(a) Each department head shall:
(1) Be qualified by training and experience for the duties of the department head's office;
(2) Act as the executive officer of the Governor for accomplishing the purposes of the department head's department;
(3) Conduct comprehensive planning with respect to the functions of such department and coordinate the activities and programs of the state agencies therein;
(4) Cause the administrative organization of such department to be examined with a view to promoting economy and efficiency; and
(5) Organize such department and any agency therein into such divisions, bureaus or other units as the department head deems necessary for the efficient conduct of the business of the department.
(b) Each department head may abolish, transfer or consolidate within the department or any agency therein any division, bureau or other unit as may be necessary for the efficient conduct of the business of the department, provided such organization shall include any division, bureau or other unit which is specifically required by the general statutes.
(c) Each department head may appoint such deputies as may be necessary for the efficient conduct of the business of the department. Each department head shall designate one deputy who shall in the absence or disqualification of the department head or upon the department head's death, exercise the powers and duties of the department head until the department head resumes his or her duties or the vacancy is filled, as applicable. Such deputies shall serve at the pleasure of the department head. Subject to the provisions of chapter 67, each department head shall appoint such other employees as may be necessary for the discharge of the department head's duties.
(d) Each department head may:
(1) Adopt regulations, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54, for the conduct of the department head's department;
(2) Enter into such contractual agreements, in accordance with established procedures, as may be necessary for the discharge of the department head's duties;
(3) Subject to the provisions of section 4-32, and unless otherwise provided by law, receive any money, revenue or services from the federal government, corporations, associations or individuals, including payments from the sale of printed matter or any other material or services; and
(4) Create such advisory boards as the department head deems necessary.
(March, 1950, S. 30d; February, 1965, P.A. 434; 1969, P.A. 481, S. 3; P.A. 76-239, S. 1, 2; P.A. 77-614, S. 6, 610; P.A. 24-81, S. 79.)
History: 1965 act specified deputy to act in case of death of department head and that his duties are to terminate when department head resumes his duties or vacancy is filled; 1969 act made deputy department heads subject to provision limiting terms of service to four years at governor's pleasure; P.A. 76-239 gave department and agency heads power to enter into contracts; P.A. 77-614 rewrote provisions regarding deputy, personal secretary and departmental organization, deleted references to agencies and empowered department heads to create advisory boards; P.A. 24-81 designated existing provisions as Subsecs. (a) to (d) and amended same to make technical changes, amended Subsec. (a) to add Subdiv. designators (1) to (5), Subsec. (d) to add Subdiv. designators (1) to (4), and Subsec. (b) to delete provision re appointees to devote full time to their duties and prohibiting other employment, effective July 1, 2024.
Cited. 151 C. 680; 177 C. 344; 184 C. 1.
Cited. 36 CS 586.
Notes of Decisions
Embalmers' Supply Co. v. Giannitti, 929 A.2d 729 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 12× “The court found no violation of § 4-8 because the plaintiff was offering evidence of the signatories' intent to show the scope and effect of the release and not to establish liability.”
PSE Consulting, Inc. v. Mercede, 838 A.2d 135 (Conn. 2004).
· cites it 6× “Finally, National claims that the trial court should have precluded the introduction of the e-mail message pursuant to § 4-8 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence, 27 because the message reflected an off-the-record settlement discussion between counsel for National and counsel for…”
State v. DeJesus, 953 A.2d 45 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 2× “The majority's textual analysis dismisses as irrelevant the clear language in § 1-2(b) that precludes "any court" from acting in its common-law adjudicative capacity to modify or overrule code provisions except when a conflict arises between a provision of the code and a…”
Kovachich v. Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Servs., 344 Conn. 777 (Conn. 2022).
· cites it 26× “The Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s judgment, con- cluding that the communications between the plaintiff’s attorney, the defendant’s attorney, and the CHRO investigator improperly were admit- ted into evidence under the applicable provision (§ 4-8) of the Connecti-…”
State v. Ankerman, 840 A.2d 1182 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 5× “The letter was admitted into evidence over objection that it was an offer to compromise and inadmissible under § 4-8 of the Connecticut Code of *514 Evidence.”
Bahramian v. Papandrea, 440 A.2d 777 (Conn. 1981).
· cites it 4× “See General Statutes § 4-8 which refers to each department head, including the multi-member heads as “he.”
Monti v. Wenkert, 947 A.2d 261 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Congruent with § 4-8 (a) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence, such agreements may not be used to prove liability or dam *126 ages.”
Tomlin v. Pers. Appeal Bd., 416 A.2d 1205 (Conn. 1979).
· cites it 2× “As his first claim of error, the plaintiff argues that under § 4-8 (a) and § 5-240 (c) 1 of the General Statutes, a deputy commissioner is without authority to dismiss an employee and that his dismissal by *347 deputy commissioner Henry Boyle was therefore invalid.”
State v. Verdirome, 421 A.2d 563 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1980).
· cites it 4× “2d 239 (1964); General Statutes § 4-8. The certification of a copy is not a “peculiarly personal” act required to be performed by the designated individual or official himself, such as taking an oath or the per *590 formance of a quasi-judicial duty.”
Bugryn v. City of Bristol, 774 A.2d 1042 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001).
“§ 4-8. The plaintiffs argue that those evidentiary rulings prejudiced them because they could have led “the court to believe that the plaintiffs were fighting over merely money.”
Dan M. Creed, Inc. v. Tynan, 202 A.2d 239 (Conn. 1964).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes § 4-8. The fact, however, that the legislature has authorized the commissioner to employ assistants to perform administrative duties does not by implication authorize him to delegate quasi-judicial functions.”
Kusterer v. Sheehy, 483 A.2d 1105 (Conn. App. Ct. 1984).
“The town meeting is expressly given the power to block sales of the town land in excess of $25,000 under § 4-8 (a) of the charter. This provision demonstrates clearly that the powers of the town meeting relative to town land were considered by the drafters of the charter.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-8(a) — 1 case
Embalmers' Supply Co. v. Giannitti, 929 A.2d 729 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
“The court found no violation of § 4-8 because the plaintiff was offering evidence of the signatories' intent to show the scope and effect of the release and not to establish liability.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-8(b)(1) — 1 case
Embalmers' Supply Co. v. Giannitti, 929 A.2d 729 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
“The court found no violation of § 4-8 because the plaintiff was offering evidence of the signatories' intent to show the scope and effect of the release and not to establish liability.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.