Retirement Board of the Employees' Retirement System of the City of Providence v. Frank E. Corrente and Mayor of the City of Providence et al.

Summary

This per curiam opinion of the Rhode Island Supreme Court addresses consolidated appeals arising from the reduction of Frank E. Corrente’s municipal pension benefits following federal felony convictions under Providence’s Honorable Service Ordinance. The court considers intervention by the mayor and city, the appropriate standard of review, the board’s authority to reduce pension benefits, and Corrente’s request for a tax credit for benefits he was required to repay. The opinion affirms the Superior Court’s judgment.

Holdings

1. The Superior Court did not err or abuse its discretion in allowing the mayor and the City of Providence to intervene as of right because the intervenors timely claimed a significant municipal interest that could be impaired and their interests were not adequately represented by the existing parties.
2. A Superior Court action initiated by the Retirement Board under the Honorable Service Ordinance is appropriately treated as an administrative appeal and reviewed under the Administrative Procedures Act standard rather than de novo.
3. The Retirement Board's decision to reduce Corrente's pension benefits rather than revoke them entirely was not arbitrary, capricious, clearly erroneous, affected by legal error, or an abuse of discretion.
4. The Retirement Board properly denied Corrente's request for a tax credit because its decision was supported by legally competent evidence and the record did not establish that the Board had authority to grant the credit.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the mayor and the City of Providence satisfied the requirements for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. Whether a Superior Court action initiated under the Honorable Service Ordinance is reviewed de novo or under the deferential standard applicable to administrative appeals under the Administrative Procedures Act.
3. Whether the Retirement Board's decision to reduce rather than revoke Corrente's pension benefits was arbitrary, capricious, clearly erroneous, affected by legal error, or an abuse of discretion.
4. Whether the Retirement Board properly denied Corrente's request for a tax credit on pension benefits he was required to repay.

Disposition

affirmed