Did Connecticut liquor control commissioners still serve staggered six-year terms after the 1977 reorganization?

Plain-English summary

The Attorney General concluded that Connecticut liquor control commissioners no longer served the staggered six-year terms stated in the older liquor statute. A 1977 executive-branch reorganization enacted a later rule that commission members generally served terms coterminous with the Governor's, “or until a successor is chosen, whichever is later.” The opinion found no liquor-control exception in that act and held that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-9a(c) superseded the inconsistent term language in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-2.

The opinion also described post-1979 appointment letters that did not specify six-year terms, contrasting them with earlier letters that did. It treated this appointment practice as support for the statutory reading. Its footnote drew a boundary: the opinion answered when terms expired, but did not decide whether commissioners could be removed at the Governor's pleasure or only for cause.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

For liquor control commissioners and appointment staff: The opinion said the general executive-branch term rule overrode the older six-year schedule for these commissioners. Their terms ran with the Governor's term and continued until successors were chosen if that came later.

For officials considering removal: The Attorney General expressly left the removal standard unresolved. The phrase “at the pleasure of the Governor” appeared in appointment letters, but the opinion did not decide whether that phrase controlled removal or whether statutory cause was required.

Common questions

Did the old six-year terms still apply to liquor control commissioners?

The Attorney General said no. The later statute began with “Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary” and applied to executive-branch commissions without listing liquor control as an exception.

Did commissioners leave office automatically when a Governor's term ended?

The opinion read the replacement statute as allowing a commissioner to serve until a successor was chosen if that occurred later than the Governor's term end.

Could the Governor remove a commissioner at will?

The opinion did not decide that issue. Its footnote said the request concerned term expiration and expressly declined to choose between removal at the Governor's pleasure and removal for cause.

Background and statutory framework

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-2 had specified three liquor control commissioners with staggered six-year appointments. The 1977 Executive Branch of Government Reorganization Act, 1977 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 77-614, later reset many executive-branch commission terms. Its codified “notwithstanding” clause in Conn. Gen. Stat.§ 4-9a(c) generally made terms coterminous with the Governor's or continued them until successors were chosen. Because liquor control was not in the act's exception list, the Attorney General held that the later term rule displaced the older statute to the extent of the conflict.

Citations and references

The opinion compares Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-2 with Conn. Gen. Stat.§ 4-9a(c) and identifies 1977 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 77-614 as the change. It cites Anderson v. Ludgin, 175 Conn. 545, 555-56, 400 A.2d 712 (1978), on the weight of a long-standing administrative interpretation.

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/1991-formal-opinions/honorable-john-f-healy-department-of-liquor-control-1991006-formal-opinion-attorney-general-of-conne

Original opinion text

Honorable John F. Healy, Department of Liquor Control, 1991-006 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal

February 11, 1991

Honorable John F. Healy

Chairman

Department of Liquor Control

165 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Chairman Healy:

This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning the terms of office of Commissioners of the Department of Liquor Control. Specifically, you seek an opinion on the applicability of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-2, which states that Commissioners are to be appointed to staggered, six-year terms. For the following reasons, we believe that this provision was superseded in 1977 by Conn. Gen. Stat.§ 4-9a(c) which provides that Commissioners serve coterminously with the Governor, or until a successors chosen, whichever is later.

The provisions of Section 30-2 have existed, substantially unchanged, since the initial enactment of the modern Liquor Control Act. See, Conn. Gen. Stat. (1933 Sup.) § 671b. This section, which provides for the appointment of three Commissioners, currently reads as follows:

On or before May first in the odd-numbered years, the governor shall appoint one member of the liquor control commission for a term of six years from the first day of May next following his appointment. He shall fill any vacancy for the unexpired portion of the term. Not more than two commissioners shall be of the same political party. Each commissioner shall take the oath prescribed for executive officers. The governor shall designate one of the commissioners to be chairman, during the pleasure of the governor. He may remove any commissioner as provided in section 4-12.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-2.

In 1977, the Connecticut General Assembly enacted sweeping changes in the way commissioners and other top, appointed state officials were to serve. This Act, known as the Executive Branch of Government Reorganization Act, provided, inter alia, that the term of each member of each board and commission within the state, with certain exceptions not here relevant, would "terminate on July 1, 1979, or upon the selection of a successor member, whichever is later." 1977 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 77-614, Sec. 13(b). Thereafter, the Reorganization Act provided, the terms of each such official would run coterminous with the Governor, or until a successor is chosen. Id. at Sec. 13(d). While some exceptions to this rule were written, no exception was made for Liquor Control Commissioners. The provision is codified in the chapter of the General Statutes respecting state appointive officers, and reads as follows:

Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the term of each member of each board and commission within the executive branch, except the state board of education, the board of governors of higher education, the gaming policy board, the state elections enforcement commission, the state properties review board, the state ethics commission, the commission on medicolegal investigations, the psychiatric security review board, the commission on fire prevention and control, the E 9-1-1 commission, the state commission on the arts and the board of trustees of each constituent unit of the state system of higher education, commencing on or after July 1, 1979, shall be coterminous with the term of the governor or until a successor is chosen whichever is later.

Conn. Gen. Stat.§ 4-9a(c).

The meaning of the statute is plain. "Notwithstanding" any provision of law to the contrary means without prevention or obstruction from or by; in spite of. Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged). Thus, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4--9a(c), by its terms, takes precedence over the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-2, at least with respect to superseding the inconsistent portions of section 30-2 and establishing that Liquor Control Commissioners are to serve terms that are coterminous, or of the same duration, as the term of the Governor. Accord, 86 Conn. Op. Atty. Gen. 15, (1986).

Consistent with Section 4-9a(c), and since the enactment of the Reorganization Act, Commissioners Healy, Snyder and Costello have received appointments which do not specify six-year terms. Instead, they have been appointed to serve "at the pleasure of the Governor.1 See Post-1979 Appointment Letters, Attachment A. By comparison, appointments issued prior to the Reorganization Act referenced specific six-year terms. See, Pre-1979 Appointment Letters, Attachment B. This practical application demonstrates an interpretation of the law by the appointing Governors. In the construction of statutes, this practice is entitled to great deference. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. , 401 U.S. 424, 434-39, 91 S. Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed. 2d 158 (1971); Corey v. Avco-Lycoming Division, 163 Conn. 309,326, 307 A.2d 155 (1972) (Louiselle, J. concurring), cert. denied 409 U.S. 116, 93 S. Ct. 903, 34 L.Ed.2d 699 (1973). Where the time-tested interpretation is "reasonable", it should be accorded "great weight". Anderson v. Ludgin, 175 Conn. 545, 555-56, 400 A.2d 712 (1978) (citations omitted).

In conclusion, we believe that the provisions of the Liquor Control Act providing for staggered, six-year terms for Liquor Control Commissioners have been superseded by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-9a(c) which provides for terms coterminous with the Governor, or until a successor is chosen, whichever is later.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Robert F. Vacchelli

Assistant Attorney General

RB/RFV/ td

1 For the purposes of this opinion, it is unnecessary for us to resolve whether Commissioners may be removed at the pleasure of the Governor under Conn. Gen. Stat. 4-9a(d) or may only be removed for cause pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-12. Your question concerns term expiration only.