Opinion ID: 1477005
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Applicability of the Administrative Procedures Act

Text: The trial justice concluded that plaintiff was aggrieved by a decision of the Pay Plan Board that reduced his salary. She also determined that the Pay Plan Board was an administrative agency pursuant to the APA, and therefore, plaintiff's challenge to the Pay Plan Board's decision was governed by the APA's provisions. Because plaintiff failed to appeal the decision of the Pay Plan Board to the Superior Court within thirty days after the letter notifying plaintiff of the Pay Plan Board's action was mailed, as required by § 42-35-15, the trial justice granted summary judgment. [9] Pursuant to § 42-35-18(a), the APA applies to all agencies and agency proceedings not expressly exempted. We have consistently held that the APA was intended to provide an exclusive method of judicial review of agency decisions unless the agency is one of those specifically exempted by the provisions of § 42-35-18. Great American Nursing Centers, Inc. v. Norberg, 439 A.2d 249, 251 (R.I.1981). We note at the outset that the Pay Plan Board and its proceedings are not explicitly exempted from the APA. Section 42-35-18. Thus, if the Pay Plan Board meets the statutory definition of an agency  each state board, commission, department, or officer, other than the legislature or the courts, authorized by law to make rules or to determine contested cases  the APA governs the issues in this case. Sections 42-35-1(a); see 42-35-18. In order for its proceedings to be governed by the APA, an administrative agency must have independent rulemaking authority or the responsibility of determining contested cases. The Pay Plan Board does not meet the statutory definition of an agency because it has no rulemaking authority and is not empowered to determine contested cases. We recognize that § 36-4-16.2 grants the Pay Plan Board the authority to establish a pay plan for unclassified employees of the state, including such rules and regulations as are necessary to implement and complement the plan. However, the governor is vested with final approval authority, and the governor may adopt any changes to the plan that he or she deems necessary. Section 36-4-16.3. This demarcation of authority is conclusive on the issue of the Pay Plan Board's independent rulemaking power. [10] We are satisfied that the Pay Plan Board is not authorized by law to make rules within the meaning of the APA. [11] The Pay Plan Board not only lacks rulemaking authority, it is not authorized to determine contested cases. A contested case is a proceeding, including but not restricted to ratemaking, price fixing, and licensing, in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a specific party are required by law to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for hearing. Section 42-35-1(c). For an administrative proceeding to qualify as a contested case, a hearing must be required by law. Property Advisory Group, Inc. v. Rylant, 636 A.2d 317, 318 (R.I.1994). However, this mandate need not be explicitly provided for by statute. Colonial Hilton Inns of New England, Inc. v. Rego, 109 R.I. 259, 263, 284 A.2d 69, 71 (1971) (Although a hearing was not explicitly required by statute, the proceeding was, nevertheless, a contested case because the applicant for a permit to construct a wharf or bulkhead on the shore of Narragansett Bay was a specific party whose rights, duties, or privileges were to be determined by the administrative agency.). Whether or not plaintiff was entitled to a hearing before his salary was reduced, the Pay Plan Board is not an agency within the purview of the APA, because it is not authorized to determine the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a specific party. Section 42-35-1(a). After careful review of the record, we conclude that the trial justice erred in holding that the APA governed review of the Pay Plan Board's decision to reduce plaintiff's pay grade and that plaintiff's failure to comply with § 42-35-15(b) was a bar to judicial review. Therefore, the trial justice erred in granting summary judgment to defendants. Further, we are satisfied that plaintiff properly invoked the jurisdiction of the Superior Court pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, G.L.1956 chapter 30 of title 9, and set forth an adequate claim for declaratory relief. However, the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment can only be reviewed by petition for certiorari. Because plaintiff did not seek this review, that issue is not before the Court.