Opinion
C.A. PC-2013-1556
04-13-2018
EAST PROVIDENCE SCHOOL DEPARTMENT v. RHODE ISLAND BOARD OF EDUCATION, EVA-MARIE MANCUSO, ESQ., DR. ANTONIO BARAJAS, MICHAEL BERNSTEIN, COLLEEN A. CALLAHAN, KARIN L. FORBES, JO EVA GAINES, MICHAEL A GRANDE CPA, MST, PATRICK A. GUIDA, ESQ., WILLIAM MAIAA, ESQ., LAWRENCE PURTILL, MATHIES J. SANTOS, in their official capacities as members of the Rhode Island Board of Education, and ELAINE WALLER, p.p.a. as parent and natural guardian of E. DOE, a minor
For Plaintiff: Andrew Thomas, Esq.; Ronald F. Cascione, Esq. For Defendant: Paul V. Sullivan, Esq.
For Plaintiff: Andrew Thomas, Esq.; Ronald F. Cascione, Esq.
For Defendant: Paul V. Sullivan, Esq.
DECISION
K. RODGERS, J.
Before this Court is an appeal from a decision of the Rhode Island Board of Education (Board of Education) affirming the Commissioner of Education's (the Commissioner) decision in favor of Appellees E. Doe (Doe) and Doe's parent, Elaine Waller. In its March 11, 2013 decision, the Board of Education concluded that the East Providence School Department (School Department or Appellant) was required to pay Doe's tuition to attend a state approved career and technical program of study, which was located outside of her city of residence, during the 2011-2012 academic year.
Jurisdiction is pursuant to G.L. 1956 §§ 42-35-15, et seq. For the reasons that follow, the Board of Education's decision is affirmed.
I
Facts and Travel
From 2009 to 2013, Doe was a high school student who lived with her parents in the City of East Providence. During that time, Doe attended the Jacqueline M. Walsh School for the Performing and Visual Arts (the Walsh School), located in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. The Walsh School is a public arts high school offering conservatory style classes in visual arts, dance, music and theater, in addition to rigorous academic courses. As a student at the Walsh School, Doe studied music, specifically, the violin, which the East Providence High School did not offer.
During her freshman and sophomore years, 2009-2011, Doe's parents paid out-of-district tuition so that she could attend the music program at the Walsh School. In May 2011, four months before the beginning of Doe's junior year, the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) designated the Walsh School's visual arts, dance, music, and theater programs as "approved career and technical programs of study." In light of the school's approval by RIDE, Doe's parents, on her behalf, requested that the School Department pay Doe's tuition for the upcoming 2011-2012 academic year. The School Department denied Doe's request, maintaining that it had no obligation to pay the tuition because the Walsh School was not one of the ten schools identified as an "area vocational-technical center" by the 1990 Regulations of the Board of Regents Governing the Management and Operation of Area Vocational-Technical Centers in Rhode Island (1990 Regulations). Doe's parents paid out-of-district tuition for the 2011-2012 academic year.
Section IV(C)(7) of the 1990 Regulations provides, in relevant part,
"[i]f a particular program . . . is not available at a student's area center, he/she shall have the right to attend the programs in the center nearest to the student's legal residence offering the program which has an opening and for which he/she is qualified. Tuition and transportation expenses must be provided by the community where the student legally resides." 08 RICR 010-001-39, § IV(C)(7).The ten schools identified by the 1990 Regulations as "Area Vocational-Technical Centers" include:
"1. Chariho Area Vocational-Technical Center
"2. West Bay Area Vocational-Technical Center
"3. Newport County Vocational-Technical Center
"4. William M. Davies, Jr., Vocational-Technical High School
"5. James L. Hanley Area Vocational-Technical Center
"6. East Providence Area Vocational-Technical Center
"7. Warwick Area Vocational-Technical Center
"8. Cranston Area Vocational-Technical Center
"9. Woonsocket Area Vocational-Technical Center
"10. Community College of Rhode Island - Knight Campus." Id. at Ex. P.
On July 1, 2012, after Doe completed her junior year at the Walsh School, RIDE updated the 1990 Regulations and removed the provision that specifically identified the ten schools. The School Department thereafter paid Doe's tuition for the 2012-2013 school year for her attendance at the Walsh School, in conformity with RIDE's updated regulations. Thus, the only tuition at issue in this appeal is for the 2011-2012 academic year.
As refiled in 2012, the regulations now read:
"All students shall have the right to request, from their resident L[ocal] E[ducation] A[gency], access to a RIDE-approved career preparation program of their choice. This right of access shall be limited only by the following three conditions: (1) Availability of enrollment seats . . . . (2) Geographic location . . . . (3) Fair, equitable and reasonable admission standards . . . ." Board of Regents Regulations § 5.1, Effective July 2012.It is undisputed that the 2012 Regulations do not apply retroactively. See Ret. Bd. of Emps.' Ret. Sys. of City of Providence v. Corrente, 111 A.3d 301, 309 (R.I. 2015) (quoting State v. Healy, 122 R.I. 602, 606, 410 A.2d 432, 434 (1980)) ("As a general rule a statute is presumed to operate prospectively and not retrospectively, unless it appears by clear, strong language or by necessary implication that the Legislature intended to give the statute retroactive force and effect"). It is also uncontested that Doe's attendance at the Walsh School for the 2011-12 academic year was not restricted by any of the three stated conditions. See R.I. Admin. Code 21-2-60:2.0.
Doe appealed to RIDE from the School Department's denial of her request for tuition to be paid for the 2011-2012 academic year. In a decision dated October 11, 2011, the Commissioner found that the School Department was required to pay Doe's tuition for the 2011-2012 academic year. The School Department subsequently appealed the Commissioner's decision to the Board of Regents for Elementary and Secondary Education (the Board of Regents), which in turn remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further findings. On remand, the Commissioner affirmed its October 11, 2011 decision. The School Department appealed the Commissioner's Decision on Remand to the Board of Education, the Board of Regents' successor. By its decision dated March 11, 2013, the Board of Education affirmed the Commissioner's decision and concluded that the School Department was required to pay Doe's 2011-2012 tuition. The School Department timely appealed the Board of Education's decision to this Court on April 3, 2013.
More specifically, the Board of Regents remanded the matter for further "discussion and findings from the Commissioner involving the statutory or regulatory reference that requires the burden of paying the tuition be placed on the community where the child resides when that community does not wish to pay." (Board of Regents Decision 1-2, June 7, 2012.)
Effective January 1, 2013, the General Assembly enacted G.L. 1956 § 16-97-1 of the Rhode Island Board of Education Act, which replaced the Board of Regents with the newly established Board of Education. See § 16-97-4.
II
Standard of Review
Section 42-35-15(g) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) establishes this Court's appellate jurisdiction to review final decisions issued by state administrative agencies. See McAninch v. State of R.I. Dep't of Labor & Training, 64 A.3d 84, 87 (R.I. 2013). Pursuant to § 42-35-15(g),
"[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings, or it may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
"(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
"(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
"(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;
"(4) Affected by other error or law;
"(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or
"(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion." Sec. 42-35-15(g).
In reviewing an administrative agency's decision, "[q]uestions of law determined by the administrative agency are not binding upon [the court] and may be freely reviewed to determine the relevant law and its applicability to the facts presented in the record." State, Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt. v. State Labor Relations Bd., 799 A.2d 274, 277 (R.I. 2002) (citing Carmody v. R.I. Conflict of Interest Comm'n, 509 A.2d 453, 458 (R.I. 1986)). Notwithstanding this Court's authority to afford great deference to an administrative agency's factual findings, '"questions of law-including statutory interpretation-are reviewed de novo."' McAninch, 64 A.3d at 86 (quoting Heritage Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Marques, 14 A.3d 932, 936 (R.I. 2011)). This Court can vacate an administrative decision based on errors of law. R.I. Temps, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Training, Bd. of Review, 749 A.2d 1121, 1125 (R.I. 2000) (quoting Envtl. Scientific Corp. v. Durfee, 621 A.2d 200, 208 (R.I. 1993)). Furthermore, when a question of law involves an issue of statutory interpretation, the Court's '"ultimate goal is to give effect to the purpose of the act as intended by the Legislature."' McAninch, 64 A.3d at 86 (quoting Labor Ready Ne., Inc. v. McConaghy, 849 A.2d 340, 344 (R.I. 2004)).
III
Analysis
The issue before this Court is whether the School Department was required to pay Doe's tuition during the 2011-2012 academic year for her attendance in a state approved career and technical program of study at a public school located in a different municipality than her residence. The School Department contends that until the 1990 Regulations were updated in 2012, East Providence students attending the Walsh School were required to pay their own tuition because the Walsh School was not one of the ten approved "[a]rea vocational-technical centers" identified in the 1990 Regulations. The Appellees, on the other hand, maintain that the School Department was obligated to pay Doe's tuition when the Walsh School became a state approved career and technical program in May 2011, in accordance with § 16-45-1.1(d)(1)(i), which grants all students access to vocational education.
Chapter 45 of Title 16 of the Rhode Island General Laws governs "Regional Vocational Schools." See §§ 16-45-1, et seq. The statute defines "vocational education" as "a state approved educational program below the baccalaureate level taught by a properly certified teacher, designed to: (1) Prepare individuals for gainful employment in recognized and/or emerging clusters of related occupations; (2) Assist individuals in making informed occupational choices; and (3) Upgrade individuals already in an occupational field." Sec. 16-45-1.1(b). Importantly, § 16-45-1.1(d)(1)(i) states that "[a]ll youth and adults who choose vocational education shall have access to those programs."
The Rhode Island General Assembly granted the Board of Regents the authority "to establish and maintain regional schools for vocational and technological training and instruction, " and to "make all rules and regulations necessary for the control, management, and operation of the schools." Sec. 16-45-1. In 1990, the Board of Regents promulgated regulations that provided a description of programs that qualified as "[a]rea vocational-technical centers and satellite programs, " as well as a list identifying ten qualified programs. See 08 RICR 010-001-39, § IV(C)(7), Ex. P. It appears that as regional vocational programs were granted State approval under § 16-45-1, they were not included on the list of qualified programs that was reflected in the 1990's Regulations.
It is well-settled that "an administrative agency[] is bound by the acts of the General Assembly that empower it." Clarke v. Morsilli, 714 A.2d 597, 600 (R.I. 1998). "In the course of performing its discrete functions . . . [an] [] administrative agency, is called upon both to interpret certain acts of the Legislature and to promulgate applicable regulations not inconsistent with its delegated authority." Id. (citing Lerner v. Gill, 463 A.2d 1352, 1358 (R.I. 1983)). However, it is the Judiciary that acts as the '"final arbiter of the validity or interpretation of statutory law' as well as of any agency regulations promulgated to administer that law." Id. (quoting DeAngelis v. R.I. Ethics Comm'n, 656 A.2d 967, 970 (R.I. 1995)).
The Rhode Island Supreme Court has long held that '"when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, [a] [c]ourt must interpret the statute literally and must give the words of the statute their plain and ordinary meanings."' Iselin v. Ret. Bd. of Emps.' Ret. Sys. of Rhode Island, 943 A.2d 1045, 1049 (R.I. 2008) (quoting Accent Store Design, Inc. v. Marathon House, Inc., 674 A.2d 1223, 1226 (R.I. 1996)); State v. Peterson, 722 A.2d 259, 264 (R.I. 1998) (quoting In re Advisory to the Governor, 668 A.2d 1246, 1248 (R.I. 1996)) (alternatively, a court must examine an ambiguous statute in its entirety and determine "the intent and purpose of the Legislature"). Our Supreme Court has "repeatedly held that '[i]t is a basic tenet of administrative law that the rule-making power of an administrative body may not abrogate state law dealing with the same subject."' Chariho Reg'l Sch. Dist. v. Gist, 91 A.3d 783, 791, 791 (R.I. 2014) (quoting Reback v. R.I. Bd. of Regents for Elementary and Secondary Educ., 560 A.2d 357, 358 (R.I. 1989)); see also Town of Smithfield v. Churchill & Banks Companies, LLC, 924 A.2d 796, 802 (R.I. 2007) (finding that the statute "trump[ed]" any administrative regulation since "the general provisions of a legislative rule must give way to specific statutory language").
In the instant matter, it is undisputed that in May 2011, the Walsh School became a state approved career and technical program of study. When the Walsh School received State approval, all youth and adults who choose to attend that school must have access to do so, pursuant to § 16-45-1.1(d)(1)(i). The clear and unambiguous language of § 16-45-1.1 cannot be read as limiting state approved programs to only those programs identified in the 1990 Regulations; nor does §§ 16-45-1.1 et seq. indicate that the implementation of a regulation, or an amendment thereto, is required for the statute to be effective. See § 16-45-1.1; Iselin, 943 A.2d at 1049.
If this Court accepted the proposition that the 1990 Regulations control, then the School Department would not be obligated to provide any East Providence resident seeking career and technical education with the funds to access any regional vocational program other than the ten programs identified by the regulations in 1990. Even though "the [1990] Regulations represent legislative rules, because they were enacted by the Board of Regents pursuant to its enabling legislation . . ., " Chariho Reg'l Sch. Dist., 91 A.3d at 783, the regulations are still "bound by the acts . . . that empower it." Clarke, 714 A.2d at 600 (citing Lerner, 463 A.2d at 1358). It is § 16-45-1.1 that governs Doe's right to access the state approved program at issue in this matter, and not the 1990 Regulations.
Based on a review of the record, this Court finds that the Board of Education did not err in affirming the Commissioner's decision and requiring the School Department to pay Doe's tuition for the 2011-2012 academic year. See § 42-35-15(g); see also Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt., 799 A.2d at 277 (citing Carmody, 509 A.2d at 458). Section 16-45-1.1(d)(1)(i) clearly provides that all youth who choose vocational education shall have access to a state approved program. See § 16-45-1.1(b). When the Walsh School received state approval as a career and technical program in May 2011, the City of East Providence became financially responsible for providing Doe access to the Walsh School's music program. Accordingly, this Court finds that the School Department is required to reimburse the cost of Doe's tuition payments for the 2011-2012 academic year.
IV Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, this Court affirms the Board of Education's decision on remand requiring that the School Department pay the cost of E. Doe's tuition to attend the Walsh School during the 2011-2012 academic year.
Counsel shall submit an appropriate judgment for entry.