AGO 1991-010.

• Case Date: March 09, 1991
• Court: Connecticut

Connecticut Attorney General Opinions 1991. AGO 1991-010. March 9, 1991Opinion No. 1991-010Honorable Aaron Ment, JudgeChief Court AdministratorDrawer N, Station AHartford, CT 06106 Dear Judge Ment: This is in response to your letter of January 28, 1991 in which you ask whether or not a "judge who has been called in to active duty in the Armed Services of the country ... should be continued on the payroll of the Judicial Department for the period of time the judge concurrently retains the office of judge and serves in the Armed Forces of the United Stated." A superior court judge who is in the reserve component of the Armed Forces of the United States has been called to active duty after August 7, 1990 in connection with Operation Desert Sheild/Desert Storm, necessitating an answer to your question. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that for the first thirty calendar days after the call to active duty, such a judge would be entitled to his or her full judicial salary and that thereafter the judge would be entitled to the difference between the judge's judicial salary plus longevity and the judge's total compensation for such active service. The following legal principles govern the answer to your question. First, judges of the supreme, appellate and superior courts are constitutional officers with fixed terms of office of eight years. Article Fifth of the Constitution of Connecticut, and Articles VIII, XI, XX, and XXV of the Amendments to the Constitution of Connecticut. Second, in contrast to employees, a judge's right to his salary depends on the legal possession of that office and not upon the performance of the work. Samis v. King, 40 Conn. 298 (1873); Coughlin v McElroy, et al., 74 Conn. 397, 50 A. 1025 (1902); Sibley v. State of Connecticut, 89 Con. 682, 96 A. 161 (1915). Third, a judge may not be removed from office either permanently or temporarily except by means set forth in the Constitution, or in legislation enacted pursuant to Constitutional authorization. Smith v. Jackson, 246 U.S. 388 (1918). (In Connecticut, the vehicles for suspension and removal of judges are set forth in Article Fifth of the Constitution of Connecticut, Articles XI, XX, and XXV of the Amendments to the Constitution, and in Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 51-45c and 51-51g through 51-51u.) Fourth, because a judge may not be removed or suspended from office except in accordance with the Constitution and because the salary attaches to the office, a judge may not be denied his salary or have his salary suspended except by removal or suspension from office in accordance with the Constitution. Smith v. Jackson, 246 U.S. 388...