City of Pawtucket v. Sundlun
| Decision Date | 20 July 1995 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 94-203-M,Nos. 94-199-A,s. 94-199-A,s. 94-203-M |
| Citation | 662 A.2d 40 |
| Parties | 102 Ed. Law Rep. 235 CITY OF PAWTUCKET et al. v. Bruce SUNDLUN et al. CITY OF WOONSOCKET et al. v. Bruce SUNDLUN et al. EAST GREENWICH SCHOOL COMMITTEE et al. v. CITY OF PAWTUCKET et al. ppeal, 94-347-Appeal. P., 94-188-M.P. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
These consolidated cases have challenged the means by which the General Assembly fulfills its constitutional mandate to provide public education in Rhode Island. They present to this Supreme Court our first opportunity to review the charge of article 12 of the Rhode Island Constitution that the General Assembly promote public schools and secure to the people of this state the advantages and opportunities of education. For the reasons set forth, we hold that Rhode Island's current statutory scheme for financing public education does not violate either the education clause (article 12) or the equal-protection provision (article 1, section 2) of the State Constitution.
On February 24, 1994, a justice of the Superior Court announced that Rhode Island's method of funding public education was unconstitutional. The Superior Court proceedings were initiated by three communities that objected to the state's 1991 appropriation for elementary and secondary education. 1 The plaintiffs in these actions included students, parents, taxpayers, and government representatives of the cities of Pawtucket, West Warwick, and Woonsocket, Rhode Island, as well as education officials and school committees in their respective school districts. The defendants included the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Board of Regents for Elementary and Secondary Education, the chairman of the Board of Regents, and the commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education. 2 The plaintiffs essentially sought a declaratory judgment that the state's method of funding public education was violative of the Rhode Island Constitution. The plaintiffs asked the Superior Court to direct defendants to devise, enact, and implement a system of aid to education that would fairly levy the taxes necessary to provide equal educational opportunities to students and that would assign educational resources as uniformly as was practical.
The court severed and reserved for later decision the remedy and damages portion of the proceedings and retained jurisdiction of the case for the purpose of enforcing the judgment.
Subsequent to the entry of judgment, motions to intervene were filed by the Exeter-West Greenwich Regional School District, the town of East Greenwich, the East Greenwich School Committee, the Foster-Glocester Regional School Committee and the members of the Committee in their official capacities, and taxpayers and parents in the region (the East Greenwich intervenors).
In addition, the Bristol-Warren Regional School District and the Middletown School District orally moved to intervene, but the trial justice denied all motions to intervene. On March 31, 1994, these parties, with the exception of the Bristol-Warren and Middletown School Districts, filed an appeal, No. 94-199-A., from the order denying their intervention.
Also on March 31, 1994, the East Greenwich intervenors, joined by the Westerly School Committee and the South Kingstown School Committee, filed a petition with this court for issuance of a writ of certiorari, No. 94-188-M.P., to review the Superior Court's judgment. Subsequently, this court granted the petition for certiorari in case No. 94-188-M.P., and consolidated it for briefing and oral argument with the appeal in No. 94-199-A.
Again on March 31, 1994, the Superior Court heard and denied a motion to intervene by the Jamestown School Committee (the Jamestown intervenors). On April 1, 1994, the Jamestown intervenors filed an appeal and a petition for certiorari with this court, No. 94-203-M.P. We granted the petition on May 5, 1994, and consolidated the case with the East Greenwich intervenors' petition, No. 94-188-M.P.
Also on April 1, 1994, the President Pro Tempore of the Rhode Island Senate filed an appeal, No. 94-347-A., from the judgment of the Superior Court.
While these cases were pending before this court, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the papers in the proceedings to the Superior Court for a hearing on plaintiffs' pending petition for interim relief. On April 28, 1994, this court denied the motion to remand and pointed out that our grants of certiorari and the pending appeals deprived the Superior Court of jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs' requests via their petition for interim relief.
On June 27, 1994, the Mayor, Superintendent of Schools, and School Committee of the City of Providence petitioned to intervene as plaintiffs in these cases, and on July 15, 1994, this court granted their petition.
The plaintiffs also filed a motion to remand and for additional relief on June 13, 1995, that we denied on June 22, 1995. 4
We begin our analysis of the constitutionality of the state's support of education by summarizing the standard of review that this court applies in construing statutory and constitutional provisions. We next address the scope and context of article 12 as reflected in the constitutional provisions and legislative enactments on educational funding. After reviewing the decision of the Superior Court, we proceed with our analysis of plaintiffs' challenge to the education clause and the equal-protection provision of the Rhode Island Constitution.
Government in Rhode Island operated under the royal charter granted in 1663 by Charles II until the State Constitution went into effect in 1843. William G. McLoughlin, Rhode Island, A History, ch. 4 at 135 (1978). Since the adoption of the constitution, this court has consistently held that the powers of both the Crown and Parliament reside in the Legislature, unless that power has been subsumed by the Constitution of the United States or has been removed from the General Assembly by the Constitution of the State of Rhode Island. Kennedy v. State, 654 A.2d 708, 710 (R.I.1995). The power of the General Assembly is, therefore, plenary and unlimited, save for the textual limitations to that power that are specified in the Federal or State Constitutions. Kass v. Retirement Board of the Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island, 567 A.2d 358, 360 (R.I.1989). The State Constitution defines the powers granted to the executive and judicial departments of government, leaving all other powers to the legislative branch, unless prohibited to it by the constitution. City of Providence v. Moulton, 52 R.I. 236, 241, 160 A. 75, 77 (1932). Because the General Assembly does not look to the State Constitution for grants of power, we have invariably adhered to the view that the General Assembly possesses all the powers inherent to the sovereign other than those that the constitution textually commits to the other branches of state government. Kass, 567 A.2d at 361. Any powers not so committed are powers reserved to the General Assembly. Id. (quoting Nugent v. City of East Providence, 103 R.I. 518, 525-26, 238 A.2d 758, 762 (1968)).
Because of the broad plenary power of the General Assembly, this court's evaluation of legislative enactments has been extremely deferential; moreover, we have interfered with such enactments only when the legislation at issue could palpably and unmistakably be characterized as an excess of legislative power. Kennedy, 654 A.2d at 711. Specifically, this court will not invalidate a legislative enactment unless the party challenging the enactment can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to this court that the statute in question is repugnant to a provision in the constitution. Gorham v. Robinson, 57 R.I. 1, 7, 186 A. 832, 837 (1936). Thus,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeRolph v. State, 95-2066
... ... system is at issue in this case. The named plaintiffs-appellants are the Youngstown City School District Board of Education, Mahoning County; the Lima City School District Board of ... be divined for all time even by the scholars who now so earnestly debate the issues.' " Pawtucket v. Sundlun (R.I.1995), 662 A.2d 40, 58, quoting San Antonio Indep. School Dist. v. Rodriguez ... ...
-
Bandoni v. State
...and effect, and [that] no word or section can be assumed to have been unnecessarily used, or needlessly added," City of Pawtucket v. Sundlun, 662 A.2d 40, 45 (R.I.1995), or unnecessarily omitted. Instead we must assume that the framers carefully weighed and considered the words in each clau......
-
Ex parte James
...J., concurring in the result in part and dissenting in part), and at 895-918 (Hooper, C.J., dissenting). 5. See City of Pawtucket v. Sundlun, 662 A.2d 40, 59 (R.I.1995) (noting that, in attempting to define what constitutes a "thorough and efficient" education under the New Jersey Constitut......
-
Lobato v. State
...provide a chilling example of the thickets that can entrap a court that takes on the duties of a Legislature." City of Pawtucket v. Sundlun, 662 A.2d 40, 59 (R.I. 1995). The New Jersey cases regarding school financing include Abbott v. Burke, 136 N.J. 444, 643 A.2d 575 (1994); Abbott v. Bur......
-
State courts and school funding: a fifty-state analysis.
...(Okla. 1987) (S); Olsen v. State, 554 P.2d 139 (Or. 1976) (S); Danson v. Casey, 399 A.2d 360 (Pa. 1979) (S); City of Pawtucket v. Sundlun, 662 A.2d 40 (R.I 1995) (S); Richland County v. Campbell, 364 S.E.2d 470 (S.C. 1988) (S); Tennessee Small Sch. Systems v. McWherter, 851 S.W.2d 139 (Tenn......
-
Beyond School Finance: Refocusing Education Reform Litigation to Realize the Deferred Dream of Education Equality and Adequacy
...672 N.E.2d 1178 (Ill. 1996).68. Koski, supra note 41, at 1192.69. See, e.g., Edgar, 672 N.E.2d at 1189; City of Pawtucket v. Sundlun, 662 A.2d 40, 59 (R.I. 1995) ("[T]he absence of justiciable standards could engage the court in a morass comparable to the decades-long struggle of the Suprem......
-
The right to a "minimally adequate education" as guaranteed by the Mississippi Constitution.
...Danson v. Casey, 399 A. 2d 360 (Pa. 1979) (basing claim on state constitutional education article); City of Pawtucket v. Sundlun, 662 A.2d 40 (R.I. 1995) (basing claim on state constitution's education and equal protection provisions); Tennessee Small Sch. Sys. v. McWherter, 851 S.W.2d 139 ......
-
The Courts’ Consensus: Money Does Matter for Educational Opportunity
...Ct. Oct. 14, 1999).Decisions in Which the Defendants PrevailedBonner v. Daniels, 907 N.E.2d 516 (Ind. 2009).City of Pawtucket v. Sundlun, 662 A.2d 40 (R.I. 1995)1995.Committee for Educational Rights v. Edgar, 672 N.E.2d 1178 (Ill. 1996).Crane Elementary School District v. State of Arizona (......