Could Connecticut's Child Advocate designate a staff member to vote at Family Support Council meetings?

Plain-English summary

Connecticut's Child Advocate asked whether she could authorize a staff member to attend and vote for her at Family Support Council meetings. The Council's enabling statute expressly allowed some named officials to use designees but did not say the same for the Child Advocate.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal concluded that the Child Advocate could use a staff designee. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k authorized her staff to perform the Child Advocate's duties and powers when acting under her direction. The opinion read that authority together with Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-219c rather than treating the Council statute in isolation.

The legislature added the Child Advocate to the Council after creating the Office of the Child Advocate and granting this staff-delegation authority. Because the legislature was presumed to know the existing law, the opinion reasoned that it would have expressly limited delegation if it intended the Child Advocate alone to cast the Council vote.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2009. 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.

Who this opinion addressed in 2009

The Child Advocate and her staff

The opinion allowed a staff member acting under the Child Advocate's direction to attend and cast her vote at Council meetings. The authority came from the statute defining what her staff could do.

Family Support Council members

The fact that § 17a-219c expressly mentioned designees for some members did not bar the Child Advocate's staff designee. The opinion harmonized the Council statute with the separate law governing the Child Advocate's office.

Government attorneys and agency officials

The opinion used a statute-specific analysis. It did not establish a general right for every public board member to delegate a vote.

Common questions

Q: Could the Child Advocate send a staff member to vote at a Family Support Council meeting?
A: Yes. The AG concluded that a staff member could attend and cast the Child Advocate's vote while acting under her direction.

Q: Why did the Council statute's list of designees not prevent that delegation?
A: A separate statute expressly allowed staff to perform the Child Advocate's duties and powers. The opinion read both statutes together as a harmonious body of law.

Q: Did the opinion allow any Council member to choose a substitute?
A: No. It addressed the Child Advocate's separate statutory power over her staff and did not create a general delegation rule for all Council members.

Background and statutory framework

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-219c established the Family Support Council's membership. Its list expressly allowed several commissioners to serve through designees, while naming the Child Advocate without that phrase.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k authorized the Child Advocate to appoint staff and provided that staff duties could include the Child Advocate's duties and powers when performed under her direction. The opinion relied on Connecticut cases requiring statutes to be harmonized and presuming that the legislature knew existing law when it later added the Child Advocate to the Council.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-219c
• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k
• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k(d)

Cases:

• State v. Perez, 78 Conn. App. 610, 642 (2003)
• State v. John F.M., 285 Conn. 528, 549 (2008)
• AvalonBay Cmtys., Inc. v. Zoning Comm'n, 280 Conn. 405, 417 (2006)
• Bd. of Educ. v. State Bd. of Educ., 278 Conn. 326, 333 (2006)
• Genesky v. East Lyme, 275 Conn. 246, 258 (2005)

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/2009-formal-opinions/jeanne-milstein-child-advocate-office-of-the-child-advocate-formal-opinion-2009003-attorney-general

Original opinion text

Jeanne Milstein, Child Advocate, Office of the Child Advocate, Formal Opinion 2009-003, Attorney General State of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal

June 22, 2009

Jeanne Milstein

Child Advocate, Office of the Child Advocate

999 Asylum Avenue, First Floor

Hartford, CT 06105

Dear Ms. Milstein:

You have requested an opinion concerning the operation of the Family Support Council (the “Council”). Specifically, you have asked whether the Council’s enabling statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-219c, prohibits you from delegating your voting authority to a member of your staff. We conclude that section 17a-219c does not prohibit such a delegation.

Section 17a-219c provides in relevant part: “The council shall consist of twenty-seven voting members including the Commissioners of Public Health, Developmental Services, Children and Families, Education and Social Services, or their designees, the Child Advocate, the executive director of the Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities, the chairperson of the State Interagency Birth-to-Three Coordinating Council . . . the executive director of the Commission on Children, and family members of, or individuals who advocate for, children with disabilities.” (Emphasis added.) This statute, standing alone, could suggest that, by explicitly permitting certain persons to designate a representative to vote at Council meetings, the Legislature intended not to authorize other voting members to select designees to represent them on the Council. See State v. Perez, 78 Conn. App. 610, 642 (2003).

Section 17a-219c does not stand alone, however. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k specifically authorizes you to appoint staff to assist you in your duties. In particular, section 46a-13k provides that “[t]he duties of the staff may include the duties and powers of the Child Advocate if performed under the direction of the Child Advocate.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k(d) (emphasis added).

Courts have instructed that statutes must be read, if at all possible, so as to “create a harmonious body of law.” State v. John F.M., 285 Conn. 528, 549 (2008). Additionally, “the General Assembly is always presumed to know all the existing statutes and the effect that its action or non-action will have upon any one of them. . . .” AvalonBay Cmtys., Inc. v. Zoning Comm'n, 280 Conn. 405, 417 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Council was created in June, 1994, while the Office of the Child Advocate was not established until 1995. Thus the Child Advocate was not one of the Council’s original voting members. In 1998, when the Legislature amended section 17a-219c(a) to add the Child Advocate to the list of voting members, it was presumed to have been aware of the Child Advocate’s authority to designate staff members to perform certain of her duties. See Bd. of Educ. v. State Bd. of Educ., 278 Conn. 326, 333 (2006). Therefore, had the Legislature intended that, notwithstanding the provision of section 46a-13k, only the Child Advocate could vote at Council meetings, it would have so stated. Genesky v. East Lyme, 275 Conn. 246, 258 (2005).

Given the express language of section 46a-13k and the Legislature’s presumed awareness of this language when it amended section 17a-219c to add the Child Advocate to the Council, we conclude that the Legislature did not intend to bar the Child Advocate from designating a staff member to vote at Council meetings. Consequently, consistent with section 46a-13k, you may designate a member of your staff to attend and cast your vote at Council meetings.

I trust that this letter responds to your concerns.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL