STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN YOUTH AND FAMILIES, Petitioner
v.
CHARIHO REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent
v.
THE GREENE SCHOOL, Respondent
v.
PROVIDENCE PUBLIC SCHOOL DEPARTMENT, Respondent
In Re: C. Doe
RIDE No. 19-044K
DECISION
Held: Since C. Doe’s parent resided in the town of Richmond at the time he was placed by DCYF at Harmony Hill School, a private residential facility in Chepachet, Rhode Island, and since Richmond is a member town of the Chariho Regional School District, Chariho must reimburse DCYF for the cost of Doe’s education while he was placed at this residential facility at the rate of Chariho’s per pupil special education cost. It is also the Chariho Regional School District (and not the town of Richmond) that was responsible for Doe’s receipt of a free, appropriate public education pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws §16-64-1.3 (b) during the period in which he was placed at Harmony Hill School.
DATE: October 18, 2019
Travel of the Case:
The Department of Children, Youth and Families (“DCYF”) filed a “Request for an Order for Residency Determination and Designation of Party Responsible for the Education of a Youth Residing in A Residential Facility” with the Commissioner on March 15, 2019. On April 3, 2019 the Chariho Regional School District (“Chariho”) through its attorney, moved to implead The Greene School, a charter school in which Doe had previously been enrolled, and asserted that The Greene School (“TGS”) is the LEA responsible for the administrative and financial obligations that are in dispute in this case. On April 17, counsel for TGS filed a Motion to Implead the Providence Public School District (“PPSD”), asserting that C. Doe was disenrolled from TGS on March 2, 2018 and enrolled at Mount Pleasant High School from March 5, 2018 until June 6, 2018 when he was placed by DCYF at Harmony Hill School (“Harmony Hill”). TGS asserted that based on the Mount Pleasant enrollment, financial and educational responsibility for Doe rested with the PPSD.
The parties notified the undersigned hearing officer of their intention to enter into an Agreed Statement of Facts and an agreed-upon briefing schedule at a teleconference held on May 31, 2019. An Agreed Statement of Facts was received on July 22, 2019 and briefs were filed by the parties during the period July 24, 2019 to September 16, 2019. The record closed on September 16, 2019 upon receipt of DCYF’s Third Memorandum of Law. Subsequently, on October 11, 2019 DCYF requested that the decision in this matter be expedited because the absence of an identified responsible LEA for this student was having a negative impact on him.[1] According to DCYF’s request, the Family Court magistrate expressed concern about a delay in Doe’s receipt of his high school diploma.[2] The request for an expedited decision was granted.
Jurisdiction to hear this matter is found in R.I. Gen. Laws §16-64-6.
ISSUE
Is Chariho or some other entity responsible for the education of C. Doe during the time he was placed by DCYF at Harmony Hill?
Findings of Relevant Facts:
(The Agreed Statement of Facts is attached to this decision as “Attachment A”)
Positions of the Parties:
DCYF:
In three separate memoranda filed in this matter, DCYF argues that Chariho is clearly the LEA responsible for C. Doe’s education during the period of time he was placed at Harmony Hill. The controlling statute is R.I. Gen. Laws §16-64-1.1(c). The three facts which are essential to establishing a claim against Chariho under this law are (1) that DCYF has custody of Doe (2) that Doe was placed in a residential facility (Harmony Hill) that includes the delivery of educational services by the facility and (3) that Richmond is the last town in which Doe’s custodial parent resided when he was placed in the residential placement. It is undisputed that Doe was placed in DCYF custody on April 24, 2018. On April 24, 2018 Magistrate Jones of the Rhode Island Family Court also found that his custodial parent was a resident of the town of Richmond. It is beyond dispute that the youth’s residential facility, Harmony Hill, is a residential facility that includes the delivery of educational services.[3]
Residency of the custodial parent, according to the clear funding responsibility language of R.I. Gen. Laws §16-64-1.2 (c), is clearly the fundamental determinant of educational and financial responsibility for children in DCYF care who are placed at residential facilities such as Harmony Hill. In order to shift the duty to reimburse DCYF to TGS, Chariho has the burden of proving that TGS should be treated as a town or city for purposes of R.I. Gen. Laws §16-64-1.2 (c). Chariho’s proof does not meet this burden of proof.
Counsel for DCYF points out that it requested that the Commissioner “designate RICHMOND as the city or town that shall be responsible for [Doe’s] public education” for the period of time that he is placed at Harmony Hill. Consistent with such designation of residency, Chariho is the LEA functioning as the “responsible LEA” and is traditionally the named defendant in actions of this nature. Chariho has extensive experience as a defendant in RIDE hearings regarding inter-district disputes over tuition reimbursement. The legal basis for such regional school district responsibility is R.I. Gen. Laws §16-3-2 which permits towns and cities to create regional school districts to operate all schools and educational services on their behalf. Member towns, such as Richmond, are obligated by R.I. Gen. Laws §16-3-20 (b) to appropriate sufficient sums annually to pay their proportionate share of the costs of operation of the regional school district. Richmond contributed the required amount in support of the operations of the Chariho Regional School District in 2018-2019 in the amount of $14,854,402.92. Implicit in DCYF’s argument is the notion that Richmond’s appropriation to Chariho is intended to meet precisely the type of financial obligation that DCYF asserts against it in this case. Regional school districts have routinely been held responsible for such statutory claims-not the regional school districts’ member cities or towns.
The fact that Chariho paid its local contribution as Doe’s district of residence when he attended TGS from January 30, 2017 to March 2, 2018 does not render it “unfair and inequitable” for Chariho now to be required to meet its statutory responsibilities resulting from Doe’s placement at a residential facility. This is simply a “non-sequitur” argument.
CHARIHO:
Chariho’s focus is on the fact that once Doe enrolled in TGS on January 30, 2017 he was never again enrolled in Chariho or became a student for which Chariho is responsible.
If the premise for DCYF’s claim of Chariho’s financial and educational responsibility for Doe is R.I. Gen. Laws §16-64-1.2 (c), then such claim has been asserted against the wrong party. The clear and unambiguous language of this statute imposes the obligation to reimburse DCYF in the amount of the per pupil special education cost on the city or town designated by the department of elementary and secondary education (emphasis added). Chariho is a regional school district. Chariho is an LEA and operates schools available to three Rhode Island towns, Charlestown, Richmond and Hopkinton. It is not a city or town. The plain and ordinary meaning of the words “city” and “town” do not lend themselves to a description of Chariho. Financial responsibility for Doe’s education at Harmony Hill cannot, under the terms of this statute, be placed upon Chariho. Chariho and the town of Richmond, where Doe’s custodial parent lives, are not legal equivalents, even though DCYF uses them interchangeably in stating its claim for reimbursement.
If the Commissioner nonetheless construes the applicable statute to include a regional or other LEA’s, then TGS should be designated as the financially responsible LEA. The relevant time frame is June 6, 2018 through June 7, 2019 (the period of time Doe was placed at Harmony Hill). At the time of his placement at Harmony Hill, Doe had been at TGS well over a year. Students from the town of Richmond are eligible to apply to TGS and the town provides municipal funding under the current charter school structure. Implicit is the notion that Doe’s ties to TGS, and the fact that it received significant municipal funding to support his attendance there, warrants keeping financial responsibility for his education with this charter school. TGS became responsible for Doe’s individualized education program and should remain responsible for his educational program and costs during the time he was placed at Harmony Hill.
Finally, Chariho submits that it would be “unfair and inequitable” to now impose a significant financial burden on Chariho when it previously paid a substantial amount as its “local share” for Doe’s educational program during the year he attended TGS, as was required under R.I. Gen. Laws §16-7.2-5.
THE GREENE SCHOOL:
Like Chariho, TGS argues that statutory responsibility for children placed by DCYF in residential facilities “that include the delivery of educational services provided by that facility” is placed upon cities and towns, not upon LEA’s. TGS is not a city or town and has never been, and is not alleged to be, at any time a place of residence for C. Doe or his custodial parent(s). Therefore, TGS cannot be responsible for the per pupil special education costs to be paid to DCYF pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws §16-64-1.2(c).
If responsibility were to be premised upon school enrollment, at the time Doe was placed in DCYF custody (April 24, 2018) and then placed at Harmony Hill (June 6, 2018), he was no longer enrolled at TGS. He withdrew from TGS on March 2, 2018 and enrolled at Mount Pleasant High School in Providence on March 5, 2018. Therefore, more than two months prior to Doe’s placement at Harmony Hill, any obligations that TGS may have had to Doe ceased to exist. TGS had no obligation to provide FAPE to Doe in an “out of school” placement, or otherwise, after that date.[4]
Lastly, DCYF’s request (as to TGS) and Chariho’s assertion of TGS’s responsibility should be denied because state law- R.I. Gen. Laws §§16-64-1.1 (c) and 16-64-1.2 (d) directly apply to assign responsibility for Doe’s special education services to “some other entity,” namely, the appropriate city or town as determined by RIDE. See 200 RICR-20-30-6.6(H) incorporating by reference 34 C.F.R. §300.209 (c). Therefore, even though TGS is the functional and legal equivalent of an LEA, our special education regulations, supra, clarify that LEA’s in this factual situation are relieved of any responsibility to provide a free appropriate public education by virtue of a state law reassigning responsibility to “some other entity”. Consequently, TGS is not obligated to pay for special education services, or to reimburse DCYF for the cost of such services provided to Doe at Harmony Hill.
PROVIDENCE PUBLIC SCHOOL DEPARTMENT:
As the other Respondents in this matter have agreed, the controlling law here is R.I. Gen. Laws §§16-64-1.1 (c) and 16-64-1.2. These provisions together lead to the inescapable conclusion that the cost of Doe’s education while placed at Harmony Hill, a residential facility which includes the delivery of educational services, must be borne by the city or town in which his parents reside. Given that the Family Court has determined that Doe’s custodial parents resided in the town of Richmond, and DCYF named Chariho as the responsible LEA, Providence must be dismissed from this action. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that Doe’s parents ever lived in the city of Providence.
DECISION
According to the Agreed Statement of Facts, the Family Court found on April 24, 2018 that Doe’s “custodial parents (sic)” was “a resident of the Town of Richmond”. (See Par. 11 of the Agreed Statement of Facts) This finding is tantamount to what is described in R.I. Gen. Laws §16-64-1.2 (a) as an “initial factual determination and designation of the residence of the parent(s)” by the Family Court in accordance with R.I. Gen. Laws §33-15.1-2. Such designation constitutes “prima facie evidence” of the parent’s residence in a proceeding under R.I. Gen. Laws §16-64-6 in which residency is in dispute. Such dispute is resolved by the Commissioner after a hearing to “determine the issue”. There was no hearing required in this matter as the parties submitted an agreed-upon list of facts. There is nothing in the Agreed Statement of Facts that would rebut the prima facie evidence of Doe’s parent’s residence. The Commissioner therefore finds that the town of Richmond is “the town” with financial responsibility for the child’s education as provided in R.I. Gen. Laws §16-64-1.1 (c).
Although such designation of residency and determination of financial responsibility would seemingly impose a financial obligation upon the designated “town” or “city,” a separate entity is made responsible under state law for school and student-related obligations. Chariho’s argument notwithstanding, R.I. Gen. Laws §§16-64-1.1, 16-64-1.2 and 16-64-1.3 cannot be read in isolation. In Rhode Island, the General Assembly has delegated its plenary authority over education not to cities and towns, but to local school committees. Dawson v. Clark, 93 R.I. 457, 176 A.2d 732 (1962) Towns and cities do not operate schools or educate students, school committees are entrusted with this responsibility. It is school committees that are vested with the “entire care, control, and management of all the public school interests of the several cities or towns”. See R.I. Gen. Laws §16-2-9 and §16-2-18. As stated in City of Pawtucket v. Pawtucket Teachers’ Alliance, 87 R.I. 364, 141 A.2d 624 (1958), under the Rhode Island Constitution education is a state function and, as such, is carried out by the cities and towns, through their school committees, as agencies of the state government. Id at page 371. Although the public school interests of the cities and towns, operationally and fiscally, are separate from other municipal departments, school committees are nonetheless departments of the city or town. See Cummings v. Godin, 119 R.I. 325, 377 A.2d 1071 (1977); Town of Johnston v. Santilli, 892 A.2d 123 (R.I. 2006). References in §§ 16-64-1.1 and 16-64-1.2 and 16-64-1.3 to the financial and educational responsibilities of the designated city or town must be read in pari materia with other provisions of state law, with the inevitable conclusion that school-related expenses of a town or city are legal obligations of the local or regional school committee. It is Chariho that is the real party in interest in DCYF claims for reimbursement under the provisions of law cited above.
Thus, while Chariho’s argument that it is not a city or town is correct, its denial of responsibility for Doe’s educational costs overlooks the fact that control, management and responsibility for public school interests of its member towns, including the town of Richmond, have been vested in it under state law. A regional school district established under the provisions of R.I. Gen. Laws §16-3-10 “shall be a body politic and corporate with all the powers and duties conferred by law upon school committees”. See R.I. Gen. Laws §16-3-11. Specifically, voters of the town of Richmond (along with those of Charlestown and Hopkinton) approved the creation of the Chariho Regional School District for the operation of a regional school system. The Chariho Act”[5] confers upon the regional school committee for said district “…all the powers and duties conferred by law in this state upon school committees of towns… (See Section 10. (3) of the Chariho Act). The receipt and disbursement of funds for any regional school district purpose is authorized in Section 10. (3) (c) of the Chariho Act. Section 15. (4) provides that operating costs shall include all costs of the said school district not included in the construction costs paid out of the receipts and realizations of the sale of bonds or notes as hereinbefore provided. Section 15. (5) provides that “operating expenses for each fiscal year…shall be apportioned among the member towns in proportion to the relationship of their respective pupil enrollment in the said district school system on October 1 of the previous calendar year to the total pupil enrollment in said school system on said date.”[6] An annual per pupil charge is calculated by the treasurer of the regional school district and each member town then pays to the treasurer of the district a sum equal to the number of pupils enrolled in the district from that town multiplied by the annual pupil charge. See Section 15. (6) of the Chariho Act.
From all of the above-cited provisions, it is clear that, ultimately, the town of Richmond pays a portion of the financial cost of educating students for whom financial responsibility is assigned to Chariho under state law. Through the creation of the Chariho Regional School District, the three member towns have agreed that such costs will flow through to them and will be apportioned based upon the number of students enrolled in the district from that town. This financial responsibility is not unlike that of non-regionalized school districts who received annual appropriations from their town or city to support school operations. So while it is true that Chariho is not a city or town, the statutory scheme for payment of school expenses, for both local and regional school districts, clarifies the obligations of these various entities.
Based on the designation of residency in Richmond, Chariho, the regional school district for the town of Richmond, is legally responsible for the payment of statutory reimbursement to DCYF and responsible for Doe’s free appropriate public education while placed at Harmony Hill.
His placement at Harmony Hill was not an out-of-district special education placement for which his prior local education agency (either TGS or PPSD) would be responsible. According to the Agreed Statement of Facts, it was a child welfare placement authorized by the Family Court and implemented by DCYF.
DCYF and Chariho shall meet and confer with respect to the amount owed to DCYF.
This decision is entered as both an Interim Protective Order under R.I. Gen. Laws §16-39-3.2 and as a Final Decision of the Commissioner.
Footnotes
[1] C. Doe will turn nineteen (19) on November 30, 2019 according to DCYF’s Pleading in this case. As a student with a disability who is eligible for and receives special education services, Doe remains eligible to continue to receive services until his 22nd birthday or his receipt of a regular high school diploma.
[2] The Agreed Statement of Facts indicates that Doe was discharged from Harmony Hill on June 7, 2019. In light of this fact, it may be that the LEA responsible for his education has changed, based upon wherever he is now residing.
[3] The Agreed Statement of Facts contains seventeen (17) numbered paragraphs, but none addresses the fact of the delivery of educational services to residents of Harmony Hill. Given the number of cases recently adjudicated by RIDE involving this facility, the Commissioner takes administrative notice of the fact that the residential treatment program provided at Harmony Hill includes the delivery of educational services by Harmony Hill.
[4] Implicitly, TGS argues that any LEA having an obligation to provide special education services in an “out of school placement” or “out of district placement” as part of the obligation to provide a student with FAPE after this date would be the Providence Public School Department.
[5] Public Laws of 1958, Chapter 55, as amended by P.L. 1986, Chapter 286 “An Act Authorizing the Towns of Charlestown, Richmond and Hopkinton to Join a Regional School District, Incorporating said Regional School District and Providing for the Issuance of Bonds, Construction and Operation of a Regional School System for the Joint Use of the Participating Towns within said Regional School District Established by this Act”.
[6] Under this provision, a proportionate distribution of operating costs is made to each of the member towns of Chariho.
For the Commissioner,
Kathleen S. Murray
Hearing Officer
Date: October 18, 2019
Angélica Infante-Green,
Commissioner