Attorney General: Opinions
Opinions

1991 Formal Opinions
12/30/1991Susan S. Addiss, MPH, MUrS, Department of Health Services, 1991-040 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to your request for advice regarding treatment rendered by emergency medical personnel. As we understand it, there have been a number of instances recently where it has come to the attention of the Office of Emergency Medical Services within the Department of Health Services that emergency medical personnel1 have rendered treatment in circumstances not limited to their employment by a licensed ambulance company or as volunteers of a certified ambulance company.
 
12/30/1991Honorable Larry R. Meachum, Department of Correction, 1991-039 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  You have requested our advice on the applicability of 1990 Public Acts No. 90-304, now codified in Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d, to the Department of Correction. You specifically ask whether an official of the Department of Correction is a criminal law enforcement official for purposes of the exception contained in subsection (b)(1) of Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d.
 
12/18/1991Chief State's Attorney Richard Palmer, 1991-038 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  On August 21 and 24, 1990 then Chief State's Attorney John J. Kelly requested an opinion of this office concerning the calculation of longevity benefits for State's Attorney Robert C. Satti.
 
12/12/1991Susan S. Addiss, MPH, MUrS, Department of Human Resources, 1991-037 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  In your letter of July 30, 1991, you asked our opinion on the following issue: In those situations where a registered nurse has determined and pronounced the death of a patient pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes, 20-101a, do the statutes require a licensed physician to view and examine the body when preparing the medical certification potion of the death certificate?
 
12/10/1991Mr. William J. Cibes, Jr., Office of Policy and Management, 1991-036 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  You have each asked independently for our opinion on a series of questions regarding the transmission of budgetary and financial information from the Office of Policy and Management (hereinafter referred to as "OPM") to the office of the Comptroller under Conn. Gen. Stat. 3-112 and 3-115.
 
12/4/1991William V. Sullivan, Chairman, Department of Liquor Control, 1991-035 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to your request for an opinion on the impact of the repeal of Conn. Gen. Stat. 30-42, which directed the refund of liquor permit fees under certain circumstances, on pending requests for such liquor permits rebates.
 
11/22/1991Honorable Allan A. Crystal, Department of Revenue Services, 1991-034 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  By letter of December 19, 1990, CPI and its subsidiaries proposed a payment plan for all unpaid sales and use taxes owed through October 31, 1991. The Department of Revenue Services ("the Department") responded by letter of December 27, 1990 accepting a payment plan on the terms stated in the Department's letter and on the specific condition that current taxes must be filed and paid timely and that the agreement would be subject to review every six months. At some time after the payment plan was initiated, the Department reported CPI's delinquency to the Comptroller pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 12-39g.
 
11/4/1991Representative Edward C. Krawiecki, Jr., House of Representatives, 1991-033 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in reply to your September 17, 1991 letter, renewing your earlier request for an opinion on August 9, 1991. In that letter, you asked "whether the Governor may act, through executive order, to appropriate and expend state monies by authorizing the continuation of government operations."
 
11/1/1991Honorable Edith Gelt Prague, Department on Aging, 1991-032 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to your request for advice regarding access to nursing home facilities by patient advocates and ombudsmen. You have asked the following questions: 1. Does an Ombudsman/Patient Advocate have access to a facility to visit, observe conditions and operation only in response to a specific complaint? 2. Must an Ombudsman/Patient Advocate notify the administration or staff of the reason for their presence? 3. Can a facility require that a schedule including date and time of visits be posted with the intent of limiting access? 4. May a facility announce the presence of the Ombudsman/Patient Advocate over the PA system? 5. Can the facility require that a staff person accompany the Ombudsman/Patient Advocate? 6. Can the facility refuse to send an Accident and Incident or A500 report to the Ombudsman Office?
 
10/11/1991The Honorable Nicholas A. Cioffi, Commissioner of Public Safety, 1991-031 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  By letter dated March 14, 1991, you request our advice on the accuracy of certain guidelines issued by the Department of Public Safety concerning the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes 29-37a, 29-37b and 29-37c. The statutes in question deal generally with the waiting period and paperwork applicable to the purchase of a firearm other than a pistol or revolver, the provision and use of trigger locking devices at the time of purchase of a firearm, and the proper storage of loaded firearms at the home or business of the owner.
 
10/11/1991Hon. Gloria Schaffer, Department of Consumer Protection, 1991-030 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  Former Commissioner Heslin requested an opinion from this office on "whether any consumer commodity which is not individually marked with its current selling price is in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 21a-79 and 21a-79-a of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies."
 
8/9/1991John R. Shears, Administrator, State Teachers' Retirement Board, 1991-029 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to your letter of April 11, 1991 in which you relate that the State Teachers' Retirement Board has requested our advice on the eligibility of a member of the Teachers' Retirement System to purchase additional service credits toward retirement for time while under disciplinary suspension.
 
8/2/1991Commissioner Larry Meachum, Department of Correction, 1991-028 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  We are in receipt of your letter dated January 2, 1991, wherein you request our opinion on two issues concerning a gun range located on the grounds of the Enfield Community Correctional Institution. The property in question is owned by the State of Connecticut.
 
8/2/1991Hon. Joseph Cermola, Chairman, Board of Examiners for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, 1991-027 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  In your letter, dated February 5, 1991, you requested our opinion concerning whether there are any limitations on a licensed professional engineer's authority to design buildings. You have noted the overlap of practices between architecture and professional engineering2 with regard to design of buildings and have asked us to review this matter.
 
7/29/1991Honorable Emil H. Frankel, Department of Transportation, 1991-026 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to your letter of July 22, 1991, in which you seek our opinion on whether the Department of Transportation ("DOT") has the authority to cancel the unexpended balance of purchase orders that the DOT has issued to Hartford Paving Inc. ("Hartford Paving") for bridge painting services under Contract Award No. 89--A-13-1054-C. You further ask whether the DOT can avoid contracting with Hartford Paving on future painting projects and instead use other companies listed in the contract award.
 
7/29/1991Honorable Emil H. Frankel, Department of Transportation, 1991-025 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  By letter dated July 19, 1991, you state that a company called Hartford Paving Inc. ("Hartford Paving" ) has been performing bridge painting work for the Department of Transportation ("DOT") pursuant to purchase orders issued to it by the DOT in accordance with Contract Award No. 890-A-13-1054-C. You have asked our opinion as to whether the Department of Consumer Protection has a right to attach or garnish funds.
 
7/22/1991Honorable Jon M. Alander, Department of Human Resources, 1991-024 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  Upon a recommendation of the federal government, your agency requested a formal opinion from the Attorney General concerning two grantees which currently receive Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) funding. The opinion concerns whether the grantees are "eligible entities" as defined in 42 U.S.C. 9902(1).
 
7/11/1991Mr. Frank Mancuso, Office of Emergency Management, 1991-023 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  In your letter dated December 5, 1990, you expressed concern over the extent of the financial responsibility to which the State is potentially exposed pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 28-14.
 
7/1/1991William W. Sullivan, Department of Liquor Control, 1991-022 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  The issue in this request for opinion is whether the census data, received by the state on January 24, 1991, constitutes "the most recently completed decennial census" within the meaning of Conn. Gen.. Stat. 30-14a.
 
6/10/1991Hon. Michael Skurat, Chairman, Fire Protection Sprinkler System Work, 1991-021 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This will acknowledge your request of April 18, 1991 for a formal opinion concerning an interpretation of Section 20-334a of the Connecticut General Statues.
 
6/10/1991Susan S. Addiss, Department of Health Services, 1991-020 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  In a letter dated January 15, 1991, your predecessor requested the opinion of this office regarding two questions concerning the implementation of 1990 Conn. Pub. Acts. No., 90-226 (codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-396 et seq.).
 
6/7/1991Hon. John B. Larson, President Pro Tempore, Senate, 1991-019 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  You have asked our opinion concerning the State's authority to continue payment for state services if a State budget is not enacted by June 14, 1991.
 
5/21/1991Wayne H. Carver, M.D., Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, 1991-018 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This letter responds to your request for an opinion dated January 15, 1991. In that request, you asked for a clarification of your authority as a sub registrar of vital statistics to issue a disinterment permit in a case of alleged suspicious death. The request was prompted by a request you received from the parents of a deceased man asking you to issue a disinterment permit for the disinterment of their son for a second autopsy.
 
5/10/1991Dr. Andrew McKirdy, Board of Trustees of Community Technical Colleges, 1991-017 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  We are writing in response to your letter dated January 9, 1991, in which you request our advice about the constitutionality of the residency requirement contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. 10a-77(d)(2), a statute concerning tuition waives for eligible veterans.
 
5/1/1991John B. Larson, President Pro Tempore, Cornelius O'Leary, Senate Majority Leader, 1991-016 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  The issue in this request for opinion is whether the Connecticut General Assembly can, by repealing the authorization for charitable Las Vegas Nights in Conn. Gen. Stat. 7-186a et seq., eliminate the right of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe (Tribe) to conduct a casino on its reservation in Ledyard.
 
4/12/1991Honorable William E. Curry, Jr., Office of the Comptroller, 1991-015 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  In 1961, the Attorney General's Office issued an opinion to the State Employees' Retirement Commission concerning the interaction between 1961 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 295 and federal Social Security reporting requirements. The opinion concluded that the State must report, for FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) purposes, all fees and salaries, from all sources, paid to sheriffs and chief deputy sheriffs. Former State Comptroller J. Edward Caldwell requested us, by letter dated December 18, 1990, to re-evaluate our 1961 opinion in light of current Social Security laws.
 
4/11/1991Honorable Robert Googins, Department of Insurance, 1991-014 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to your predecessor's letter of August 7, 1990, requesting an opinion regarding the proper assessment of attorney's fees to personal injury recoveries which include basic reparations benefits (BRB), under Conn. Gen. Stat/ 38 -325(b).
 
4/5/1991Mr. Donald A. Kirshbaum, Bridgeport Financial Review Board, 1991-013 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  Through you the Bridgeport Financial Review Board (hereinafter the "Board") has asked for our opinion regarding the procedure for setting the property tax rate in the city of Bridgeport (hereinafter the "city"). Specifically, you have inquired whether the City tax rate can be reset after the Board has taken action on the City's proposed annual budget which was predicated on a particular tax rate set by the City's Common Council under the provisions set for the in the City charter.
 
4/3/1991Honorable Gerald N. Tirozzi, Department of Education, 1991-012 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  We are writing in response to your letter of February 19, 1991 in which you request our advice concerning whether certain physicians and psychologists, who serve as "medical consultants" and "psychological/psychiatric consultants'' to the Division of Rehabilitation Services and who are hired pursuant to personal services agreements, are immune from personal liability pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 4-165.
 
3/9/1991Mr. T. William Knapp, Municipal Police Training Council, 1991-011 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  You have requested an opinion of the Attorney General regarding an inquiry from Wesleyan University Office of Public Safety.
 
3/9/1991Honorable Aaron Ment, Judge, Chief Court Administrator, 1991-010 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  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 Shield/Desert Storm, necessitating an answer to your question.
 
3/8/1991Honorable Henry Sherer, Department of Housing, 1991-009 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  By letter dated February 20, 1990, your predecessor in office, Commissioner Papandrea, requested our opinion on whether the Department of Housing (DOH) is a public housing agency within the purview of the United States Housing Act of 1937.1 The request was prompted by letters from William H. Hernandez, Jr., Manager of the Hartford Office of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD").
 
3/1/1991James E. Mulvihill, D.M.D., University of Connecticut Health Center, 1991-008 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to your request for opinion wherein you raise the following issues: In response to a recommendation contained in the most recent report of the Auditors of Public Accounts on the University of Connecticut Health Center, we are examining available options relative to the Health Center's Academic Enhancement Fund.
 
2/25/1991Honorable Gloria Schaffer, Commissioner of Consumer Protection, 1991-007 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to a request by former Commissioner Heslin for an opinion of the Attorney General concerning whether a board or commission member who is disqualified from acting and voting on a particular matter because of a conflict of interest, may, for the purposes of Conn. Gen. Stat. 21a-7(6), be counted in determining if a quorum of such board or commission is present to legally act.
 
2/11/1991Honorable John F. Healy, Department of Liquor Control, 1991-006 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning the terms of office of Commissioners of the Department of Liquor Control. Specifically, you seek an opinion on the applicability of Conn. Gen. Stat. 30-2, which states that Commissioners are to be appointed to staggered, six-year terms.
 
2/11/1991Mr. Robert Bosco, Office of Adult Probation, 1991-005 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  We are in receipt of a letter dated June 6, 1990 from your department, wherein you request our opinion on an issue concerning Conn. Gen. Stat. 54-132 et. seq., the Interstate Compact for Parole and Probation Supervision. Specifically you question "whether or not it is necessary to obtain a warrant from a Connecticut court, in addition to that of the sending state, in order to take custody of and confine an out-of-state probationer in a Connecticut correctional facility until he/she can be returned to the sending state."
 
2/11/1991Mr. John R. Shears, State Teachers' Retirement Board, 1991-004 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  By letter dated November 27, 1990 you have asked two questions raised as a result of a request of a member of the State Teachers' Retirement System who has not received any retirement benefit payments since his retirement in 1986. The first question concerns whether retirement benefits can be paid to the member retroactively to 1986 pursuant to a payment plan which he selected in June, 1990, which differs from a payment plan which he previously had on file with the Board in 1986. The second question is whether the Board may pay interest at a reasonable rate from the time each payment was due until the date payment is made.
 
1/14/1991The Honorable Francisco L. Borges, State Treasurer, 1991-003 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  As Chairman of the Bridgeport Financial Review Board ("the Board"), you requested my opinion on the legal authority of the City of Bridgeport to file for relief under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy code without the approval of the Board.
 
1/6/1991Honorable Bernard R. Sullivan, Commissioner of Public Safety, 1991-002 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  We are in receipt of a letter dated August 28, 1989, from Major John M. Watson wherein our opinion is sought concerning numerous compensation issues relating to highway constriction projects.
 
1/6/1991The Honorable Reginald J. Smith, Senate Minority Leader, 1991-001 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  In your letter dated June 25, 1990, you requested our opinion on the following questions regarding the meaning of subsection (g) of Section 7-147b of the Connecticut General Statutes: If the possible creation of a local historic district is being considered by a municipality under Conn. Gen. Stat. 7-147a and 7-147b, and if a municipality owns real property within the proposed local historic district, is the municipality's legislative body entitled to vote, under Conn. Gen. Stat. 7-147b(g), on the proposed establishment of the district? Under the circumstances described in (1) above, would community members, either those in the municipality as a whole or only those within the proposed historic district, be entitled to cast a vote as collective owners of the municipal property in a vote taken under Conn. Gen. Stat. 7-147b(g)?