were other eign that Here, however, plaintiffs filed the lawsuit to issue. applicable wise at years eomplained- more than six after the of harm had occurred. “Leg held that the This Court has presumed not to have relin islature is
Analysis any part sovereign the state’s quished of so unless intent to do power [its] [has Standard of Review by nec ‘clearly expressed or arises been] granting standard for a mo essary stat implication [relevant] from tion to dismiss is a difficult one for the utory language.’” Deposi International ruling movant to meet. “When on a Rule Island, 603 tory, Inc. v. State Rhode of 12(b)(6) motion, justice the trial look must (R.I.1992) 1119, (quoting 1122 An A.2d complaint, no further than the assume that (R.I. 1293, A.2d 1295 v. drade true, allegations all in the complaint 1982)). suit, sovereign exempt “A any fa resolve doubts conception or any of formal because Affiliate, vor.” Rhode Island American obsolete, theory, logical and but on the Union, v. Civil Liberties Inc. Bernasconi legal be no that there can practical ground 1232, (R.I.1989). “The mo A.2d authority that makes ‘ap may only granted then be it right depends.” law on Ka which pears beyond a reasonable doubt that 349, Polyblank, v. 205 U.S. wananakoa would not be to relief plaintiff entitled 834, 527, 51 L.Ed. 27 S.Ct. any conceivable set of facts. under J.). (1907)(Holmes, * * Almeida, *.'" v. Estate Sherman of In relied examining Ber (quoting 747 A.2d however, 1232). appears it by upon plaintiffs, “When this 557 A.2d nasconi justice’s granting of a that a waiver of reviews trial us 12(b)(6) motion, accomplished been neces- we Rule assume sary implication very statutory petitions from the tion of declaratory rulings terms that of specific compensa applicability any statutory provi- to the any tion to be or of or agency. commission members for sion rule order of the Rulings meetings during disposing petitions have the of February through July same status as agency orders contested cases.”). Hazard, Further, 1992. LaBelle “claims for affirmative (1960) 42, 46-47, relief, such as for money damages, those joined salary public may Court stated that the declaratory “[t]he of a office, is an official incident to the and the action ‘the provisions liberal legal right to or pay receive 18 of Rule Court Rules of enforce ” goes ment Capital Properties, with the title there Civil Procedure.’ thereof added.); Inc., to.” (Emphasis State Em A.2d at To the extent that cf. ployees’ Hampshire, Turnpike Bridge Association New Rhode Island Au- Belknap County, Inc. v. thority Nugent, 95 R.I. A.2d N.H. (1982) (“Because (1962) (holding the exis that one state can- agency tence [government- to receive not sue another under state act) employment] implies declaratory judgment benefits might suggest existence otherwise, appropriate remedy recovering agencies pub- * * * benefits, these subject we hold stat lic officials are not at all for suit ute contains an implicit waiver of or other relief because immunity”). sovereign immunity, Legisla And because “[t]he decline read presumed broadly, concluding, [ ] ture is that decision so know the state rath- er, existing relevant scope law a stat its should be enacts confined *6 ute,” Reis, (R.I. agencies. State v. A.2d actions between 430 752 1981), the Assembly General must be This is not the first time Court has this that, deemed to have upon known passing municipality decided that or a the state for providing compensation to impliedly sovereign immunity. waived be paid commission for at members See, e.g., Inc., Capital Properties, 749 A.2d tending meetings, it was providing this Lincoln, 1081; v. Donnelly at Town 730 compensation public as an incident to the (R.I.1999); A.2d 10 Reagan Construc- they right offices held and that their legal Corp. Mayer, v. 712 A.2d the payment accompa enforce thereof (R.I.1998). In Donnelly, example, for a legal nied their title to their offices. municipality voluntarily joined the state and, in compensation system workers’ do- Moreover, under the Uniform so, ing partic- advantages received the Act, Declaratory Judgments G.L.1956 result, held, ipating therein. As a we chapter public of title are officers impliedly town had waived im- legal entitled to have and munity and from an was insulated judicially duties determined in an action money award interest for the it owed to for a judgment, and the state injured employee. an town public itself its officers now can be joined case, proper to such parties voluntarily an action. this the state See, State, e.g., Capital Properties, Inc. providing compensa enacted for (R.I.1999); paid A.2d see also tion to be members § (“Declaratory rulings peri G.L.1956 42-35-8 specific Thereafter, by agencies. Each provide allegedly shall od. the commission by prompt disposi- rule for the filing obtained and retained the benefits of the
H25 other have in states by plaintiffs to it while Courts services enacting in full force a statute compensation statute was held its Allowing and effect. the state and to re public that entitled certain officials and commissions to invoke sover boards they for the services ceive eign immunity public officials seek state, thereby agreed to performed for collect the are statuto declaratory judgment in a be answerable rily ren entitled receive for services and, necessary, petition action all defy principle dered would (“[f]urther relief relief based supplemental legislation should be construed may or decree declaratory judgment aon give meaning as to and substance manner necessary prop or whenever granted be See, e.g., provision to each law. 9-30-8) er,” violating the allegedly (R.I. State, Pullen A.2d be requiring law 1998); of Gervais, 770 see also In re Estate that, by necessary implication, paid; and (R.I.2001). A.2d very the statute waived enactment of reason, very For hold least the state’s from suit—at entitling statutory provisions question allegedly had after officials plaintiffs to receive such and the statute earned the be were tantamount to a waiver of was still extant when court question immunity if provisions those See, e.g., Belknap claim. ruled nugatory to be saved from a mere exis “Any A.2d County, 448 at 972-73. application tence or unconstitutional would ascribe the General conclusion Reis, in question. the doctrine See at Assembly profit an intent to the State (“in enacting A.2d at 752 a statute George expense of citizens.” & its legislature presumed to have intended Inc. v. Lynch, word, sentence, provision that every (Del.1964). Indeed, an offi allowing such purpose has some useful and will have compen official repudiation cial earned effect.”); LaBelle, some force highest sanction the sation would “to 46-47, at (holding Ace governmental tyranny.” Fly type of of a official to re Service, Department Inc. v. Colorado payment compen ceive or enforce the *7 19, 278, P.2d Agriculture, 136 Colo. 314 “goes that official with” offi sation to (1957). Moreover, in a enacting stat 280 office); cial’s title to see also paid for to be providing ute National Education Association-Rhode exchange for government officials Island v. Retirement Board Rhode Is the state or to one of services rendered to Employees’ System, land 890 Retirement hold, acting was agencies, its (D.R.I.1995) (statute F.Supp. 1143 extend arranging private employer a would ing implied- benefits to created employees so, In compensate employees. doing its which, extinguished, contract in-fact its as a laid aside attributes “[the state] clauses). takings violated contract substantially as sovereign and bound itself justice requires that the opinion “[I]n our he [or she] citizens does when one of its treasury respond” be made to Carr v. State ex into a contract.” enters circumstances, LaBelle, 91 R.I. at these 204, 26 127 Ind. N.E. Coetlosquet, Du rel. 725, 47, “we cannot A.2d at because (1891); 778, Furniture Jolicoeur public good would agree cf. 740, Baldelli, 653 A.2d v.Co. officer that by denying to served had act municipality (holding that because she] he is enti [or to which capacity when in a proprietary ed law.” Id. by tled estate, breached a mutually contract transfer real explicit understandings sup- it was not entitled to assert im- port his claim of [or her] entitlement to the * * * munity). ”). benefit sum, we hold state laid aside Constitutional Protections immunity whatever sovereign it otherwise Sovereign Immunity possessed respect obligation with its providing statute for compen government these officials for attend- sation to be commission mem meetings commission when it bound bers for their attendance at meetings in comply the commission to with its statuto- 1991 and coupled with the members’ 1992— ry responsibility paying specific com- alleged meetings attendance during pensation to its members after they had protected vested them with a —also earned the right to receive the compensa- property interest under the Rhode Island provided statute. See V.S. Constitution and entitled them to receive DiCarlo Construction Co. v. the compensation by statute.2 (Mo.1972). 52, S.W.2d For these rea- Here, operated to confer on sons, we hold the state waived its commission a legitimate members claim of receipt entitlement to of the compensation arising out of commission members Thus, in question. once the members at meetings during tended the question, the stat 1991, February, through 1992, July, peri- ute endowed with a in od. terest in the benefit that could not be taken from them for public’s Protection of Constitutional use without process due law and Adjudicatory Officials compensation. Barber v. See Exeter- respect plaintiffs’ With more Committee, West Greenwich School that, sweeping assertion as adjudicatory 13, (R.I.1980); Lynch v. Gon officials, tarz, 156-57, 120 R.I. could not be diminished their con (1978); Regents see also Board of office, position tinuance in Roth, enjoys no Colleges
State
408 U.S.
support
from the Rhode Island Constitu
(1972);
S.Ct.
For these de- I I to note what consid- separately write fendants not entitled to invoke the were legal consequences er to be sovereign immunity regard plain- holding in this case that Court’s statutory compensation owed to inter- acquired protected property tiffs (a commission members the 1991-92 question est in the benefit ought when such stipend com- compensatory them, plain- If, have been and that alleged in the meetings). mission However, complaint timely tiffs’ was filed. the com- attended complaint, that, as matter opinion we are of the meetings during period when mission’s proper procedure administrative and for commission to required *9 the then defen- purpose allowing plaintiffs compensation, of the pay remedies, alleged compensate exhaust their administrative failure to dants’ stay operate prop- to take that plaintiffs Court on remand should fur- would public’s case from them erty ther and return this interest proceedings just com- paying can use without so that such claims be pensation. takings interpret The clause these basic laws.” Horton v. Meskill, 615, 359, Island provides Rhode Constitution 172 Conn. 376 A.2d (1977). “[p]rivate property shall not be taken for King do Perhaps could no uses, just compensation.” wrong, “government but a the people, of Const, 1, Furthermore, art. 16. sec. people, people”3 for the [and] self-executing this clause is a provision of neither so infallible nor so from immune our needs supplemen Constitution that no as regimes. suit monarchical private tal to create a of cause Moreover, it would be inconsistent damages. action for See Bandoni v. hold, hand, on people the one of 580, (citing A.2d Anni this state have a constitutional Town Kingstown, celli v. South of governmental takings of (R.I.1983)). A.2d DeBry See also v. uses, while, private property for (Utah 1995) (ad Noble, 428, 889 P.2d other, prevented holding “ ages sovereign ‘the do no can suing government from state obtain ” or wrong’ giver “the law cannot made immunity. just compensation because of subject provide to lawsuit” do not a valid University v. orum North Cf. C of for a sovereign’s immunity rationale Carolina, 330 N.C. 413 S.E.2d alleged state constitutional viola (1992) (“when there is a clash between tions); Island, Jones v. State Rhode cf. rights these constitutional (D.R.I.1989) F.Supp. (Lagueux, immunity, rights the constitutional must J.) (holding that the Rhode Island State Furthermore, prevail”). bedrock Constitution’s due-process clause in principle construction that consti see. was added in 1986 to “‘create rights trump tutional common-law doc independent state foundation for individual like “In a sovereign immunity. trines con rights’” and im thereby established “an democracy stitutional sovereign immunity plicit right damages sue state actors for must relax its bar when suits newly right”). for violations of this created complain unconstitutional As Supreme the Connecticut acts.” Sentner Board Trustees “[sovereign immunity observed does Community Regional Colleges, 184 Conn. * * * protect [the] state from suits to (1981). There recover taken or in viola- [held] fore, because in this tion of the or constitution without statuto- jurisdictions, sovereign im “the doctrine of ry authority, though even the property is munity is not a constitutional right; [but] ** held in the name of the state *.” common law theory defense established * * * Parizek, Simmons Conn. 259 by is a [courts] there clash * * * * * (1969). principle The *, rights between these the con sovereign immunity, although root- deeply Corum, stitutional must prevail.” law, way ed in the common must give to 413 S.E.2d provisions just-com- constitutional like the reasons, For these and for those set pensation clause because “the source opinion, join, forth I I Court’s which governmental power and is not authority disposition with appeal. concur of this by divine a ruler
vested but rests adopted people themselves who have governments creating constitutions with powers
defined and limited and courts to Lincoln, 1863). (Nov. Gettysburg 3. Abraham Address