Complaint and Exhibits

Case Number: PC-2021 -061 32
Filed in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court

Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPERIOR COURT

PROVIDENCE, SC
JORGE O. ELORZA, in his official capacity as the )
Mayor of the City of Providence, and the )
PROVIDENCE CITY COUNCIL, )
Plaintififv, )
V. C.A. N0. PC-2021-

3
ANGELICA INFANTEGREEN, in her official )
capacity as Commissioner of the Rhode Island )

Department of Elementary and Secondary )
Education and as the delegate of the Rhode Island )
Council on Elementary and Secondary Education, )

and THE RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF
w
)
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY )
EDUCATION, )
Defendants. )
The Plaintiffs bring this Complaint for judicial review 0f the Commissioner of the Rhode
Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s August 30, 2021 order t0 withhold
public funds from the City 0f Providence, Which was issued pursuant t0 R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-5-30.
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Jorge O. Elorza is the Mayor 0f the City of Providence (the “Mayor”), and
he brings this suit solely in his official capacity.
2. Plaintiff the Providence City Council (the “City Council”) is the legislative body
for the City 0f Providence.
3. Defendant Angélica Infante-Green (the “Commissioner”) is the Commissioner of
the Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, and she is being sued solely
in her official capacity.

Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301 892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
4. Defendant the Rhode Island Department 0f Elementary and Secondary Education
(“RIDE” and collectively with the Commissioner, “Defendants”) is an administrative agency 0f
the State of Rhode Island.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Complaint, pursuant to
R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 42-35-15 and 16-39-4.
6. Moreover, under RIDE’S Rules and Regulations, “appeals from decisions of the
Commissioner under R.I. Gen. Laws §[] 16-5-30 . . . shall be made directly to Superior Court.”
200-RICRI-30-15-4 at § 4.4(A)(1).
7. Venue is
M
proper in this Court pursuant to R.I. Gen.
The State Takeover 0fthe Providence Public School District

Laws § 42-35-15(b).
8. In 2019, RIDE intervened in, and effectuated a takeover 0f, the Providence Public
School District (the “PPSD”), pursuant t0 R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-7.1-1 et seq. (the “Crowley Act”).
9. Specifically, 0n July 23, 2019, the Rhode Island Council on Elementary and
Secondary Education (the “Council”) delegated to the Commissioner the “power and authority t0
take actions consistent With, and in furtherance of RIDE’S intervention and support of the
Providence Public School District, Which would include, but not be limited to, assuming control
0f the District, the reconstitution of the Providence Public Schools and any other power (at law
and in equity) available to the Council as may be authorized by law and as may be determined t0
be necessary and appropriate by the Commissioner.”

Case Number: PC-2021-06132
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
10. Pursuant to that delegation of authority, on October 15, 2019, the Commissioner
assumed control over the PPSD, entering (a) a Decision Establishing Control over the PPSD and
Reconstituting Providence Public Schools; and (b) an Order of Control and Reconstitution.
11. On or about November 1, 2019, the parties entered into a Collaboration Agreement
whereby RIDE, through the Commissioner, and the City, through the Mayor, agreed to collaborate
in RIDE’s exercise of control over PPSD’s budget, program, and personnel, and its schools.
12. The Crowley Act provides, in relevant part, that “[i]f a school or school district is
under the board of regents’ control as a result of actions taken by the board pursuant to this section,
the local school committee shall be responsible for funding that school or school district at the
same level as in the prior academic year increased by the same percentage as the state total of
school aid is increased.” Sec. 16-7.1-5(a).
13. The Crowley Act was designed to address four fundamental principles, including,
among other things, “[e]stablishing a predictable method of distributing state education aid in a
manner that addresses the over-reliance on the property tax to finance education.” Sec. 16-7.1-
1(a)(iv).
14. Section 5(a) of the Crowley Act reflects that intent, requiring a level of parity
between state and local funding for school districts. Generally, when the State increases its
funding—thereby increasing the state total of school aid—the municipality incurs a corresponding
obligation to increase its funding, by the same percentage as the state total of school aid is
increased. See § 16-7.1-5(a).
The Withholding Order
15. On August 11, 2021, the Commissioner served an Order to Show Cause upon the
Mayor and the City Council (collectively, the “City”).
3
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
16. The Commissioner’s Order to Show Cause asked the City to show cause why she
should not enter: (a) “decision holding that the City had failed to allocate sufficient funds to the
PPSD to satisfy its maintenance of effort (“MOE”) obligation under the Crowley Act, R.I. Gen.
Laws § 16-7.1-5(a); and” (b) “an order pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-5-30 ordering the State’s
General Treasurer to withhold an amount sufficient to meet the City’s MOE obligation from any
portion of the public money that has been, or may be, apportioned to the City by the State,
exclusive of State aid to schools and/or education, and to deliver said funds to her to use on behalf
of the PPSD in her capacity as Crowley Act delegate.”
17. The Order to Show Cause arose out of a dispute between the Commissioner and the
Mayor as to the extent of the City’s funding obligations under the Crowley Act—specifically the
obligation to fund the PPSD “at the same level as in the prior academic year increased by the same
percentage as the state total of school aid is increased.” See § 16-7.1-5(a) (emphasis added).
18. The dispute related, primarily, to a purported increase in “the state total of school
aid” from Fiscal Year 2020 (“FY2020”) to Fiscal Year 2021 (“FY2021”).
19. According to Defendants, the state total of school aid increased from FY2020 to
FY2021 by 3.7%, requiring a corresponding payment from the City in the amount of over $4.8
million.
The Calculation of the State Total of School Aid
20. According to Defendants, in FY2020, the state total of school aid was
$997,504,731, representing $955,815,772 of aid from the state’s general revenues plus an
additional $41,688,959 in federal stabilization funds (the “Stabilization Funds”).
4
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
21. The additional federal funds contributing to Defendants’ calculation of the state
total of school aid for FY2020 were made available under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”), a federal aid package enacted in March 2020.
22. In June of 2020, on the heels of the COVID-19 pandemic, the General Assembly
authorized Defendants to swap nearly $41.7 million or so in state general revenues for the $41.7
million or so in federal Stabilization Funds.
23. The swap of the federal Stabilization Funds allowed Defendants to offset a
corresponding reduction in state general revenues for school aid.
24. The City was not similarly permitted to use an influx of one-time, federal funds to
offset its school funding obligations under state law.
25. Above and beyond the influx of federal Stabilization Funds, Defendants also
received an additional tranche of funding under the CARES Act: $50,000,000 or so, accounted for
in FY2020 as “COVID-19 Relief Funds.”
26. Although Defendants had included the federal Stabilization Funds in their
calculation of the state total of school aid for FY2020, they excluded from that calculation the
additional $50,000,000 or so in COVID-19 Relief Funds.
27. Had, for example, Defendants included both infusions of federal aid in their
calculation of the state total of school aid for FY2020, school aid would have totaled
$1,047,473,038—nearly $12 million more than the $1,034,714,691 in state total of school aid for
FY2021.
28. Including both the Stabilization Funds and the COVID-19 Relief Funds in the
calculation of the state total of school aid under the Crowley Act would have resulted in a decrease
5
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
in the state total of school aid from FY2020 to FY2021. Then, the City would have owed zero
dollars above and beyond its obligation to level fund the PPSD in FY2021.
29. In FY2021, the City met its obligation to level fund the PPSD, appropriating
$130,046,611 to the PPSD—just as the City had done in FY2020.
30. Nevertheless, in calculating the state total of school aid for FY2020, Defendants
arbitrarily included one set of federal aid—the Stabilization Funds—but excluded another—the
COVID-19 Relief Funds. As a result, according to Defendants, under the Crowley Act, the PPSD
had been underfunded by $4,850,739—an amount representing a 3.7% increase from FY2020 to
FY2021 in the state total of school aid.
31. Defendants sought this additional funding while, in FY2020, the PPSD realized a
surplus of approximately $11,211,000.
32. At the same time, upon information and belief, the State of Rhode Island is
currently in possession of nearly $1.1 billion in unspent money from the federal, American Rescue
Plan Act.
33. Despite the unforeseen, unprecedented, and extraordinary fiscal uncertainty created
by the COVID-19 pandemic, and despite the fact that the PPSD realized a surplus of over $11
million in FY2020, the Commissioner issued the Order to Show Cause, demanding an additional
$4,850,739 in funds from the City.
34. On August 27, 2021, the Commissioner and the City, by and through their
respective counsel, submitted memoranda to RIDE’s Hearing Officer, outlining their respective
positions on the Order to Show Cause.
35. On August 30, 2021, the Hearing Officer held a hearing on the Order to Show
Cause.
6
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301 892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
36. Later that evening, the Hearing Officer issued a Decision and Order (the
“Decision”), affirming Defendants’ calculation 0f the state total 0f school aid for FY2020 and
finding that the City had violated
percentage increase from FY2020 t0
l.
its obligation under the
FY202 1.
Crowley Act to fund the
A copy 0fthe Decision is attached hereto as m

PPSD by the
37. As a result, on August 30, 2021, and pursuant to § 16-5-30, the Commissioner
entered 0n Order to the General Treasurer t0 Withhold a Portion 0f Non-Education—Related State
Aid Owing t0 the City ofPrOVidence (the “Withholding Order”). A copy 0fthe Withholding Order
is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
38. The Withholding Order and the Decision suffer from at least two flaws: (1) the
Commissioner’s inclusion of some but not all federal funding in the calculation of the “state total
of school aid” for FY2020 is arbitrary and it results in an unpredictable method of distributing state
education aid, requiring the City t0 turn to local funds t0 finance education, contrary t0 the declared
purpose 0f the Crowley Act; and (2) the Commissioner’s authority to issue a withholding order
does not extend t0 disputes arising under the Crowley Act.
The Commissioner’s Calculation 0fthe State Total ofSchool Aid was Arbitrary
and Undercuts One 0fthe Fundamental Purposes offhe Crowley Act
39. The Commissioner’s calculation ofthe “state total of school aid” in FY2020 creates
an unpredictable method of distributing state education aid, contrary to the Crowley Act’s purpose
of, in relevant part, “[e]stab1ishing a predictable method of distributing state education aid in a
manner that addresses the over-reliance on the property tax to finance education.” See § 16-7.1-
1(a)(iv).
40. Moreover, the Commissioner’s calculation will require the City to turn to local
funds in order to finance purported increases in their maintenance of effort obligations, which may
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
be entirely outside their control, especially, where, as here, RIDE enjoyed an unprecedented influx
of federal funding.
41. The Crowley Act does not vest the Commissioner with the unfettered discretion to
determine when certain federal funds may or may not count toward the “state total of school aid.”
42. The Commissioner’s calculation here is arbitrary, and it conflicts with the Crowley
Act’s twin goals of establishing predictability in state education funding and avoiding over-
reliance on property taxes to fund education.
43. Because the Crowley Act “may not . . . be construed in a way that would result in
‘absurdities or would defeat the underlying purpose of the enactment[,]’” the Commissioner’s
Withholding Order should be vacated, and the Decision should be reversed. See Matter of Falstaff
Brewing Corp. re: Narragansett Brewery Fire, 637 A.2d 1047, 1050 (R.I. 1994) (quoting Brennan
v. Kirby, 529 A.2d 633, 637 (R.I. 1987)); Krikorian v. Rhode Island Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 606
A.2d 671, 675 (R.I. 1992) (“[W]e shall not construe a statute in such a way as to violate the intent
of the Legislature in enacting the statute.”).
The Commissioner Lacked the Authority to Issue the Withholding Order
44. Under § 16-5-30, the Commissioner “may, for violation or neglect of law or for
violation or neglect of rules and regulation in pursuance of law . . . order the general treasurer to
withhold the payment of any portion of the public money that has been or may be apportioned to
the city or town[.]”
45. The Commissioner’s Withholding Order here was based on the authority allegedly
delegated to her under § 16-5-30.
46. However, pursuant to the very next section of this chapter of the Rhode Island
General Laws, “[a]ny community that does not comply with the provisions of §§ 16-21-7, 16-21-
8
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
9, 16-21-12, 16-21-14, and 16-38-2 shall be subject to the penalty provided in § 16-5-30.” R.I.
Gen. Laws § 16-5-30.1 (emphasis added). Each of those cited provisions relates to the health and
safety of students.
47. Neither § 16-5-30 nor § 16-5-30.1 references the Crowley Act.
48. As reflected in the Decision, the Commissioner has taken the position that her
authority to issue withholding orders extends to the alleged violation of any education law,
including disputes arising under the Crowley Act.
49. This position violates settled principles of statutory construction.
50. The Rhode Island Supreme Court “has long applied a canon of statutory
interpretation which gives effect to all of a statute’s provisions, with no sentence, clause or word
construed as unmeaning or surplusage.” Power Test Realty Co. P’ship v. Coit, 134 A.3d 1213,
1220 (R.I. 2016) (quoting R.I. Dep’t of Mental Health, Retardation & Hospitals v. R.B., 549 A.2d
1028, 1030 (R.I. 1988) (hereinafter (“R.B.”)).
51. Pursuant to that rule against surplusage, “[w]here one provision is part of the overall
statutory scheme, the legislative intent must be gathered from the entire statute and not from an
isolated provision.” R.B., 549 A.2d at 1030 (quoting State v. Caprio, 477 A.2d 67, 70 (R.I. 1984)).
52. Moreover, when interpreting statutes, the Rhode Island Supreme Court adheres to
the maxim “expressio unis est exclusio alterius” which holds that “the expression of one thing is
the exclusion of another.” Ret. Bd. of Employees’ Ret. Sys. of State v. DiPrete, 845 A.2d 270, 287
(R.I. 2004) (quoting In re Advisory Opinion to the House of Representatives, 485 A.2d 550, 555
(R.I. 1984)).
53. Applying those canons of statutory construction to §§ 16-5-30 and 16-5-30.1
demonstrates that the Commissioner’s authority to issue withholding orders under § 16-5-30 must
9
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301 892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
limited by the language of § 16-5-30.1, a statute Which focuses 0n the Violation of specific health
and safety statutes.
54. In this way, ifthe specific language 0f § 16-5-30.1 is t0 have any meaning, then the
rule against surplusage holds that the Commissioner’s Withholding authority does not extend to
Violations of any laws, including, specifically, the Crowley Act. An interpretation otherwise would
render the language of § 16-5-30.1 meaningless or mere surplusage.
55. Put another way, if the Commissioner had the authority t0 use § 16-5-30 for the
Violation 0f any education law, then the General Assembly would not have needed to include the
specific Violations 0f law provided by § 16-5-30.1.
56. Because disputes arising under Section 5(a) 0f the Crowley Act fall beyond the
Commissioner’s reach under § 16-5-30, the Commissioner lacked the authority t0 issue the
Withholding Order.
57. On this basis, as well, the Commissioner’s Withholding Order should be vacated,
and the Decision should be reversed.
58. The City realleges, reasserts,

w
Administrative Procedures Act Appeal
and incorporates all the preceding allegations in this
Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
59. The City has been aggrieved by the Commissioner’s Withholding Order and the
Hearing Officer’s Decision.
60. The Commissioner’s Withholding Order and the Hearing Officer’s Decision is:
a. In Violation 0f constitutional 0r statutory provisions;
b. In excess 0f the statutory authority of the Commissioner;
c. Made upon unlawful procedure;
10
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
d. Affected by other error 0f law;
e. Clearly erroneous in View 0f the reliable, probative, and substantial
evidence on the whole record; and
f. Arbitrary 0r capricious or characterized by abuse 0f discretion or clearly
unwarranted exercise 0f discretion.
WHEREFORE, the City prays that this Honorable Court vacate the Commissioner’s
Withholding Order, reverse the Hearing Officer’s Decision, enter judgment in the City’s favor,
and order any such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, including, without limitation,
costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
Plaintiffs,
Jorge O. Elorza, in his official capacity as the
Mayor of the City of Providence, and the
Providence City Council,
By Their Attorneys,
Dean J. Wagner, Esq.

/s/
Dean J. Wagner, Esq. (#5426)

Edward D. Pare III, Esq. (#9698)
Savage Law Partners, LLP
564 South Water Street
Providence, RI 02903
Tel: (401) 238-8500
Fax: (401) 648-6748
dwagneréfl savagelawpartnerscom
epareQDsavagelawpartners.com
Dated: September 27, 2021
11
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
Exhibit 1
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301 892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
IN RE THE PROVIDENCE PUBLIC

SCHOOL DISTRICT RIDE N0. 21-023-A
DECISION AND ORDER
Held: City’s level-funding 0f school department violated

maintenance 0f effort mandate under State takeover
statute and the Mayor and City Council failed to show
cause Why the Commissioner of Education should not
enter an order directing the State’s General Treasurer t0
withhold State funds allocated to the City (exclusive 0f
State aid t0 schools and/or education) and deliver said
funds t0 the Commissioner for use 0n behalf of the City
School Department.
August 30, 2021

Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301 892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
On August 11, 2021, Angélica Infante-Green, as Commissioner 0f the Rhode Island
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (the “Commissioner” and “RIDE,”
respectively) and as the delegate 0f the Rhode Island Council 0n Elementary and Secondary
Education (the “Ed. Council”) with respect to the assumption of state control of the Providence
Public School Department (the “PPSD”) pursuant to The Paul W. Crowley Rhode Island Student
Investment Initiative (the “Crowley Act”), served an Order t0 Show Cause (Joint EX. 1) upon
Jorge Elorza, the Mayor 0f the City of Providence (the “Mayor”), and upon the Providence City
Council (collectively with the Mayor, the “City” 0r the “Show Cause Parties”), and invited them
t0 show cause Why she should not enter:
(1) a decision holding that the City had failed to allocate sufficient funds to the PPSD
t0 satisfy itsmaintenance 0f effort (“MOE”) obligation under the Crowley Act, R.I.
Gen. Laws § 16-7.1-5(a); and
(2) an order pursuant t0 R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-5-30 ordering the State’s General
Treasurer to withhold an amount sufficient t0 meet the City’s MOE obligation from
any portion 0f the public money that has been, or may be, apportioned t0 the City
by the State, exclusive 0f State aid t0 schools and/or education, and t0 deliver said
funds t0 her t0 use 0n behalf of the PPSD in her capacity as Crowley Act delegate.
The Commissioner’s Order to Show Cause was prompted by a disagreement between the
Commissioner and the Mayor with respect to the extent 0f the City’s MOE obligation to the
PPSD under the Crowley Act With respect to fiscal year (“FY”) 2021.
The Commissioner — the Ed. Council’s Chief Executive Officer and RIDE’S Chief
Administrative Officer under R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-60-6 — has jurisdiction over this matter under
R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-39-1, which confers jurisdiction over “any matter 0f dispute . . . arising
under any law relating t0 schools 0r education,” id., and she also has jurisdiction as the Ed.
Council’s Crowley Act delegate.

Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301 892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. State Control under the Crowley Act
1. On July 23, 2019, the Ed. Council delegated to the Commissioner its:
power and authority t0 take actions consistent with, and in furtherance of, RIDE’S
intervention in and support 0f the Providence Public School District, Which would
include, but not be limited t0, assuming control 0f the District, the reconstitution
of the Providence Public Schools and any other power (at law and in equity)
available t0 the Council as may be authorized by law and as may be determined t0
be necessary and appropriate by the Commissioner.
See Minutes 0f the July 23, 2019 meeting 0f the Ed. Council (Joint EX. 2) at 6-7.
2. On October 15, 2019, the Commissioner entered: (a) a Decision Establishing
Control over the Providence Public School District and Reconstituting Providence Public
Schools; and (b) an Order 0f Control and Reconstitution (Joint EX. 3) providing, inter alia, that:
The Commissioner shall control the budget, program, and personnel 0f PPSD and
its schools and, if further needed, the Commissioner shall reconstitute PPSD
schools, Which may include restructuring the individual school’s governance,
budget, program, personnel and/or decisions related t0 the continued operation 0f
the school. The Commissioner shall exercise all the powers and authorities
delegated by the Council to the Commissioner and all powers of RIDE over the
budget, program and personnel 0f PPSD and over the individual school’s
governance. The Commissioner shall also have all powers and authorities
currently exercised by the Providence School Board and Superintendent (Acting,
Interim or Permanent), as well as all powers and authorities 0f the Mayor 0f
Providence, and the Providence City Council as it pertains to PPSD and its
schools.
See id. (Joint EX. 3), § 1 at 1-2.
3. On November 1, 2019, the Mayor entered into a Collaboration Agreement (Joint
EX. 4) recognizing that “RIDE has assumed full managerial and operational control and
responsibility over PPSD’S budget, program and personnel,” and agreeing “t0 collaborate in
RIDE’S exercise 0f control over PPSD’s budget, program and personnel, and its schools.” See
id. (Joint EX. 4) at 3.
4. The Crowley Act provides, in pertinent part, that:
3
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
under the board 0f regents’ control as a result 0f

If a school 0r school district is
actions taken by the board pursuant t0 this section, the local school committee
shall be responsible for funding that school or school district at the same level as
in the prior academic year increased by the same percentage as the state total 0f
school aid is increased.
R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-7.1-5(a) (emphasis added).1
5. The Commissioner informed the Mayor that under the Crowley Act, the City
would be required t0 fund PPSD during FY 2021 at the same level as it had in FY 2020,
“increased by the same percentage as the state total ofschool aid had increased.” Id. (emphasis
added).
6. The Mayor disagreed with the Commissioner’s interpretation 0f R.I. Gen. Laws
§§ 16-7.1-5(a) and 16—5—30 and her method of calculating the “state total 0f school aid” under the
Crowley Act, and as a result, the Commissioner issued the Order to Show Cause on August 11,
202 1 .
7. The Show Cause Parties accepted service 0f the Order t0 Show Cause on August
12, 2021, and after agreeing to a short continuance, see Joint EX. 5, the parties submitted legal
memoranda in support of their positions, and an evidentiary hearing was conducted before the
undersigned Hearing Officer on August 30, 2021.2
B. The MOE Calculation

8. The total amount of state aid allocated to local educational agencies (“LEAS”)
throughout the State in FY 2020 was $997,504,731, which includes an initial allocation 0f
1
The Ed. Council assumed all the relevant powers and duties 0f the former Board 0f Regents for Elementary and
Secondary Education 0n January 1, 2013 pursuant to the Rhode Island Board of Education Act. See R.I. Gen. Laws
§ 16-97-1, et seq.
2
At the hearing, the parties stipulated to the entry into evidence of Joint Exs. 1
— 10 and that afternoon, they
stipulated t0 the entry 0f Joint Exs. 11- 13.
4
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
$955,815,772, see FY 2020 Revised Education Aid (June 18, 2020) (Joint EX. 6),3 plus an
additional $41,688,959 in federal education stabilization funds made available under the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (the “Stabilization Funds” and the “CARES
Act,” respectively), $13,469,717 of Which was distributed to the PPSD. See Profit and Loss
Statement dated August 30, 2021 (Joint EX. 12). The Stabilization Funds were added as part of
the State’s FY 2020 Revised Budget t0 offset a prior reduction of like amount in school aid from
the State’s general revenues. See FY 2020 Revised Budget 2020-H 7170, Substitute A House
Finance Committee Hearing (June 16, 2020) (Joint EX. 7 at 47).4
9. The relevant House Fiscal Advisory Staff report provided as follows:
Section 19. Education Aid. This section allows for the

distribution 0f $91.7 million from new federal funds authorized
under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(CARES) Act to local education agencies. This includes $41.7
million from education stabilization funds and $50.0 million from
the Coronavirus Relief Fund [(the “COVID Relief Fund”)]. For FY
2020, state education aid to local education agencies will be
reduced in an amount equivalent t0 the distribution 0f federal
education stabilization funds. If by June 18, 2020, any local
education agency has received more general revenue aid than that
amount, the excess shall be booked as a debt owed t0 the state.
Federal funds Will be distributed to local education agencies in

proportion to funds distributed under Title I, Part A of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act for FY 2019. Local
education agencies that received funds from the Paycheck
Protection Program would have the value of that support deducted
from any additional aid authorized through this section.
See id.
10. Approved uses 0f the $41.7 million in Stabilization Funds appropriated t0 LEAs
included “compensating existing staff and paying existing vendors t0 maintain the operation and
3
Available at https://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/O/Uploads/Documents/Funding-and-Finance-Wise-
Investments/Funding-Sources/State-Education-Aid-Funding-Formula/FY-2O-ReVised-Aid-6-1 8-20 .pdflveFZOZO-
07-08-101 158-047.
4
Available at http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/housefiscalreport/Budget%20Analyses/2020%20Session/2020-
H%207 1 70,%20Sub%20A,%20as%20Amended%20-%20Updated.pdf.
5
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
continuity 0f the LEA. See Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund
Application Discussion (Joint EX. 11) at 3. By contrast, the $50 million in COVID Relief Funds
were expressly limited t0 costs directly related to battling the COVID epidemic. See generally
Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF): Impact Education Aid for Local Education Agencies (LEAS)
(Sate 0f Rhode Island, July 2020) (Exhibit 13).5
11. The Commissioner calculated the City’s MOE obligation under the Crowley Act
With reference to a total amount of state aid allocated t0 LEAs in FY 2021 of $1,034,714,691,
which represented a “state total 0f school aid increase” of 3.73% over FY 2020. See FY 2021
Enacted Education Aid (Dec. 18, 2020) (Joint EX. 8).6
12. On or about April 19, 2021, the City enacted a $511 million budget for FY 2021,
which immediately became effective and remained in effect for the remainder of FY 2021 (i.e.,
through June 30, 2021). The City’s FY 2021 budget allocated $130,046,611 to the PPSD, see
Fiscal Budget Book 2021 Approved (Joint EX. 9),7 Which the parties have stipulated was the
same amount that had been allocated by the City t0 the PPSD in FY 2020. See City of
Providence Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2020 (Joint
EX. 10).8
5The Guidance provided that payments from the Fund could only be used t0 cover costs that:
1. Are necessary expenditures incurred due t0 the public health emergency With respect t0 the
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID—19);
2. Were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as 0f March 27, 2020 (the date 0f
enactment of the CARES Act) for the State or government; and
3. Were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020, and ends 0n December 30, 2020.
Id. (Joint EX. 13) at 2.
6
Available at https://WWW.ride.ri.gov/Portals/O/Uploads/Documents/Funding-and-Finance-Wise-
Investments/Funding-Sources/State-Education-Aid-Funding-Formula/FY-2 1 -Enacted-Aid- 1 2-1 8-20.pdf?ver=2020-
12-28-121035-437.
7
Available at https://data.providenceri.gov/Finance/FY2021-Enacted-City-Budget-Book/thiz-Ww85.
8
Available at https://Www.providenceri.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/COP-Annua1-Financia1—Report-6-30-
2020.pdf.
6
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301 892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
II. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
1. The Commissioner
The Commissioner has alleged that:
the City violated the Crowley Act as it was required to increase its
funding 0f the for FY 2021 at the same level as in the prior
PPSD
academic year, increased by the same percentage as the state total
of school aid is increased, which should have resulted in an
increase 0f 3.73 percent, 0r a minimum total allocation t0 the
PPSD 0f $134,897,350. The City’s Violation resulted in a
$4,850,739 shortfall in its funding of the PPSD for FY 2021.
See Commissioner’s Memorandum (“Comm ’s Mam”) at 3. Moreover, according t0 the
Commissioner, “[t]he City’s Violation is not only in Violation 0f the Crowley Act, but it also
defeats the General Assembly’s intent t0 provide a school district operating under the control 0f
the Commissioner and RIDE With the financial resources needed t0 support a successful
intervention and turnaround.” Id.
The Commissioner also argued that Title 16 the Rhode Island General Laws gives her
“significant enforcement powers, including the power t0 order the General Treasurer t0 withhold
funds apportioned to the municipality for the purpose of eliminating a Crowley Act Violation,”
id. at 4, citing R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-5-30, which provides that:
The commissioner ofelementary and secondary education may,

for violation 0r neglect oflaw orfor violation 0r neglect ofrules
and regulations in pursuance oflaw by any city 0r town 0r city or
town oflicer 0r school committee, or for nonpayment of tuition
owed by one community to another including but not limited to
those children in state custody, vocational education, or special
education, order the general treasurer t0 withhold the payment 0f
any portion 0fthe public money that has been 0r may be
apportioned t0 the city 0r town; and the general treasurer upon the
receipt in writing 0f the order shall hold the publicmoney due the
city 0r town commissioner by writing requests
until the time as the
the withheld funds for the purposes 0f eliminating the Violation 0r
neglect of law 0r regulation that caused the order t0 be issued, 0r
the commissioner of elementary and secondary education shall
notify the treasurer that the city or town has complied with the
7
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
order as the department of elementary and secondary education

shall makein the premises, in Which case payment shall be made
to the town immediately. Ifthe violation isfor nonpayment 0f
tuition and it has been determined by the commissioner that the
tuition is owed, then the commissioner shall, subject t0 the debtor
community’s right t0 appeal t0 the superior court, order the
general treasurer t0 deduct the amount owedfrom the debtor
community’s school aid and t0 pay the community which is owed
the tuition. The board of regents for elementary and secondary
education shall report to the general assembly annually all
infractions 0f school law which shall be brought t0 its attention,

with a record 0f this action as the department shall have taken in
each instance.
Id. (emphasis added by the Commissioner). And the Commissioner argued that:
The Laws § 16-5-30 is that

plain and ordinary reading 0f R.I. Gen.
the General Assembly, by the use 0f the word ‘any,’ did not intend
t0 impose any restriction on the type of public money that may be
Withheld. See Felicianov. State, 249 A.3d 340, 346 (Conn. 2020)
(‘Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines the word “any”

as “EVERY — used to indicate one selected without restriction . . .
.” Merriam- Webster ’s Collegiate Dictionary (1 1th ed. 2003)’).
Comm. Mem. at 6.
In addition, the Commissioner emphasized that:
(a) Section 16-5-30 provides that in Violations of school law or regulations

other than non-payment 0f tuition, the Commissioner “may” enter a
withholding order, whereas When the Violation concerns certain non-
payments 0f tuition, the Commissioner “shall” enter such an order. See §
16-5-30; and
(b) While the Commissioner’s Withholding authority under § 16-5-30 is limited

t0 “school aid” in cases involving a community’s nonpayment 0f tuition, see
§ 16-5-30(a) (quoted supra), there is no such limitation when she is

addressing other Violations of school law where she is expressly authorized
t0 “order the general treasurer t0 withhold the payment ofany portion offhe
”
public money that has been 0r may be apportioned t0 the city 0r town. See
Comm.’s Mem. at 5-6 (quoting § 16-5-30) (emphasis added by
Commissioner).
According to the Commissioner, these distinctions “illustrate the General Assembly’s intentional
and purposeful authorization of the withholding 0f payment 0f any public money apportioned t0
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301 892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
the municipality” with respect to school law Violations such as the Violation 0f the Crowley Act
alleged here. See id. at 7.
2. The City
The City argued that “[t]he Commissioner’s proposed order should be rejected because it
is based on a flawed, arbitrary, and unreasonable calculation that, among other things, runs afoul
of the spirit and intent 0f the Crowley Act.” See Memorandum of the Mayor of the City of
Providence and the Providence City Council (the “City’s Mam”) at 7. In support, the City
claimed that When calculating the “state total 0f school aid” for 2020 under the Crowley Act, the
Commissioner should have included not only (a) the City’s share 0f the $41.7 million in
Stabilization Funds intended t0 replace a like amount of re-allocated general revenue funds, but
also (b) the City’s share 0f the additional $50 million in COVID Relief Funds that were
distributed t0 LEAS in 2020. See id. at 4-6.
According t0 the City, it “received ZERO dollars from the CARES Act relative to its
[MOE] and education funding obligation,” id. at 4, Whereas “the State swapped out 0r scooped
nearly $41.7 million dollars in Stabilization Funds, leaving the City facing an artificial increase
in the state total education aid under the Crowley Act.” Id. at 6. The City concluded that if
properly calculated, the result would have been a decrease in “the total education aid distributed
by the State” during the relevant fiscal years, and “[u]nder the Crowley Act, the City’s obligation
to pay beyond its level-funding would [have] amount[ed] t0 zero dollars.” Id.
In addition, the City argued that even if one were t0 assume that the Commissioner had
correctly calculated the alleged MOE deficiency, R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-5-30 was “not an
appropriate mechanism t0 enforce any purported failure t0 pay an increase in funding under
Section 5(a) 0f the Crowley Act.” See id. at 11, 12-13. According t0 the City:
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301 892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
pursuant t0 the very next section of this chapter 0f the general

laws, the General Assembly used more limiting language:
‘
pursuant to § 16-5-30. 1 , [a]ny community that does not comply
With the provisions of §§ 16-21-7, 16-21-9, 16-21-12, 16-21-14,
and 16-38-2 shall be subject to the penalty provided in § 16-5-30.’
(Emphasis added). In doing so, the General Assembly included an
explicit list of Violations of law that are subject t0 the
Commissioner’s withholding authority under § 16-5-30, noticeably
absent from Which, however, is any reference t0 the Crowley Act
or, more generally, education funding law.
See id. at 12-13.
III. DECISION
1. The “State Total 0f School Aid” in FY 2020
The Crowley Act provides that the City is responsible for funding the PPSD “at the same
level as in the prior academic year, increased by the same percentage as the state total ofschool
aid is increased.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-7.1-5(a) (emphasis added). Thus, the first task is to
Clarify what the Legislature meant When in the Crowley Act it referred t0 “the state total of
school aid.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-7.1-5(a) (emphasis added). However, the Legislature has not
defined the term, nor have the Rhode Island courts provided any clarity.
The Commissioner argued that when calculating this “state total 0f school aid” for FY
2020 she properly included the $41 .7 million in Stabilization Funds that were used to replace the
temporarily re-allocated State general revenue funds — Which were originally devoted to state
education aid in FY 2020 — While excluding the additional $50 million in one-time-only COVID
Relief funds that were allocated to LEAs during FY 2020 and specifically earmarked for
purposes directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic. See House Fiscal Advisory Staff report
quoted at § I, 1W 9-10, supra at 5-6 and note 5, supra. The City disagreed, and argued that the
entire $91.7 million in federal funds should have been included, and the Commissioner did not
10
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301 892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
dispute the fact that if the entire $9 1 .7 million had been included, the City would not be in
Violation 0f its MOE obligation under the Crowley Act.

Significantly, no evidence has been presented suggesting that the City did not treat its
portion of the $41.7 million in Stabilization Funds in the manner intended by the Legislature, i.e.,
as unrestricted state school aid, i.e., as if what the City characterized as the State’s “creative
accounting maneuver,” City’s Mem. at 4, had never occurred and the $41 .7 million in State
general revenue funds had not been temporarily re-allocated.9 By contrast, as noted, the
additional $50 million in COVID Relief Funds were subject t0 federal restrictions and generally
speaking, could only be used for purposes directly related to fighting the pandemic, as noted.
See note 5, supra.
The City makes various policy arguments suggesting that the Commissioner’s manner 0f
calculating the “state total 0f school aid” was “unpredictable,” and inequitable and that “leaving
the Commissioner 0r RIDE with the unfettered discretion as t0 when federal funds may 0r may
not count . . . [is] . . . unreasonable and arbitrary.” City’s Mem. at 10. Yet, the Commissioner is
not free to ignore unambiguous statutory language, and her method 0f calculating the “state total
0f school aid” under the Crowley Act was consistent with both the intent of the General
Assembly, see House Fiscal Advisory Staff report quoted at § I, 1] 9, supra at 5, as well as federal
law. See § I, fl 10, supra at 5-6 and note 5, supra. After all, the Commissioner is under a
statutory duty “t0 interpret school law” and “t0 require the observance of all laws relating to
elementary and secondary schools and education.” See R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 16-60-6(9)(Vii) and
(viii).
9
Indeed, although the City frequently referred to this “creative accounting maneuver” in disparaging terms, the fact
remains that the State’s original allocation of $41 .7 million in general revenue funds to state aid to education, the
funds’ re-allocation and then replacement with Stabilization Funds is irrelevant to the calculation of the “state total
of school aid” under the Crowley Act as the relevant figure would have remained the same even if the “creative
accounting maneuver” had never been made.

11
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
In short, the Commissioner’s decision not t0 include the $50 million in COVID Relief
Funds — a one-time-only infusion 0f federal funds specifically earmarked t0 combat a pandemic
— When calculating the “state total 0f school aid” for FY 2020 was entirely reasonable and
consistent With applicable law.
2. The Commissioner’s Authority under R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-5-30
The City also argued that aside from what it believes was the Commissioner’s error when
computing the “state total 0f school aid” under the Crowley Act, she was not authorized to issue
a withholding order t0 enforce the City’s MOE obligation under R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-5-30.
However, the plain language 0f that provision unambiguously provides that the Commissioner
“may, for Violation or neglect of law or for Violation or neglect of rules and regulations . . . order
the general treasurer t0 withhold the payment of any portion of the public money that has been 0r
may be apportioned to the city 0r town.” R .I. Gen. Laws § 16-5-30
As noted by the Commissioner, it is a “well-recognized principle 0f statutory
construction that the legislature ‘acts intentionally when it uses particular language in one section
0f a statute but omits it in another.” Id., quoting Dep ofHomeland Sec.

’t
v. MacLean, 574 U.S.
383, 391 (2015) (Citing Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23, 104 (1983). And it is
apparent that the General Assembly knew how t0 limit the Commissioner’s withholding
authority When it desired to d0 so, as is evident from the text of § 16-5-30, which does in fact
provide discretion t0 the Commissioner for most Violations of school law 0r regulations, While
making it mandatory for non-payment of tuition, and at the same time limits the Withholding t0
“school aid” when the “Violation is for nonpayment 0f tuition.” Id.; see also supra at 8. In
addition, the Legislature has made similar distinctions in other chapters of Title 16.10
1°
See, e.g., R.I. Gen Laws §§ 16-64-1 .2(d) (limiting the Commissioner’s Withholding authority to “school aid” in
cases involving a school district’s failure to reimburse the Department 0f Children, Youth and Families for children
in state care); 16-45-10 (applicable when a district refuses to pay tuition to a vocational school) and 16-64-1.2(d),
12
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
Finally, the doctrine 0f in pari materia mandates that “when apparently inconsistent
statutory provisions are questioned, every attempt should be made to construe and apply them so
as t0 avoid the inconsistency and should not be applied literally if t0 do so would produce
patently absurd 0r unreasonable results.” State v. Gofl, 110 R.I. 202, 205, 291 A.2d 416, 417
(1972). Thus, contrary t0 the City’s argument, the fact that the Legislature chose to emphasize in
§ 16-5-30.1 that certain enumerated Violations of the statutes addressing the health and safety 0f
students — i.e., §§ 16-21-7, 16-21-9, 16-21-12, 16-21-14, and 16-38-2

— “shall be subject to the
penalty provided in § 16-5-30,” see § 16-5-30.1, does not somehow vacate the clear language in
§ 16-5-30 providing that withholding orders may be used t0 redress a “Violation 0r neglect 0f law
0r for Violation 0r neglect of rules and regulations in pursuance of law by any city.” Id. Nor, for
that matter, does § 16-5-30.1 somehow vacate the other Title 16 provisions which may be the
subject 0f Withholding orders under § 16-5-30. 1. See note 10, supra.
IV. ORDER
For all of the above reasons, an order in form and substance identical to the attached
Exhibit A shall be issued and served forthwith.
fléfl
ANTHONY F. COTTONE, ESQ.,
as Hearing Officer for the Commissioner
wa/flo
ANGELICA INFANTE—GREEN,
as Commissioner and Crowley Act Delegate Dated: August 30, 2021
v. Cranston Sch. Comm, 90 A.3d 174, 181 (R.I. 2014) (concluding

(applicable t0 residency disputes); see also Alba
Assembly knew how to call for automatic renewal of administrators but chose not t0 do so); In re
that the General
Proposed Town ofNew Shoreham Project, 25 A.3d 482, 525 (R.I. 201 1) (concluding that the General Assembly
knew how t0 require a net-benefit test when it wanted the Public Utilities Commission to use that type of analysis).
13
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301 892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
Exhibit A
14
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301 892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.

INRE THE PROVIDENCE PUBLIC

SCHOOL DISTRICT RIDE N0. 21-023A
COMMISSIONER’S ORDER TO THE GENERAL TREASURER

TO WITHHOLD A PORTION OF NON EDUCATION-RELATED
STATE AID OWING TO THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE
WHEREAS,
0n November 1, 2019, the Commissioner 0f the Rhode Island Department
0f Elementary and Secondary Education (the “Commissioner” and “RIDE,” respectively)
assumed responsibility for the budget, program and personnel of the Providence Public School
District (“PPSD”) pursuant t0: (1) her duties as RIDE’S Commissioner under R.I. Gen. Laws §§
16-5-5 and 16-60-6; (2) the powers delegated to her on July 23, 2019 by the Council 0n
Elementary and Secondary Education (the “Council”), which included the powers 0f the Council
under The Paul W. Crowley Rhode Island Student Investment Initiative, R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-7.1-
5 (the “Crowley Act”); and (3) the October 15, 2019 Order 0f Control and Reconstitution in the
above matter; and
WHEREAS, the Commissioner is under a statutory duty “t0 interpret school law,” t0
require the observance 0f all laws relating t0 elementary and secondary schools and education”
and t0examine and decide disputes “arising under any law relating t0 schools 0r education,” see
R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 16-60-6(9)(Vii) and(viii) and 16-39-1; and
WHEREAS,
Section 5(a) of the Crowley Act provides that school districts that are placed
under the Council’s control pursuant t0 the Act “shall be responsible for funding that school 0r
school district at the same level as in the prior academic year increased by the same percentage
as the state total ofschool aid is increased,” R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-7.1-5(a) (emphasis added); and
WHEREAS, the total amount 0f state aid allocated to local educational agencies during
Fiscal Year 2020 was $997,504,73 1 and during Fiscal Year 2021 the figure was $1,034,714,691,
,
an increase 0f some 3.73 %; and
WHEREAS,
on April 19, 2021, the Mayor of the City 0f Providence (the “City”), the
City Council President and the City Council Pro Tempore signed a $511 million budget for the
City for Fiscal Year 2021 Which took effect on April 19 and covered the remainder 0f Fiscal
Year 2021 (i.e., through June 30, 2021) and Which allocated the same total amount t0 the
Providence Public School Department (the “PPSD”), $130,046,61 1, as had been allocated t0 the
PPSD during FY 2020; and
15
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301 892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
WHEREAS, the City has failed t0 allocate sufficient funds t0 satisfy its maintenance of
effort (“MOE”) obligation under Section 5(a) 0f the Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-7.1-5(a), Which
mandates a MOE increase from the 2020 Fiscal Year of 3.7%, or a minimum total allocation to
the PPSD of $134,897,350, Which is $4,850,739 less than the amount actually allocated by the
City t0 the PPSD in the enacted City budget for Fiscal Year 2021; and
WHEREAS, pursuant t0 R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-5-30, the Commissioner is authorized to

“order the general treasurer t0 withhold the payment 0f any portion 0f the public money that has
been 0r may be apportioned” t0 the City for any “Violation 0r neglect 0f law” 0r “Violation 0r
neglect 0f rules and regulations in pursuance 0f law,” id., and
WHEREAS, withholding any portion of the state education aid owing to the City as a
remedy for the City’s failure t0 meet its MOE obligation under Section 5(a) 0f the Crowley Act
would only compound the problem the MOE requirement was intended t0 address, and therefore
this withholding order shall not apply to any such state education aid t0 the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Commissioner hereby respectfully demands that the Honorable
Seth Magaziner, in his capacity as General Treasurer for the State of Rhode Island, deduct the
sum of Four Million, Eight Hundred and Fifty Thousand, Seven Hundred and Thirty Nine
Dollars ($4,850,739) from any and all state aid, other than aid t0 schools and/or education, that
has been or may be appropriated to the City of Providence, and t0 deliver said funds to the
Commissioner for use 0n behalf 0f the PPSD.
Entered as an ORDER 0n this 30th day 0f August, 2021.
Angélica Infante-Green,
asRIDE’S Commissioner and the
Council’s Crowley Act delegate
16
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
Exhibit 2
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301 892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.

INRE THE PROVIDENCE PUBLIC

SCHOOL DISTRICT RIDE N0. 21-023A
COMMISSIONER’S ORDER TO THE GENERAL TREASURER

TO WITHHOLD A PORTION OF NON EDUCATION-RELATED
STATE AID OWING TO THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE
WHEREAS,
0n November 1, 2019, the Commissioner 0f the Rhode Island Department
0f Elementary and Secondary Education (the “Commissioner” and “RIDE,” respectively)
assumed responsibility for the budget, program and personnel 0f the Providence Public School
District (“PPSD”) pursuant t0: (1) her duties as RIDE’S Commissioner under R.I. Gen. Laws §§
16-5-5 and 16-60-6; (2) the powers delegated to her on July 23, 2019 by the Council 0n
Elementary and Secondary Education (the “Council”), which included the powers 0f the Council
under The Paul W. Crowley Rhode Island Student Investment Initiative, R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-7.1-
5 (the “Crowley Act”); and (3) the October 15, 2019 Order 0f Control and Reconstitution in the
above matter; and
WHEREAS, the Commissioner is under a statutory duty “t0 interpret school law,” t0
require the observance 0f all laws relating t0 elementary and secondary schools and education”
and t0examine and decide disputes “arising under any law relating t0 schools 0r education,” see
R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 16-60-6(9)(Vii) and(viii) and 16-39-1; and
WHEREAS,
Section 5(a) of the Crowley Act provides that school districts that are placed
under the Council’s control pursuant t0 the Act “shall be responsible for funding that school 0r
school district at the same level as in the prior academic year increased by the same percentage
as the state total ofschool aid is increased,” R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-7.1-5(a) (emphasis added); and
WHEREAS, the total amount 0f state aid allocated t0 local educational agencies during
Fiscal Year 2020 was $997,504,73 1 and during Fiscal Year 2021 the figure was $1,034,714,691,
,
an increase 0f some 3.73 %; and
WHEREAS,
on April 19, 2021, the Mayor of the City 0f Providence (the “City”), the
City Council President and the City Council Pro Tempore signed a $511 million budget for the
City for Fiscal Year 2021 Which took effect on April 19 and covered the remainder 0f Fiscal
Year 2021 (i.e., through June 30, 2021) and Which allocated the same total amount t0 the
Providence Public School Department (the “PPSD”), $130,046,61 1, as had been allocated t0 the
PPSD during FY 2020; and
Submitted: 9/28/2021 8:48 AM
Envelope: 3301 892
Reviewer: Jaiden H.
WHEREAS, the City has failed t0 allocate sufficient funds t0 satisfy its maintenance of
effort (“MOE”) obligation under Section 5(a) 0f the Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-7.1-5(a), Which
mandates a MOE increase from the 2020 Fiscal Year of 3.7%, or a minimum total allocation to
the PPSD of $134,897,350, Which is $4,850,739 less than the amount actually allocated by the
City t0 the PPSD in the enacted City budget for Fiscal Year 2021; and
WHEREAS, pursuant t0 R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-5-30, the Commissioner is authorized to

“order the general treasurer t0 withhold the payment 0f any portion 0f the public money that has
been 0r may be apportioned” t0 the City for any “Violation 0r neglect 0f law” 0r “Violation 0r
neglect 0f rules and regulations in pursuance 0f law,” id., and
WHEREAS, withholding any portion of the state education aid owing to the City as a
remedy for the City’s failure t0 meet its MOE obligation under Section 5(a) 0f the Crowley Act
would only compound the problem the MOE requirement was intended t0 address, and therefore
this withholding order shall not apply to any such state education aid t0 the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Commissioner hereby respectfully demands that the Honorable
Seth Magaziner, in his capacity as General Treasurer for the State of Rhode Island, deduct the
sum of Four Million, Eight Hundred and Fifty Thousand, Seven Hundred and Thirty Nine
Dollars ($4,850,739) from any and all state aid, other than aid t0 schools and/or education, that
has been or may be appropriated t0 the City of Providence, and t0 deliver said funds to the
Commissioner for use 0n behalf 0f the PPSD.
Entered as an ORDER 0n this 30th day 0f August, 2021.
wa/flo
Angélica Infante-Green,
as RIDE’S Commissioner and the
Council’s Crowley Act delegate

Complaint and Exhibits

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint and Exhibits

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Number: PC-2021 -061 32

Filed in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPERIOR COURT

JORGE O. ELORZA, in his ofﬁcial capacity as the )

Mayor of the City of Providence, and the )

PROVIDENCE CITY COUNCIL, )

V. C.A. N0. PC-2021-

capacity as Commissioner of the Rhode Island )

Council on Elementary and Secondary Education, )

he brings this suit solely in his ofﬁcial capacity.

for the City 0f Providence.

3. Defendant Angélica Infante-Green (the “Commissioner”) is the Commissioner of

in her ofﬁcial capacity.

4. Defendant the Rhode Island Department 0f Elementary and Secondary Education

(“RIDE” and collectively with the Commissioner, “Defendants”) is an administrative agency 0f

the State of Rhode Island.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 42-35-15 and 16-39-4.

The State Takeover 0fthe Providence Public School District

be necessary and appropriate by the Commissioner.”

school aid is increased.” Sec. 16-7.1-5(a).

increased. See § 16-7.1-5(a).

The Withholding Order

Mayor and the City Council (collectively, the “City”).

of the PPSD in her capacity as Crowley Act delegate.”

The Calculation of the State Total of School Aid

additional $41,688,959 in federal stabilization funds (the “Stabilization Funds”).

million or so in federal Stabilization Funds.

corresponding reduction in state general revenues for school aid.

offset its school funding obligations under state law.

in FY2020 as “COVID-19 Relief Funds.”

additional $50,000,000 or so in COVID-19 Relief Funds.

$130,046,611 to the PPSD—just as the City had done in FY2020.

FY2021 in the state total of school aid.

surplus of approximately $11,211,000.

$4,850,739 in funds from the City.

positions on the Order to Show Cause.

ﬁnding that the City had violated

percentage increase from FY2020 t0

A copy 0fthe Decision is attached hereto as m

entered 0n Order to the General Treasurer t0 Withhold a Portion 0f Non-Education—Related State

does not extend t0 disputes arising under the Crowley Act.

reliance on property taxes to fund education.

of the Legislature in enacting the statute.”).

The Commissioner Lacked the Authority to Issue the Withholding Order

the city or town[.]”

delegated to her under § 16-5-30.

47. Neither § 16-5-30 nor § 16-5-30.1 references the Crowley Act.

including disputes arising under the Crowley Act.

49. This position violates settled principles of statutory construction.

1028, 1030 (R.I. 1988) (hereinafter (“R.B.”)).

53. Applying those canons of statutory construction to §§ 16-5-30 and 16-5-30.1

and safety statutes.

render the language of § 16-5-30.1 meaningless or mere surplusage.

speciﬁc Violations 0f law provided by § 16-5-30.1.

and the Decision should be reversed.

58. The City realleges, reasserts,

and incorporates all the preceding allegations in this

Complaint as if set forth fully herein.

Hearing Ofﬁcer’s Decision.

a. In Violation 0f constitutional 0r statutory provisions;

b. In excess 0f the statutory authority of the Commissioner;

c. Made upon unlawful procedure;