Opinion ID: 2322364
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hopkinton Town Charter

Text: The Chariho Regional School Committee is the operating authority for the Chariho Regional School District, which encompasses the Towns of Charlestown, Richmond, and Hopkinton. The Chariho Regional School Committee is composed of eleven members, with representation from each of the three towns in proportion to their respective populations. The jurisdiction of the Chariho Regional School Committee is governed by the Chariho Act. [4] The Hopkinton Town Charter, first adopted in 2002, is the governing law of the Town of Hopkinton. Because the Hopkinton Town Charter contains a specific provision about multiple officeholding, we first shall examine the charter to resolve whether Felkner's simultaneous membership on both the Chariho Regional School Committee and the Hopkinton Town Council is permissible. Section 1240 of the Home Rule Charter of the Hopkinton Town Charter states, with respect to multiple officeholding, that: No elected member of the Town government shall hold more than one (1) elective or [ sic ] position in the Town Government at the same time. Section 1240 also contains the following additional language: Membership on boards or commissions that act as representation of the Town of Hopkinton in regards to the School District shall not disallow that elector from serving on another board, committee or commission in Town government. The term elected official is defined later in the charter, and includes school committee members. Specifically, section 2130 of the Home Rule Charter of the Hopkinton Town Charter provides: Town Council members, School Committee members, Town Clerk, Moderator, Town Sergeant, Director of Public Welfare, District Moderators and District Clerks will be elected. (Emphasis added.) This Court long has abided by the principle that, [w]hen    called upon to construe the provisions of a municipal charter, the usual rules of statutory construction are employed. Town of Johnston v. Santilli, 892 A.2d 123, 127 (R.I.2006) (quoting Coventry School Committee v. Richtarik, 122 R.I. 707, 713, 411 A.2d 912, 915 (1980)); Stewart v. Sheppard, 885 A.2d 715, 720 (R.I.2005); see also Mongony v. Bevilacqua, 432 A.2d 661, 663 (R.I.1981) (holding that the rules of statutory construction apply to municipal ordinances). We have recognized that [i]t is the accepted rule that the provisions of city charters should be construed so as to give, so far as possible, reasonable meaning and effect to all parts of the section in question. Stewart, 885 A.2d at 720 (quoting Carter v. City of Pawtucket, 115 R.I. 134, 138, 341 A.2d 53, 56 (1975)). However, `when the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, the court must interpret it literally, giving the words of the statute their plain and ordinary meanings.' Id. (quoting Labor Ready Northeast, Inc. v. McConaghy, 849 A.2d 340, 345 (R.I.2004)). Thus, when faced with an unambiguous enactment, this Court will not engage in statutory construction but will apply the language as written. State v. Greenberg, 951 A.2d 481, 489 (R.I.2008). Before proceeding with our examination of the charter, we must set out one additional canon of construction. When confronted with competing statutory provisions that cannot be harmonized, we adhere to the principle that the specific governs the general   . Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 384, 112 S.Ct. 2031, 119 L.Ed.2d 157 (1992); Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-51, 94 S.Ct. 2474, 41 L.Ed.2d 290 (1974); see also G.L.1956 § 43-3-26; Casey v. Sundlun, 615 A.2d 481, 483 (R.I. 1992). Because in this instance the specific terms are controlling, this Court will defer to the more precise language governing a particular subject. At the outset, we observe that, by the plain language of the Hopkinton Town Charter, a member of the school committee is considered an elected official. This definition is explicit and requires no analysis on our part. It follows, with absolute certainty, that a school committee member likewise is an elected member of the [t]own government who, under section 1240 of the charter, expressly is prohibited from holding more than one elected position in town government at the same time. Next, in light of the charter provision that permits serving on multiple boards, we must determine whether a member of the school committee reasonably can be considered a member of a board, committee[,] or commission. To reach this determination, we must look at the charter in its entirety to discern the scheme set forth therein. When referring to the Chariho Regional School Committee, the Hopkinton Town Charter makes its reference apparent by naming the School Committee by specific language. [5] Although the town charter also makes a general reference to boards, committees, and commissions, it reserves a more specific reference to the School Committee when the provision applies to that particular body alone. In other words, where in the charter the drafters intended to refer to the Chariho Regional School Committee, they did it explicitly by using the term School Committee. However, when referring more generally to another board, committee, or commission, the drafters have used this more general language. Because of this distinction in terms, we are satisfied that if the drafters of the Hopkinton Town Charter had intended to exclude the Chariho Regional School Committee from the prohibition against dual officeholding, they would have done so with the same specificity and clarity that is present in other provisions of the charter that apply to the Chariho Regional School Committee. As such, we conclude that the language in the charter is clear; it unambiguously prohibits dual officeholding by two elected officials, including, inter alia, a member of the Chariho Regional School Committee and the Hopkinton Town Council. Despite this difference, Felkner nevertheless asserts that the following provision, as set forth in section 1240 Membership on boards or commissions that act as representation of the Town of Hopkinton in regards to the School District shall not disallow that elector from serving on another board, committee or commission in Town governmentis an exception to the general prohibition against dual officeholding in town government. However, when the Hopkinton Town Charter was adopted in 2002, and the same holds true today, the Chariho Act provided for a building committee and a finance committee for the regional school district, which are separate and distinct appointments from the elected members of the Chariho Regional School Committee. The exception under which Felkner seeks relief was not enacted so that an elected school committee member could serve simultaneously on the Chariho Regional School Committee and the Hopkinton Town Council. Rather, this provision exists so that appointed members of the building and finance committees can serve the Town of Hopkinton in some other, nonelected manner such as a member of some other board, committee[,] or commission. Because this is an action in quo warranto, it was Felkner's burden to establish his entitlement to the office. He has not done so. Having accorded the words of the Hopkinton Town Charter their plain and ordinary meaning, we conclude that the charter clearly prohibits dual officeholding by elected officials such as members of the Chariho Regional School Committee. Therefore, we hold that Felkner's position on the Chariho Regional School Committee terminated by operation of law when he undertook the oath of office as a member of the Hopkinton Town Council.