Could a commission member continue serving after a term expired without a replacement?

Plain-English summary

In February 1999, Connecticut’s AG advised that a member of the Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission did not automatically lose the ability to serve when a term expired and the appointing authority had made no new appointment. In that particular situation, an unreplaced member could continue at least as a de facto officer until reappointed or replaced.

The opinion described the commission’s thirteen appointments and their differing term lengths. It relied on Connecticut decisions recognizing that de facto officers can perform official acts in the same manner as de jure officers. The AG did not decide that an expired term became a new full term, nor did he address a case in which a replacement had already been appointed. His answer was expressly tied to commissioners left neither reappointed nor replaced.

Commissioners at the time

An expired term alone did not require an immediate vacancy in the circumstances presented. The AG recognized continued service at least on a de facto basis.

Appointing authorities and commission staff at the time

The opinion contemplated that service would continue only until the proper authority reappointed the member or named a replacement. It did not remove the appointment decision from that authority.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999. 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.

Common questions

Q: Must a commissioner leave on the day the term ends if no successor is chosen?
A: The AG said no in this situation; the member could continue serving at least as a de facto officer.

Q: Did the opinion grant a new fixed term automatically?
A: No. It described continued service pending reappointment or replacement.

Q: Did the opinion apply if a successor was already appointed?
A: It did not address that circumstance.

Background and statutory framework

The commission chair asked about members whose statutory terms under § 2-120 had ended with no new appointment. The AG relied on Connecticut de facto officer decisions rather than treating term expiration alone as ending all ability to act.

Citations and references

Statute: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 2-120.

Case: State ex rel. Ryan v. Bailey, 133 Conn. 40, 46-48, 48 A. 2d 229 (1946).

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/1999-formal-opinions/from-honorable-raul-a-rodriguez-latino-and-puerto-rican-affairs-commission-1999002-formal-opinion-at

Original opinion text

From Honorable Raul A. Rodriguez, Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission, 1999-002 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

February 16, 1999

From Honorable Raul A. Rodriguez

Chairperson

Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission

18-20 Trinity Street

Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Mr. Rodriguez:

Section 2-120 of the Connecticut General Statutes establishes a Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission ("Commission") composed of thirteen members. Three of the members are appointed by the governor; two are appointed by the president pro tempore of the senate; one by the majority leader of the senate; two by the minority leader of the senate; two by the speaker of the house; one by the majority leader of the house; and two by the minority leader of the house. The gubernatorial appointees serve for terms of three years from February first of the year of their appointments, and all other appointees serve for terms of two years. You have asked whether commissioners must automatically leave the Commission when their terms expire, even if no one has been appointed to fill their positions, or whether they may continue to serve after their terms have expired until they are either reappointed or replaced as commissioners.

I have examined the statute under which the Commission operates and other relevant statutes and law, and conclude that, in this particular situation, where Commissioners have been neither reappointed nor replaced by their appointing authorities at the conclusion of their terms, they may continue to serve in at least a de facto capacity until they are reappointed or replaced for a new term. State ex rel. Ryan v. Bailey, 133 Conn. 40, 46-48, 48 A. 2d 229 (1946); State ex rel. McCarthy v. Watson, 132 Conn. 518, 527-28, 45 A. 2d 716 (1946). Generally, "de facto officers may act officially in all respects as though they were de jure officers; and in this respect their rights and liabilities are the same as those of de jure officers." 67 C.J.S. Officers,  p. 810; see State ex rel. Eberle v. Clark, 87 Conn. 537, 89 A. 172, 175 (1913).

I trust this answers your question.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Carolyn K. Querijero

Assistant Attorney General

RB/CKQ