(a) A municipal employee may hold a state elective office or a municipal elective office;
provided, that except as authorized pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, no
municipal employee may hold a municipal elective office in the city or town in which
he or she is employed, and a state employee may hold any municipal elective office.
Any provision in any state law, municipal ordinance, or city or town charter prohibiting
a municipal employee from holding state elective office or municipal elective office,
other than in the town where he or she is employed, or a state employee from holding
a municipal elective office is declared null and void.
(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to school teachers of the individual
cities and towns as defined in title 16.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of the first sentence of subsection (a) of this section,
a city or town may, by charter or ordinance, permit a municipal employee of that city
or town to hold the office of school committee person in that city or town.
Notes of Decisions
Whitehouse v. Moran, 808 A.2d 626 (R.I. 2002).
· cites it 5× “The Applicable Statute The respondent argues that § 17-8-2 has been superseded by G.L.1956 § 17-1-5.1 Section 17-1-5.1 provides as follows: “(a) A municipal employee may hold a state elective office or a municipal elective office provided that, except as authorized pursuant to…”
Cranston Teachers All. Local No. 1704 AFT v. Miele, 495 A.2d 233 (R.I. 1985).
· cites it 9× “1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 17-1-5.1 and § 2.07 of the Cranston City Charter, defendant was precluded from holding both his *235 elective office as school-committee member and his job as rehabilitation specialist for the city.”
DeAscentis v. Pine, 729 A.2d 715 (R.I. 1999).
· cites it 7× “(DeAscentis), an employee of the Newport Water Department and former member of the Newport School Committee, appeals a Superior Court judgment dismissing his constitutional challenge to G.L.1956 § 17-1-5.1. DeAscentis asserts that the statute, which prohibits municipal employees…”
In Re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 732 A.2d 55 (R.I. 1999).
· cites it 2× “2d at 235-37 (upholding G.L.1956 § 17-1-5.1’s dual-municipal-office-holding ban — to wit, that “no municipal employee may hold a municipal elective office in the city or town in which he or she is employed” — because a public employee’s right to hold such an elective office “is…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.