News & Commentary

The Rhode Island ACLU has sent a letter to Barrington school officials challenging the legality of the town’s proposal to implement a two-tiered plan for out-of-town students to pay tuition fees in order to attend Barrington public schools.  As the proposal stands, the school district has indicated it would charge special education students more than four times the tuition rate that would be charged other students.  In its letter, the Affiliate asserted that charging special education students a higher tuition rate would be in clear violation of federal laws prohibiting public schools from discriminating against students with disabilities.  The letter follows up a previous one sent by the ACLU two weeks ago that questioned the legality of any attempt to exclude altogether any special education students from participating in the non-resident program. In calling the two-tiered tuition plan illegal, the ACLU cited an opinion issued in 1999 by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights which stated: "The Department cannot envision a situation where charging a higher non-resident tuition to a student with disabilities than to a student without disabilities, would not violateviolate [regulations implementing the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973]. Public school programs, including public school choice programs that utilize non-resident tuition formulae, must ensure that students with disabilities are not subjected to discrimination on the basis of their disability.” Under the circumstances, the ACLU letter states, there "is no lawful basis for proceeding with an out-of-town tuition program that would treat students with disabilities differently from other applying students. We therefore strongly urge the school district to abandon any efforts to charge disparate tuition rates based on special education status."

Ten organizations have submitted written testimony objecting to proposed Department of Health (DOH) regulations that would reinstate a “zero tolerance” scheme in schools for students possessing any over the counter medications in school without advance written parental authorization.

The RI ACLU said today it was “extremely disheartened” by today’s 3-2 decision, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, overturning Governor Lincoln Chafee’s efforts to prevent the institution of federal death penalty charges against Jason Wayne Pleau. The ACLU had filed a “friend of the court” brief in support of the Governor’s position.

In a decision issued late this afternoon, U.S. District Judge Mary Lisi has rejected claims that the City of Pawtucket has engaged in an unconstitutional practice of giving preferential treatment to parochial schools over public schools in granting permits for the use of city athletics fields. In 2009, the ACLU filed suit on behalf of seven Pawtucket parents and their children, who had complained to the City for years that one public field had been reserved almost exclusively for use by Saint Raphael Academy, a Catholic school, and that public junior high school teams were denied the use of other fields which had often been reserved for the use of private sectarian schools.

On the morning of a General Assembly hearing on three separate bills aimed at addressing the inequalities faced by Rhode Island’s same-sex couples, the RI ACLU released statistics today indicating that the state’s “compromise” civil union statute remains “a complete failure.” During the first three months of 2012, the ACLU reported today, only six couples took advantage of the state’s civil union law, which was enacted last year over the strong protests of the state’s gay and lesbian community.

The ACLU today filed a lawsuit in federal district court on behalf of a North Providence resident who has twice been detained as a deportable “alien” even though she is a U.S. citizen. The lawsuit alleges that federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials and Rhode Island officials often bypass Constitutional requirements and safeguards when they detain individuals on immigration grounds.

The RI ACLU today filed a lawsuit against the Town of Narragansett in what the ACLU calls “the latest attempt by the town to unnecessarily harass and intimidate URI students living there.” The suit, filed in RI Superior Court by ACLU volunteer attorney H. Jefferson Melish, is on behalf of three URI pharmacy graduate students who have received tickets for parking their cars overnight on their street even though they have a permit to do so.

The RI ACLU has today filed a lawsuit against Central Falls Receiver Robert Flanders, Jr., charging that he has unlawfully delegated to an appointed hearing officer powers that are afforded only to him under the state law authorizing his appointment. The lawsuit, filed in Superior Court by RI ACLU volunteer attorney Jennifer Azevedo, argues that the receiver’s actions are a violation of the open meetings law, the Financial Stability Act, and residents’ rights to due to process and to petition their government. The suit is on behalf of Central Falls resident Shaunne Thomas.  The issue was first brought to the ACLU’s attention in January when residents complained about the receiver’s enactment (subsequently suspended) of an ordinance restricting on-street parking in the city. In investigating the complaints, the ACLU was surprised to learn that the receiver was not even present at the “council” meetings where the ordinance was approved. Rather, meeting minutes showed that his “hearing officer,” Gayle Corrigan, presided at those meetings and made the motions to approve the parking ordinance. The ACLU wrote a letter to the receiver, arguing that he had no authority to delegate this sort of responsibility to a third party, but the receiver disagreed, prompting today’s lawsuit. Last year, in upholding the constitutionality of the statute creating the Receiver mechanism, the RI Supreme Court did so by noting that “the receiver may exercise the powers of an authority or office to the limits of that authority or office, and no further.” The lawsuit argues that actions such as those described above exceed the powers of the City Council, whose members have no authority to pick surrogates to act and vote in their place at council meetings, and thus exceed the power of the receiver. Among other things, the lawsuit specifically alleges that, as a result of the receiver’s conduct, residents “have been denied their right to due process and their right to petition the government for the redress of grievances, as the ‘hearing officer’ is neither their elected official nor is she the receiver duly appointed by the State to act in place of elected officials, pursuant to the Financial Stability Act.” The suit also claims the receiver has violated the Open Meetings Act by “failing to convene and preside over public meetings or take official actions at those public meetings, and instead sending an unelected substitute to whom the State has not delegated the power and authority of elected officials.” The suit seeks a court order declaring that the receiver has unlawfully delegated his powers to the “hearing officer,” and preventing him from continuing to do so. ACLU attorney Azevedo said today: “It is dubious enough that the receivership law disenfranchises the entire electorate of Central Falls, replacing the Mayor and City Council with a Receiver, but to then have that Receiver delegate the duties of those elected officers to a third party is utterly unacceptable.”  Plaintiff Thomas added: “As an African American woman, I especially cherish my First Amendment rights, my right to due process, and my right to vote for my leaders. After hundreds of years of my people being denied these rights, I cannot sit by quietly and watch an appointed receiver abuse my rights.” The RI ACLU testified against passage of the receivership statute in 2010 on the grounds that it disenfranchised an entire electorate, and has objected to the broad powers assumed by the receiver in Central Falls.

The Rhode Island ACLU has today taken legal action against the Pawtucket and Little Compton school districts for violating the state’s open records law. The lawsuit, filed in Superior Court by ACLU volunteer attorney Karen Davidson, charges that district officials in each of these districts unlawfully failed to respond to two requests from the ACLU for public documents.