West Warwick School Committee v. Souliere

• Decision Date: 29 June 1993
• Docket Number: No. 93-240-A,93-240-A
• Citation: 626 A.2d 1280
• Parties: 83 Ed. Law Rep. 1093 WEST WARWICK SCHOOL COMMITTEE et al. v. Joseph O. SOULIERE et al. ppeal.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 1280

626 A.2d 1280

83 Ed. Law Rep. 1093

WEST WARWICK SCHOOL COMMITTEE et al. v. Joseph O. SOULIERE et al.

No. 93-240-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 29, 1993.

David G. Lussier, West Warwick, Katherine Merolla, Providence, for plaintiffs.

Lauren Jones, Robert D. Harrop, Providence, Thomas Petronio, Johnston, for defendants.

OPINION

WEISBERGER, Justice.

This case came before a hearing panel of this court for oral argument on May 18, 1993, pursuant to an order of expedited hearing that had been issued by the duty justice. The town of West Warwick, through its various officials, had appealed from a judgment for mandamus entered in the Superior Court that had the effect of enforcing a decision of the State Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education (commissioner). This judgment ordered the tax assessor of the town of West Warwick to levy additional taxes to fund an amount required by the commissioner to pay the sum of $1,435,000, which was necessary to implement the applicable collective-bargaining agreement and to provide the educational services required by law. We have affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court in an order dated May 18, 1993. This opinion sets forth the reasons underlying that order. The facts of the case insofar as pertinent to this appeal are as follows.

On September 29, 1992, the town council and the school committee of the town of West Warwick submitted to the financial town meeting a budget for the purpose of implementing the expenses of operating the town's schools for the fiscal year 1992-93 in the amount of $23,443,270. The requested appropriation was presented in two parts. Of the total sum, the amount of $21,927,709 was approved and an additional proposed appropriation in the amount of $1,600,000 was not approved, leaving a shortfall of approximately $1,500,000 in the school committee's requested budget.

Thereafter, on September 30, 1992, the school committee filed an appeal with the commissioner in accordance with the provisions of G.L.1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 16-39-1. The school committee contended before the commissioner that the appropriation made by the financial town meeting was insufficient to fund expenses necessary to implement the collective-bargaining agreements with the employees of the school system and to provide educational services mandated by state law.

Pursuant to this appeal the commissioner appointed a special visitor, Dr. Frank Pontarelli, to conduct an investigation of the financial condition of the West Warwick school system; to make findings of fact concerning the funds necessary to implement the collective-bargaining agreements; and to provide those educational services mandated by the law of the State of Rhode Island. Doctor Pontarelli made a report to the commissioner. In this report Dr. Pontarelli concluded that it was necessary for the town to increase the amount budgeted for the operation of the school system by $1,435,000. He further suggested that the town council did not dispute the fact that this amount was needed in order to fund the schools for the fiscal year 1992-93. The commissioner adopted the special visitor's report, including his findings of fact, and issued the following order:

"West Warwick is required to provide the West Warwick school committee with the total sum of $23,362,790 in order to allow the committee to fund the applicable collective bargaining agreement and to provide the services required by law." (Emphasis added.)

I THE JUDGMENT FOR MANDAMUS

It is significant to note that the town of West Warwick did not appeal this decision as would have been permitted by § 16-39-3. Under this provision the town, through its solicitor, could have sought review by the State Board of Regents for Elementary and Secondary Education (board of regents). Thereafter, if aggrieved by the decision of the board of regents, the town could have sought review in this court by a petition for common-law certiorari pursuant to § 16-39-4. See School Committee of Providence v. Board of Regents for Education, 429 A.2d 1297 (R.I.1981).

By virtue of its having failed to appeal the decision of the board of regents, the town is now faced with a final decision wherein the findings of fact and conclusions of law are res adjudicata. This final decision may only be collaterally attacked for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. George v. Infantolino, 446 A.2d 757 (R.I.1982); Pratt v. Pratt, 431 A.2d 405 (R.I.1981); Hartt v. Hartt, 121 R.I. 220, 397 A.2d 518 (1979). Indeed, the role of the Superior Court in this controversy was limited to the enforcement of the final decision of the commissioner in accordance with § 16-39-3.1, which states:

"All final decisions made after a hearing by the commissioner * * * or the board of regents * * * and which are not subject to further judicial or administrative review, shall be enforceable by mandamus or any other suitable civil action in the superior court for Providence County at the request of any interested party."

Therefore, the trial justice was limited to the initial determination of whether the commissioner had subject-matter jurisdiction. She held that he had subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to § 16-39-1, which in the broadest terms authorizes any matter of dispute arising under any law relating to schools or education to be appealed to the commissioner who "after notice to the parties interested * * * shall examine and decide the same without cost to the parties involved." The trial justice properly relied upon our opinion in Exeter-West Greenwich Regional School District v. Exeter-West Greenwich Teachers' Association, 489 A.2d 1010 (R.I.1985), wherein we decided a number of questions and enunciated principles that are controlling in the case at bar.

In that case we explicitly recognized the authority of the commissioner and the board of regents to render final decisions in respect to the funding of collective-bargaining agreements between school committees and employees and of other educational services mandated by state law. We also authorized the enforcement of said decisions by recourse to the Superior Court pursuant to § 16-39-3.1. Exeter-West Greenwich, 489 A.2d at 1020-21.

In Exeter-West Greenwich we had occasion to consider whether a regional district financial meeting was required to fund a collective-bargaining agreement, which had been entered into by the district school committee. We also considered whether an appropriating authority, either a municipal council or a financial town meeting, was required to fund services mandated by law incident to the operation of a public school system. In an extensive and detailed opinion based upon precedents from New Hampshire, Sullivan v. Flynn, 116 N.H. 547, 365 A.2d 1052 (1976), and Massachusetts, Boston Teachers Union, Local 66 v. School Committee of Boston, 386 Mass. 197, 434 N.E.2d 1258 (1982), we balanced the relationship between a school committee in this state and the appropriating authority. In doing so, we read in pari materia a number of statutes authorizing collective bargaining with those portions of the general laws empowering school committees to contract as well as the statutory provisions concerning the appropriation of funds by municipal...