R.I. high court rules against Carcieri in sheriffs' layoffs
12:24 PM Wed, Dec 17, 2008 | Permalink
Email
 |
 |
Projo 7 to 7 News BlogTaking the news pulse of Rhode Island and Southeastern Massachusetts, by Providence Journal and projo.com staff, from 7 to 7, every business day |
|
Get the 7 to 7 on your mobile at www.projo.com. Twitter: projo | RSS | Email alerts
« Reporter's query: Seeking a 'classic Christmas' story |
Main
| Update: Suspicious item found at Guard base at Quonset »
In a blow to Governor Carcieri's administration, the state Supreme Court has overturned a judge's finding that the governor had the inherent authority to lay off five state sheriffs as Rhode Island faces financial problems. Appealing the August decision of Superior Court Judge Judith Colenback Savage to the state's highest court were chief deputy sheriffs James M. Grant, Daniel E. Silva, Jo-Ann Macari and sheriffs Joseph K. Ford and Ann M. Castelli. Savage had ruled that the governor proceeded properly when the administration last year issued the layoff notices. With a financial crisis amid a large state budget deficit, Carcieri instructed department heads to cut 1,000 jobs through "attrition, restructuring, subconstracting, and/or layoff of state employees," the court's opinion states. The five sheriffs' positions each carried statutory 10-year terms. But the trial judge's decision said that sheriffs appointed after Feb. 1, 2001, did not have protection that guaranteed them the right to hold office until their terms ended -- subject to being removed only for just cause. Savage found not only that the governor had the authority to remove them, according to today's opinion, but that the state's economic distress constituted just cause. "We disagree," the state Supreme Court says in its opinion, which goes on to state that "all sheriffs, those appointed on, before, or after February 1, 2001, fall under" the state law's requirement that the sheriffs serve a statutorily determined term. "Accordingly, we conclude that the governor is without the power to divest these employees of their statutorily protected ten-year term of employment in the absence of just cause," the high court ruled, in the opinion written by Chief Justice Frank J. Williams. "Had the General Assembly intended to allow plaintiffs to be dismissed for fiscal reasons, it would have provided for such layoffs explicitly," the opinion said.
CommentsLeave a commentPlease be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish. |
Tags 
New comments
New photos
New posts
Projo blogs
Archives
R. I .is doomed. It just goes on and on. Get out while you can.
Report Abuse
Simply another example of the "Don" being "Don". Now the taxpayers will be paying for those individuals laid off, making them whole for all financial losses during that time of illegal unemployment, no fault of their own. I think that we should bring in Manny Ramerez to oversee all legalities of the "Dons" actions.
Report Abuse
Is anyone surprised here? It seems that no matter what Carcieri does, the courts will rule against him. If Carcieri wanted to send a felon to prison, the courts would rule against him. This state is so corrupt I think it's about time the Journal does some investigation into why the deck is stacked against Carcieri.
And no kidding it was Williams who offered his opinion. No kidding.
Is this state corrupt or what?
Report Abuse
Hi Carl. ;~)
Report Abuse
Hi Carl ; ~ )
I just laugh at you. We need the jobs cut the State House.
Report Abuse
We need to cut from the top! Get rid of some of the higher-ups who make the big scratch. Spread that money out.
Report Abuse