The Case Of The Vanishing Hyperlinks

For as long as I can remember, the state’s “watchdog” agencies–the Freedom of Information Commission, Ethics Commission and Elections Enforcement Commission–have had their own hyperlinks on the state’s official online directory to state agencies.  Last week those hyperlinks disappeared.   Look under the letter “F,” where the FOIC used to be, and there is, well, nothing.  There are five agencies under the letter “E,” but Ethics and Elections are not among them.

Where did the watchdog hyperlinks go?   You could click on a link called “consolidated agencies” at the top of the page.   Or if you go to the letter “G” and click on the link for the new Office of Government Accountability, you’ll find them listed under the picture of David Guay, the Executive Administrator of the OGA.   Neither of these locations, however, are where most members of the general public would think to look when trying to find a link for the FOIC, Ethics or Elections.

The location of the hyperlinks under the OGA implies that Mr. Guay has some type of substantive authority over the watchdog agencies.   He does not.  His role as head of the OGA is to coordinate so-called “back office” services, such as information technology, payroll, etc., for a variety of state agencies that were consolidated at the beginning of the Malloy administration.  If a member of the public has substantive questions of freedom of information, ethics or elections, Mr. Guay is not the person to call.

Why the longstanding, direct links to the watchdog agencies were removed from the state’s official online directory remains a mystery.  Whatever the reason, their removal is a bad idea.  The links should be restored so the public can find them quickly and easily.

UPDATE: In response to a few reader comments, allow me to underscore that I do not have any idea who was responsible for the removal of the hyperlinks.  I did not mean to suggest that Mr. Guay or OGA was responsible.  I simply have no knowledge on that issue.  In addition, I should note that the OGA includes a number of other agencies, such as Judicial Selection and Judicial Review, Office of the Child Advocate and Office of the Victim Advocate, Board of Firearms Permit Examiners and others, whose hyperlinks also vanished.

FURTHER UPDATE (Oct. 9, 2012):  Great news!  The hyperlinks have been restored!   I don’t know who was responsible for their restoration, but it was the right thing to do and it happened quickly.  Thanks to those responsible for the speedy fix.

Republican Party Gets Top Spot On Connecticut Ballot

The Connecticut Supreme Court issued a summary order today effectively telling the Secretary of State (“SOS”) to give Republican Party candidates the top spots on the ballots in the upcoming November elections.  The order, which will be followed by a written opinion at a later date, addresses several thorny jurisdictional issues, as well as the merits of the question at the heart of the lawsuit, which involved the interpretation of General Statutes section 9-249a. Read the rest of this entry »

When You Die, Who Inherits Your iTunes Library?

Since I first read Warren and Brandeis’s influential 1890 Harvard Law Review article, “The Right of Privacy,” I’ve been fascinated by the interplay between developments in technology and developments in the law.  Warren and Brandies were prompted to write their  groundbreaking article in part because of late nineteenth century technological developments:

Recent inventions and business methods call attention to the next step which must be taken for the protection of the person, and for securing to the individual what Judge Cooley calls the right “to be let alone.”  Instantaneous photographs and newspaper enterprise have invaded the sacred precincts of private and domestic life; and numerous mechanical devices threaten to make good the prediction that “what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed from the house-tops.

Read the rest of this entry »

That’s Gibberish! — Interpreting Incomprehensible Contracts

U.S. District Court Judge Mark Kravitz finally said–in a formal, written opinion–exactly what so many people really think about language in insurance contracts: Its “gibberish.”  Judge Kravitz was describing a paragraph in a contract at issue in a coverage dispute arising out of the horrible child sex abuse cases involving the late Dr. George Reardon and St. Francis Hospital. Read the rest of this entry »

Making Arbitration More Cost-Effective

In theory, arbitration is supposed to be a less expensive, expeditious alternative to a traditional lawsuit.  Discovery in arbitration is generally limited to document production, arbitrators have the power to streamline hearings so that they move along more quickly than a trial, etc. Read the rest of this entry »

Some Fun With Statutory Construction: Trains, Tickets and Snails

I’ve been enjoying Justice Stephen Breyer’s latest book, “Making  Our Democracy Work: A Judge’s View,” which sets forth his views on a variety of subjects, including constitutional and statutory interpretation.  On the latter subject he offered an interesting not-so-hypothetical situation, which I’d like to share with you.  I think the hypothetical does a great job of distinguishing between plain meaning folk on the one hand and, on the other hand, folks who believe purpose and context are relevant in interpreting even clear statutes. Read the rest of this entry »