home rule in Rhode Island

2009In a nonbinding advisory opinion, five justices of this Court declared that “ ‘[o]nce a home rule charter has been duly adopted by the qualified electors of a city or town in accordance with the provisions of article [13] of the amendments, it may be amended only as provided in said article.’ ” Opinion to the House of Representatives, 99 R.I. 472, 475 , 208 A.2d 522, 523 (1965) (quoting Opinion to the House of Representatives, 79 R.I. 277, 283 , 87 A.2d at 693, 697 (1952)).

2009In a nonbinding advisory opinion, five justices of this Court declared that “ ‘[o]nce a home rule charter has been duly adopted by the qualified electors of a city or town in accordance with the provisions of article [13] of the amendments, it may be amended only as provided in said article.’ ” Opinion to the House of Representatives, 99 R.I. 472, 475 , 208 A.2d 522, 523 (1965) (quoting Opinion to the House of Representatives, 79 R.I. 277, 283 , 87 A.2d at 693, 697 (1952)).

2023This Court has stated that “no provision affecting education contained within a home rule charter, so called, can effectively regulate the conduct of school committees as agents of the state unless expressly validated by an act of the general assembly.” Royal v. Barry, 91 R.I. 24, 30 , 160 A.2d 572, 575 (1960).

2023This Court has stated that “no provision affecting education contained within a home rule charter, so called, can effectively regulate the conduct of school committees as agents of the state unless expressly validated by an act of the general assembly.” Royal v. Barry, 91 R.I. 24, 30 , 160 A.2d 572, 575 (1960).

2020In O’Neil, this Court, after recognizing the need for greater clarification with respect to matters that do not fall squarely within one of the -6- above-mentioned categories, identified three variables to be considered in discerning whether a matter is of local or statewide concern: (1) whether “uniform regulation throughout the state is necessary or desirable;” (2) “whether a particular matter is traditionally within the historical dominion of one entity;” and, most critically, (3) whether “the action of a municipality has a significant effect upon people outside the home rule town or city *

2011In determining what is a matter of local as opposed to statewide concern, we have stated that we will look to three variables for assistance: (1) whether “it appears that uniform regulation throughout the state is necessary or desirable;” (2) “whether a particular matter is traditionally within the historical dominion of one entity;” and (3) most importantly, whether “the action of a municipality has a significant effect upon people outside the home rule town or city.” Id.

2011See Westerly Residents for Thoughtful Development, Inc. v. Brancato, 565 A.2d 1262, 1263-64 (R.I.1989) ("Rhode Island’s Home Rule Amendment grants authority to every city and town to enact a home rule charter, which gives the town the right of self-govemment in all local matters as long as the charter is not inconsistent with [the] Constitution and laws enacted by the [G]eneral [Assembly in conformity with the powers reserved to the [GJeneral [AJssembly.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Newport Court Club Associates v. Town Council of Middletown, 716 A.2d 787, 790 (R.I.1998) (not

2009See, e.g., Newport Court Club Associates v. Town Council of Middletown, 800 A.2d 405, 410 (R.I.2002) (holding that once a town has adopted a home rule charter, the state legislature "may not enact special legislation affecting a local matter in that particular town unless the legislation is approved by a majority of the qualified electors of the town”); Amico's Inc. v. Mattos, 789 A.2d 899, 903 (R.I.2002) (holding that "municipalities may not legislate on matters of statewide concern, and the power of home rule is subordinate to the General Assembly's unconditional power to legislate in the sa

2006However, the basis of the parties’ dispute actually hinges on the interpretation of Johnston’s home rule charter, and this Court previously has explained that “[w]hen a court is called upon to construe the provisions of a municipal charter, the usual rules of statutory construction are employed.” Coventry School Committee v. Richtarik, 122 R.I. 707, 713 , 411 A.2d 912, 915 (1980) (citing Borromeo v. Personnel Board, 117 R.I. 382 , 367 A.2d 711 (1977)).

2006However, the basis of the parties’ dispute actually hinges on the interpretation of Johnston’s home rule charter, and this Court previously has explained that “[w]hen a court is called upon to construe the provisions of a municipal charter, the usual rules of statutory construction are employed.” Coventry School Committee v. Richtarik, 122 R.I. 707, 713 , 411 A.2d 912, 915 (1980) (citing Borromeo v. Personnel Board, 117 R.I. 382 , 367 A.2d 711 (1977)).

2023Hurd v. City of East Providence, 103 R.I. 518 , 238 A.2d 758 [(1968)], were matters with respect to which the state had not - 19 - surrendered its sovereignty to a home rule municipality.” Marro, 108 R.I. at 196 n.5, 273 A.2d at 662 n.5.

2023Hurd v. City of East Providence, 103 R.I. 518 , 238 A.2d 758 [(1968)], were matters with respect to which the state had not - 19 - surrendered its sovereignty to a home rule municipality.” Marro, 108 R.I. at 196 n.5, 273 A.2d at 662 n.5.

2010See Town of Johnston v. Santilli, 892 A.2d 123, 128 (R.I.2006); Royal v. Barry, 91 R.I. 24, 30 , 160 A.2d 572, 575 (1960) (“[N]o provision affecting education contained within a home rule charter, so called, can effectively regulate the conduct of school committees as agents of the state unless expressly validated by an act of the general assembly.”).

2010See Town of Johnston v. Santilli, 892 A.2d 123, 128 (R.I.2006); Royal v. Barry, 91 R.I. 24, 30 , 160 A.2d 572, 575 (1960) ("[N]o provision affecting education contained within a home rule charter, so called, can effectively regulate the conduct of school committees as agents of the state unless expressly validated by an act of the general assembly.").

2006Notwithstanding the right of towns and cities to regulate local matters, we have held previously that “[w]hen local laws conflict with general laws of statewide application, the former must defer to the latter.” Local No. 799, International As sociation of Firefighters AFL-CIO v. Napolitano, 516 A.2d 1347, 1349 (R.I.1986) (citing O’Neill v. City of East Providence, 480 A.2d 1375, 1379 (R.I.1984)).

1986Notwithstanding the adoption of a home rule, “[t]he authority of a municipality to engage in self-government does not extend to enacting local laws that are inconsistent with those provisions of the general laws enacted in conformity with the Legislature’s reserved powers.” O’Neill v. City of East Providence, 480 A.2d 1375, 1379 (R.I.1984).

1999We concluded that “[n]otwithstanding their broad sweep, nothing in those grants has an inhibiting effect on the General Assembly’s overriding power to legislate even on local matters as long as it does so in a general act applicable to all cities and towns alike *708 and does not affect the form of government of any city or town.” Id.; see also Town of Lincoln v. Lincoln Lodge No. 22, 660 A.2d 710, 719 (R.I.1995); Marro v. General Treasurer of Cranston, 108 R.I. 192, 195 , 273 A.2d 660, 662 (1971); Opinion to the House of Representatives, 79 R.I. 277, 281 , 87 A.2d 693, 696 (1952).

1999We concluded that “Mot-withstanding their broad sweep, nothing in those grants has an inhibiting effect on the General Assembly’s overriding power to legislate even on local matters as long as it does so in a general act applicable to all cities and towns alike and does not affect the form of government of any city or town.” Id.; see also Town of Lincoln v. Lincoln Lodge No. 22, 660 A.2d 710, 719 (R.I.1995); Marro v. General Treasurer of Cranston, 108 R.I. 192, 195 , 273 A.2d 660, 662 (1971); Opinion to the House of Representatives, 79 R.I. 277, 281 , 87 A.2d 693, 696 (1952).

2023However, “if [the General Assembly] chooses to do so it may by appropriate legislation validate petitioner as well as that of the respondent; and in any such proceeding, all or any persons claiming the same office by whatever title, or claiming different offices depending upon the same election or appointment, may be made parties, and their respective rights may be ascertained and determined; and the court may consolidate for the purposes of healing and adjudication all such proceedings if brought separately.” -6- any provision in a home rule charter which is inconsistent with this [requiremen

2023However, “if [the General Assembly] chooses to do so it may by appropriate legislation validate petitioner as well as that of the respondent; and in any such proceeding, all or any persons claiming the same office by whatever title, or claiming different offices depending upon the same election or appointment, may be made parties, and their respective rights may be ascertained and determined; and the court may consolidate for the purposes of healing and adjudication all such proceedings if brought separately.” -6- any provision in a home rule charter which is inconsistent with this [requiremen

2023Id. at 1348. - 39 - This Court affirmed the trial justice’s conclusion that because § 1210 was expressly validated by P.L. 1981, ch. 37, “[t]he clear and unambiguous language of this enactment indicates that the Legislature intended to validate § 1210 of the home rule charter.” Napolitano, 516 A.2d at 1349 .

2023Id. at 1348-49 . - 41 - unambiguous language of this enactment indicates that the Legislature intended to validate § 1210 of the home rule charter.” Id.

2006We noted that the teacher “[was] employed by a department of the city which is supported by the taxpayers of that city, and he receives his paycheck from the city.” Id. at 331 , 377 A.2d at 1074 . 5 (Emphasis added.) After Cummings , this Court again had occasion to consider the effect of a home rule charter on the rights of a school committee.

2006We noted that the teacher “[was] employed by a department of the city which is supported by the taxpayers of that city, and he receives his paycheck from the city.” Id. at 331 , 377 A.2d at 1074 . 5 (Emphasis added.) After Cummings , this Court again had occasion to consider the effect of a home rule charter on the rights of a school committee.

2023Foster Glocester Regional School Building Committee v. Sette, 996 A.2d 1120, 1125 (R.I. 2010). - 52 - within a home rule charter, so called, can effectively regulate the conduct of school committees as agents of the state unless expressly validated by an act of the general assembly[,]” we declared that the Court would “not assume that the town council possesses the authority to remove a member of a regional school body, such as the [building committee] in the absence of legislation that expressly grants that authority.” Id. at 1125, 1127 .

2023Foster Glocester Regional School Building Committee v. Sette, 996 A.2d 1120, 1125 (R.I. 2010). - 52 - within a home rule charter, so called, can effectively regulate the conduct of school committees as agents of the state unless expressly validated by an act of the general assembly[,]” we declared that the Court would “not assume that the town council possesses the authority to remove a member of a regional school body, such as the [building committee] in the absence of legislation that expressly grants that authority.” Id. at 1125, 1127 .

2011See Westerly Residents for Thoughtful Development, Inc. v. Brancato, 565 A.2d 1262, 1263-64 (R.I.1989) ("Rhode Island’s Home Rule Amendment grants authority to every city and town to enact a home rule charter, which gives the town the right of self-govemment in all local matters as long as the charter is not inconsistent with [the] Constitution and laws enacted by the [G]eneral [Assembly in conformity with the powers reserved to the [GJeneral [AJssembly.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Newport Court Club Associates v. Town Council of Middletown, 716 A.2d 787, 790 (R.I.1998) (not

2009See, e.g., Newport Court Club Associates v. Town Council of Middletown, 800 A.2d 405, 410 (R.I.2002) (holding that once a town has adopted a home rule charter, the state legislature "may not enact special legislation affecting a local matter in that particular town unless the legislation is approved by a majority of the qualified electors of the town"); Amico's Inc. v. Mattos, 789 A.2d 899, 903 (R.I.2002) (holding that "municipalities may not legislate on matters of statewide concern, and the power of home rule is subordinate to the General Assembly's unconditional power to legislate in the sa

2009See, e.g., Newport Court Club Associates v. Town Council of Middletown, 800 A.2d 405, 410 (R.I.2002) (holding that once a town has adopted a home rule charter, the state legislature "may not enact special legislation affecting a local matter in that particular town unless the legislation is approved by a majority of the qualified electors of the town”); Amico's Inc. v. Mattos, 789 A.2d 899, 903 (R.I.2002) (holding that "municipalities may not legislate on matters of statewide concern, and the power of home rule is subordinate to the General Assembly's unconditional power to legislate in the sa

2009In a nonbinding advisory opinion, five justices of this Court declared that “ ‘[o]nce a home rule charter has been duly adopted by the qualified electors of a city or town in accordance with the provisions of article [13] of the amendments, it may be amended only as provided in said article.’ ” Opinion to the House of Representatives, 99 R.I. 472, 475 , 208 A.2d 522, 523 (1965) (quoting Opinion to the House of Representatives, 79 R.I. 277, 283 , 87 A.2d at 693, 697 (1952)).

2009In a nonbinding advisory opinion, five justices of this Court declared that “ ‘[o]nce a home rule charter has been duly adopted by the qualified electors of a city or town in accordance with the provisions of article [13] of the amendments, it may be amended only as provided in said article.’ ” Opinion to the House of Representatives, 99 R.I. 472, 475 , 208 A.2d 522, 523 (1965) (quoting Opinion to the House of Representatives, 79 R.I. 277, 283 , 87 A.2d at 693, 697 (1952)).

2009See, e.g., Newport Court Club Associates v. Town Council of Middletown, 800 A.2d 405, 410 (R.I.2002) (holding that once a town has adopted a home rule charter, the state legislature "may not enact special legislation affecting a local matter in that particular town unless the legislation is approved by a majority of the qualified electors of the town"); Amico's Inc. v. Mattos, 789 A.2d 899, 903 (R.I.2002) (holding that "municipalities may not legislate on matters of statewide concern, and the power of home rule is subordinate to the General Assembly's unconditional power to legislate in the sa

2009See, e.g., Newport Court Club Associates v. Town Council of Middletown, 800 A.2d 405, 410 (R.I.2002) (holding that once a town has adopted a home rule charter, the state legislature "may not enact special legislation affecting a local matter in that particular town unless the legislation is approved by a majority of the qualified electors of the town”); Amico's Inc. v. Mattos, 789 A.2d 899, 903 (R.I.2002) (holding that "municipalities may not legislate on matters of statewide concern, and the power of home rule is subordinate to the General Assembly's unconditional power to legislate in the sa