Riley v. The Narragansett Pension Board

• Decision Date: 10 June 2020
• Docket Number: C. A. WC-2019-0445
• Parties: KRISTIN RILEY and MATTHEW RILEY v. THE NARRAGANSETT PENSION BOARD
• Court: Rhode Island Superior Court

KRISTIN RILEY and MATTHEW RILEY v. THE NARRAGANSETT PENSION BOARD

C. A. No. WC-2019-0445

Superior Court of Rhode Island, Washington

June 10, 2020

For Plaintiff: Joseph F. Penza, Jr., Esq.

For Defendant: Andrew H. Berg, Esq.

DECISION

TAFT-CARTER, J.

Before this Court for decision is the Amended Verified Complaint of Matthew Riley and his wife Kristin Riley (individually, Mr Riley and Mrs. Riley, collectively, Plaintiffs) seeking reversal of a decision by the Narragansett Pension Board (Pension Board) revoking Mr. Riley's retirement pension and denying Mrs. Riley any interest in the pension as an innocent spouse, as well as compensatory damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. Jurisdiction is pursuant to G.L. 1956 §§ 36-10.1-5 8-2-13, 9-30-1 et seq., and Super. R. Civ. P. 65.

I Facts and Travel

The crux of this action concerns the substantive and procedural due process afforded to Plaintiffs during the pension revocation hearing.

Mr. and Mrs. Riley are residents of Narragansett. Am. Ver. Compl ¶ 2. They are husband and wife. Id. Mr. Riley was employed as a police officer with the Narragansett Police Department for twenty-eight years and was a member of the Town of Narragansett's (Town) pension plan before his retirement in June 2017. Id. ¶ 6.

A federal grand jury indicted Mr. Riley on October 5, 2017. Id. ¶ 7. The one count indictment alleged that he violated 18 U.S.C. § 1470. Id. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Mr. Riley pled guilty to Count I of the indictment on March 15, 2019 and was sentenced to prison. Id. ¶ 8.

After Mr. Riley was sentenced, the Town sought to revoke his pension. The Acting Town Manager and Police Chief Sean Corrigan initiated the pension revocation process by signing and mailing an undated letter to Mr. Riley at the federal prison in Waymart, Pennsylvania. Def.'s Pre-Hr'g Statement Ex. B. The letter stated:

"You are hereby notified of a Pension Board meeting scheduled to take place on June 19^th, 2019 at 0900 hrs. in the large board room at Town Hall, 25 Fifth Avenue, Narragansett, RI, 02882.

"The Town Council has authorized Solicitor Mark Davis to present a request of the pension board to enact the provisions of the Town Ordinance Sec. 58-36 entitled Benefits Forfeited (copy of ordinance enclosed). I encourage you to have legal representation present at the pension board meeting to speak on your behalf." Id.

The certified letter was stamped received by R. Mullen on May 24, 2019. Id.

The Pension Board met on June 19, 2019. At that meeting, the Pension Board scheduled a hearing for August 14, 2019 to consider the revocation of Mr. Riley's pension. As planned, the Pension Board convened on that date. This formal proceeding began without the implementation of rules of practice or procedure. The order of procedure, presentation of evidence, cross-examination, and general rules of conduct and protocol were never promulgated.

In fact, the fate of the Pension Board's decision was settled when the Acting Chairperson recognized Jill Lawler, a member of the Town Council. Councilwoman Lawler was permitted to address the Pension Board with respect to the expected outcome of Mr. Riley's pension revocation hearing. (Hr'g Tr. at 1:2-3, Aug. 14, 2019.) As a member of the Town Council, Ms. Lawler appoints and confirms the members of the Pension Board. She also approves any rules and regulations enacted by the Pension Board governing the Narragansett Pension Ordinance and pension revocation hearings. Councilwoman Lawler laid out her expectations of the Pension Board at the hearing. She reminded the Pension Board members that they were appointed by the Town Council and were expected to follow the law. Id. at 1:7-9. She relayed that the Town Council had previously discussed and decided the issue of Mr. Riley's pension; that the Pension Board members were aware of the Town Council's decision in support of the revocation; and that the Pension Board could not supersede that decision. Id. at 1:23-2:3. To Ms. Lawler, the case was clear. Mr. Riley was a convicted felon; as such, the law required that his pension be revoked. Id. at 1:11-14; 2:7-10.

At the conclusion of Councilwoman Lawler's oration, the Pension Board entered executive session to discuss "the job performance, character and physical or mental health of the person or persons in accordance with Rhode Island General Law 42-46-5(a)(1), Matthew Riley" and "any investigative proceedings regarding allegations of misconduct, either civil or criminal, in accordance with [§] 42-46-5(a)(4)." Id. at 2:16-23.

From the commencement of the hearing until its conclusion, issues of prejudice and bias, as well as procedure, practice and protocol were raised, discussed, and argued by Plaintiffs' counsel. The arguments advanced related to procedural and substantive issues. One such issue related to the Pension Board's failure to recognize Mrs. Riley's interest in her husband's pension. This issue was brought to centerstage when the Pension Board discussed the sequestration of nonparty witnesses. The Pension Board sought to sequester Mrs. Riley from the hearing as a nonparty. Id. at 5:17-19. The Pension Board based this position on its failure to recognize Mrs. Riley's status as a party pursuant to the innocent spouse doctrine. Despite the fact that the Pension Board did not recognize the innocent spouse doctrine, Mrs. Riley was allowed to remain to assist her counsel. Id. at 6:9-11; 11:4-5.

This issue of sequestration led to a discussion concerning Mrs. Riley's ability to introduce evidence regarding her status. Id. at 19:6-11; 20:24-21:17. The Pension Board dismissed her argument that she had a right to present evidence, stating that it was not in a position to exercise "equitable" powers and the innocent spouse rule did not apply to Mrs. Riley. Id. at 20:12-25.

Following this exchange, Pension Board member Barber raised several significant questions concerning potential due process deficiencies as well as the Pension Board's ability to hear the case objectively. Mr. Barber questioned the Pension Board's ability to decide this case impartially. In fact, he stated that, "I believe . . . that this needs to be heard by an impartial judicial officer . . . this Board I don't believe is unbiased." Id. at 14:5-8. Following these comments, the Pension Board was advised that the evidence is compelling and undisputed and that there "is only one conclusion that is something that you can deliberate. There is not a lot of gray area here. This ordinance is pretty black and white." Id. at 17:1-13 (emphasis added).

The Pension Board's failure to implement procedural and evidentiary protocols, as well as the importance thereof, was again highlighted when the Pension Board was unable to define the burden of proof that the Town would be required to meet. Id. at 24:3-6. The Pension Board was merely advised to "take the facts that are presented, you make a determination whether they are credible and reliable. If those credible and reliable facts meet the standards set forth in the ordinance then that should guide your findings." Id. at 25:9-13.

The function of the Assistant Solicitor during the hearing was also addressed. The question of whether he was to perform duties as an advocate for the Town or advisor to the Pension Board was discussed at length. Pension Board members Holland and DeLuca concluded that the Assistant Solicitor had dual roles. Id. at 26-28. Plaintiffs' counsel pointed out "that you cannot have the very same person who is presenting the case advising the Board. When I make an objection on a piece of evidence that he's trying to introduce, he then turns to you and gives you what his theory is. . . ." Id. at 27:21-28:1. At the conclusion of this debate, Pension Board member Holland summarized that "it's not a case," "[i]t's not a court of law," "[i]t's a hearing." Id. at 28: 2-3. The Pension Board would stay consistent with "past practice," there were no "rules written," and the ordinance did not require rules. Id. at 28:11-13, 17-18. Mr. Holland and the Assistant Solicitor insisted that Robert's Rules of Order would guide this formal proceeding. Id. at 24:3, 22.

The record of the proceeding is riddled with statements concerning the Pension Board's bias and partiality. At one point during the hearing, Plaintiffs' counsel pointed to extraneous evidence received by the Pension Board.

"MR. PENZA: Here's the problem, you have documents from the State Police. You shouldn't consider those because they are not in evidence yet. You have a statement by a councilperson for the Town. We're not going to consider those. You have an email from some taxpayer who-and I don't know, I haven't had a chance to read all of this-and we're not going to consider that. So when we talk about potential for bias here, I think it's staring us in the face. So I just raise that and would suggest that the panel is tainted before they even start to hear the case." Id. at 32:2-12.

Pension Board members admitted to receiving, reviewing, and considering evidence prior to the formal proceeding. Id. at 30:12-22. Pension Board member DeLuca reminded his fellow members that they had previously reviewed the evidence anticipated for this proceeding- including Major Fleming's memorandum to Colonel Manni describing aspects of the criminal case against Mr. Riley and the Acting Town Manager and Police Chief's memorandum to the Pension Board describing conduct unbecoming of an officer. Id. at 34:1-4, 7-12.

The hearing proceeded without order. Each and every step of the way Plaintiffs' counsel questioned and inquired about procedural matters. The Assistant Solicitor introduced evidence in support of the Town's position to revoke Mr Riley's pension. Id. at 37:10-13. The...