Retirement Bd. of Employees Retirement System of City of Providence v. Annarino
| Decision Date | 08 September 2009 |
| Docket Number | C. A. 02-5196,08-5442,07-2175,08-6508,08-7268 |
| Parties | RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE v. ANTHONY E. ANNARINO RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE v. URBANO PRIGNANO, JR. RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE v. KATHLEEN PARSONS RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE v. FRANK E. CORRENTE JOHN J. RYAN v. CITY OF PROVIDENCE, et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Superior Court |
DECISION
Before the Court for decision is a consolidated action concerning a number of common legal questions that must be resolved before addressing the merits of each individual case. Specifically this consolidated action centers around three threshold issues of first impression regarding the City of Providence's Honorable Service Ordinance (the "HSO"). See City Code of Ordinances § 17-189.1. The first issue requires a determination of whether a criminal conviction is needed before the Retirement Board of the Employees Retirement System of the City of Providence (the "Board") is authorized to take action1[] to revoke or reduce municipal pension benefits pursuant to the HSO. The second issue involves determining whether this Court has jurisdiction to review civil actions filed by the Board pursuant to section (a)(5) of the HSO. Lastly, if it is established that the Court does have jurisdiction to review such matters, the Court must ascertain the appropriate standard of review to apply when reviewing civil actions filed pursuant to section (a)(5) of the HSO.
II
To date, four of the five individuals2[] 3[] in the above referenced actions have had their municipal pensions either revoked or substantially reduced by the Board. Two of the cases—involving defendants Anthony E. Annarino ("Mr. Annarino") and Frank E. Corrente ("Mr Corrente")—involve actual criminal convictions and implicate Board action pursuant to section (a)(4) of the HSO and two other cases—involving defendants Urbano Prignano, Jr. ("Mr. Prignano, Jr.") and Kathleen Parsons ("Ms. Parsons")— involve findings of dishonorable service in the absence of actual convictions and implicate Board action pursuant to section (a)(1) of the HSO. Finally, in the fifth and last to be filed case involving Mr Ryan, he filed for injunctive and declaratory relief before the Board had a chance to act. Consequently, hearings and Board action have yet to take place with respect to Mr. Ryan's pension.4[]
Mr. Prignano, Jr., Ms. Parsons, and Mr. Ryan collectively maintain that the conviction5[] of a crime relating to an employee's public employment is a necessary prerequisite for Board action under the HSO to revoke or reduce a municipal pension. Conversely, the Board asserts that based on the plain language of the HSO, it may revoke or reduce retirement benefits whenever an employee fails to engage in "honorable service"; not just in specific situations where the employee has been convicted of a crime related to his or her public employment. Before addressing the merits of these arguments, however, some brief background information regarding the HSO and its genesis is helpful.
The Common Law Rule and the Concept of "Honorable Service"
Prior to the enactment of the State's Public Employee Pension Revocation and Reduction Act, G.L. 1956 § 36-10.1-3 ("PEPRRA"), and the HSO, the principal source of Rhode Island law on pension revocation and reduction was found in the case of In re Almeida, 611 A.2d 1375 (R.I. 1992). In Almeida, the Rhode Island Supreme Court considered "honorable and faithful service to be implicitly required to receive a pension in all facets and positions of public service." Id. at 1383. Specifically, in Almeida, the Court found that "a requirement of honorable service is commonsensical in relation to the trust and confidence vested in those persons holding positions in public service," and was "so fundamental to those individuals to whom it pertains that it need not be expressly stated to be required." Id. at 1383. Further, the Almeida Court made clear that "a pension is to be awarded for honorable service only [and the] failure to meet this standard may result in its being removed." Id. at 1384
Of particular import is the fact that the Almeida Court held that a criminal conviction was not a prerequisite for divestiture of an employee's pension benefits, noting that "we need not address the disposition of the criminal charges that were pending against petitioner because our decision is based on the acts of misconduct as alleged by the commission to which he has admitted." Id. 1379, n.3. This significant detail has been emphasized in a number of succeeding cases. See e.g., Smith v. Retirement Board, 656 A.2d 186, 189 (R.I. 1995) ("[T]he justice in Almeida had failed to meet the requisite 'honorable service' not because criminal charges pended against him but because he admitted to the acts of misconduct").6[]
Despite the Almeida Court's holding that a criminal conviction was not a prerequisite for divestiture of pension benefits, however, the Court elucidated that it "did not intend to suggest that upon committing misconduct, one automatically forfeits pension benefits." Id. 1387. As an alternative, the Court promoted a balancing approach and the consideration of particular enumerated factors, which were to be "weighted, balanced, and considered in reaching the major purposes underlying public pensions—to induce people to enter public employment and continue faithful and diligent employment and to furnish public employees with employment stability and financial security." Id.7[] In summation, the law on pension revocation and reduction in Rhode Island and the City of Providence prior to the enactment of PEPRRA and the HSO made honorable service a prerequisite to receipt of a pension, and permitted the applicable retirement board to revoke or reduce a public employee's pension if he or she served dishonorably, even if the employee was not convicted of any crime.
In January of 1993, the General Assembly enacted PEPRRA, and since that time, the Rhode Island Supreme Court has made it clear that PEPRRA was intended to supersede Almeida and "[O]nly a conviction or plea of guilty or nolo contendere to one of the felonies enumerated in the statute would trigger the revocation or reduction of a public employee's retirement benefits."8[] Smith v. Retirement Board, 656 A.2d 186, 190 (R.I. 1995). PEPRRA, however, never applied to members of the City of Providence's retirement system—such as Mr. Prignano, Jr., Ms. Parsons, and Mr Ryan in the instant matter. See G.L. 1956 § 36-10.1-2(b) (); see also G.L. 1956 § 45-21-4(a) ().9[] Consequently, for members of the City of Providence's retirement system, the common law rule requiring "honorable service," as articulated in Almeida, remained the law following PEPRRA.
In 1999, six years following the enactment of PEPRRA, the Providence City Council ("City Council") passed its own provision—the HSO—to be made applicable to beneficiaries of the City of Providence's retirement system. See City Code of Ordinances § 17-189.1. The HSO provides in its entirety as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial