Centazzo v. Canna

• Citation: 110 R.I. 507,293 A.2d 904
• Decision Date: 10 August 1972
• Docket Number: No. 1371-M,1371-M
• Parties: Frank J. CENTAZZO v. Domenic C. CANNA. P.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Page 904

293 A.2d 904

110 R.I. 507

Frank J. CENTAZZO v. Domenic C. CANNA.

No. 1371-M.P.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Aug. 10, 1972.

Anthony R. Berretto, Bristol, for petitioner.

Emilio D. Iannuccillo, Town Solicitor, Bristol, for respondent.

OPINION

KELLEHER, Justice.

This petition in equity in the nature of quo warranto is brought pursuant to G.L.1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 10-14-1. It seeks the ouster of the respondent as a commissioner of the Housing Authority of the town of Bristol and the confirmation of the petitioner's title to that office. The petitioner claims the office by virtue of admittedly proper appointment and qualification and an alleged illegal removal therefrom by the Bristol Town Council because of various acts of 'inefficiency' or 'neglect of duty' or 'misconduct in office.'

The petitioner was first duly appointed as a commissioner on January 17, 1963 for a five-year term. He was reappointed for a second five-year term on February 21, 1968. During his years of service, petitioner was the chairman of the Board of Commissioners. Bristol has been the fruition of some of the efforts of the authority in that there is now located in that municipality a housing complex dedicated to serving the needs of the elderly. It is known as the Benjamin Church Manor and contains 150 dwelling units. It is also obvious from the record that the authority's attempts to comply with federal regulations requiring the construction of low-income housing has not won the community-wide acceptance given the opening of the Benjamin Church Manor.

On January 14, 1971, the council, in seeking to remove petitioner, specifically charged that petitioner (1) used profane and vulgar language against the elderly of the town; (2) threatened to evict tenants from Church Manor; (3) sought the resignation and threatened to fire an employee of the authority; (4) failed to file certain financial reports; (5) had a conflict of interests; and (6) condoned the unlawful employment of a fellow commissioner.

Two public hearings were held on the charges. The first was held on the evening of February 8, 1971. The second was held four evenings later on February 12, 1971. The taking of testimony ended at 9:45 p.m. The council entered into executive session. The council subsequently reconvened and the president announced that petitioner had been found 'guilty as charged.' One motion was unanimously passed removing Centazzo from office and another calling for the appointment of Canna received the council's affirmative vote. Canna took his oath of office and the meeting adjourned at 11:03 p.m. This is the second occasion within recent years where this court has reviewed a town council's discharge of an incumbent member of a municipality's housing authority. In Lawrence v. Calin, 104 R.I. 373, 244 A.2d 570 (1968), it was pointed out that although § 45-25-14 authorizes the removal of a housing commissioner on the grounds of 'inefficiency,' 'right of duty' or 'misconduct in office,' the Legislature has failed to define any of these three terms. It was emphasized that when removal is sought on these grounds, the inefficiency, neglect or misconduct charged must relate solely to the duties imposed upon the commission by the provisions of title 45, chap. 25 ¹ and since proceedings to remove a commissioner are judicial in nature, the reasons for his removal must rest on substantial grounds.

At oral argument, counsel for respondent described petitioner's conflict of interests as the strongest reason for his removal. Accordingly, we shall initially review the evidence as it relates to that specific charge and then go on to discuss the other specifications lodged against petitioner but not necessarily in the order they were listed by the council. Section 45-25-13 (see Appendix) is the statute which relates to a housing commissioner having a conflict of interest. This statute requires a commissioner, having a direct or indirect interest in any property which is scheduled to be included within a housing project, to make a written disclosure of his interest. The statute goes on to say that failure to disclose such interest shall constitute 'misconduct in office.'

A housing commissioner serves without compensation. The petitioner is an accountant. He works full time for the Division of Services to the Aging of the Rhode Island Department of Community Affairs where he serves as an assistant to the division's director. He supplements his salary by moonlighting. One of his clients is the Bristol Senior Center. This is an organization whose goal is the promotion of various recreational and educational activities which are made available to all of Bristol's senior citizens. The center serves as the recipient of various federal, state, municipal and private funds which provide the wherewithal so that those over the age of 55 can receive instructions relating to such skills as ceramics, sewing and crocheting, or they can take a bus ride to see a movie, visit a beach resort or view the autumnal foliage. While the center's activities are headquartered in the community building of the Benjamin Church Manor, the center is an organization which is separate and distinct from the Housing Authority. The Division on Aging distributes the federal funds made available by the Older Americans Act of 1965. The money is channeled from the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare through the state agency on down to the center. The authority receives its federal funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The council took the sum total of Centazzo's state job, his position on the authority and his accounting work for the Senior Center and came up with the answer that it read as 'conflict of interests.' It apparently overlooked the Lawrence case where we said the conflict of interests provisions delineated in § 45-25-13 were designed to bar a member of a housing authority from having a secret personal interest either in property that might be part of a housing project or in some services that were to be rendered at the project, such as the removal of rubbish or garbage, the supply of janitorial or maintenance services or similar undertakings.

Here, the record is clear that there is no conflict between Centazzo's duty as a commissioner and the service he renders to the Senior Center. In fact, he made it clear that he had been advised by his superiors in state government that they find no conflict between his work with the center and his obligation to the division.

This is an appropriate place to dispose of the charge that petitioner had permitted one of his fellow commissioners to work in violation of the law. The commissioner's name was Borges. He was a...