Opinion ID: 1925667
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Coventry School Committee v. Richtarik

Text: The majority opinion relies heavily on the case of Coventry School Committee v. Richtarik, 122 R.I. 707, 411 A.2d 912 (1980). For my part, I do not consider Richtarik to be dispositive. My colleagues in the majority state that they fail to see any meaningful distinction between the charter provision in Richtarik and the one at issue here. I respectfully disagree, since I believe that the two charters are radically distinguishable. The Coventry Town Charter specifically mentioned the school committee, whereas the Johnston Town Charter does not. Absent the sort of specificity that was contained in the charter at issue in Richtarik, I am not able to conclude that in this case there has been the sort of express validation by the General Assembly that was the determinative factor in Richtarik. It is noteworthy that the following language was contained in the Coventry Town Charter at issue in Richtarik: The town solicitor shall appear for and protect the rights of the town in all actions, suits, or proceedings, civil or criminal, in law or equity, brought by or against it, or for or against any of its departments, offices or agencies, including the council, the manager and the school committee   . Richtarik, 122 R.I. at 711, 411 A.2d at 914 (quoting from the Coventry Town Charter). The very specific reference to the school committee in the portion of the Coventry Town Charter dealing with the responsibilities of the town solicitor is crucial. No similar language specifically referencing the school committee appears in the Johnston Town Charter. (In addition, the Court in Richtarik went out of its way to observe that, under the Coventry Town Charter, the `school committee' is specifically designated as being within the departmental category. Richtarik, 122 R.I. at 714, 411 A.2d at 915.)