Attorney General: Opinions
Opinions

1992 Formal Opinions
12/21/1992The Honorable William E. Curry, Jr., Comptroller-State of Connecticut, 1992-035 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This letter is in response to your memorandum of August 4, 1992, in which you requested our opinion concerning the meaning and enforcement of Conn. Gen. Stat. 3-112. We understand from the correspondence which you provided with your memorandum that you have requested information and documentation from the Department of Revenue Services ("DRS") concerning the agency's processing of state income tax refunds. In particular, you have requested information concerning the numbers of refunds processed, when they were processed, how they were processed and the estimated number of refunds still pending. You have also inquired into possible reasons for any delays including any instructions which the agency may have given or received to delay the refund process or to separate refunds based on their face amount, and any hardware or software problems which may have occurred.
 
12/21/1992Robert Werner, Division Of Special Revenue, 1992-034 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  You have sought the advice of this office relating to the operation of an off-track betting system in the State of Connecticut. Specifically, you inquire whether, under Conn. Gen. Stat. 12-167a(b), the operation of "an OTB betting branch facility in the Hartford Jai Alai Fronton would violate the proscription against locating a 'Facility' within 35 miles of the location of the Teletheater in the Town of Windsor Locks ... ?"
 
11/23/1992Honorable Vincent L. Ferrandino, State Department of Education, 1992-033 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  Recently you requested an opinion regarding the State Department of Education's obligations in making certain grant awards pursuant to recently enacted legislation. More particularly, you asked: "[c]an the State Department of Education [(the "Department")] legally make a grant award to an organization identified in a fiscal note to the state's budget which is produced by the Office of Fiscal Analysis [("OFA")],)" The Department's Staff Director for Legal and Governmental Affairs subsequently narrowed the inquiry to whether the Department is ""under a legal obligation to make the payments specified in the fiscal notes or whether the fiscal notes are merely directory and authorize (the Department] to make payments in such amount to such persons as are identified in the fiscal notes."
 
11/23/1992Dominick G. Arenziale, Deputy State Auditors, 1992-032 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in reply to your request for our opinion of whether the Central Connecticut State University Alumni Association, Inc. (hereinafter "the Association") is a "foundation" as defined by Conn. Gen. Stat. 4-37e(2). Foundation status would subject the Association to the requirements of Chapter 47 of the General Statutes (Conn. Gen. Stat. 4-37e - 4-37i), including possibly full audits by the State Auditors.
 
11/19/1992Audrey Rowe, Department of Income Maintenance, 1992-031 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  In your letter of June 5, 1992, you requested our opinion regarding the validity of certain legislation proposed by the Department Of Income Maintenance (DIM). That legislation would require any recipient, or any attorney representing such an individual, who initiates a legal action against a third party for recovery of medical expenses, to report the filing of that suit to the Department of Income Maintenance.
 
11/5/1992Honorable John B. Larson, Senate President Pro Tempore, 1992-030 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  We are in receipt of your letter dated October 28, 1992, in which you ask, whether, under Conn. Const. Art. III, 11 and Conn. Gen. Stat. 2-5, the so-called "dual job bans," a member-elect of the General Assembly may assume the duties of an appointed position in the legislative branch prior to the completion of his current legislative term.
 
10/23/1992Honorable Nicholas A. Cioffi, Department of Public Safety, 1992-029 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  By letter dated April 8, 1992, you requested our advice on the obligations of the department of public safety under Conn. Gen. Stat. 29-196. You are specifically concerned with the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. 29-196 which deals with the issuance of renewal certificates for elevators. You advise us that it is the practice of your department to issue a renewal certificate upon receipt of the appropriate fee and to subsequently inspect the elevator as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. 29-195. You ask us whether the practice, as you have described it, is consistent with the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. 29-196.
 
10/20/1992Honorable William J. Cibes, Jr., Office of Policy and Management, 1992-028 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  You have requested our advice regarding whether the Air Exchange Building, which is owned by the State of Connecticut and forms part of Bradley International Airport, and which has been leased and subleased to various persons and organizations, is subject to property taxation under Ch. 266b of the General Statutes.
 
10/6/1992William J. Cibes, Office of Policy and Management, 1992-027 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  I am writing in response to your request for an advisory opinion regarding the imposition of sales and use taxes on certain utility companies' purchases of goods to be installed in state facilities in performance of energy conservation measures mandated by Conn. Gen. Stat. 16a-37a and 1991 Conn. Pub. Act No. 91-6 (June Spec. Sess.).
 
10/2/1992Hon. William J. Summa, Jr., Commission of Pharmacy, 1992-026 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This letter is in response to your request of June 2, 1992 for our opinion concerning the licensing of pharmacies which are owned by physicians.
 
9/22/1992Robert Werner, Division of Special Revenue, 1992-025 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  At the direction of the Gaming Policy Board, you1 seek the opinion of this office as to "whether the division, with the advice and consent of the Board, has the authority under existing legislation to contract with a private entity to assume the operational duties of the OTB system."
 
8/20/1992Honorable Nicholas Cioffi, Commissioner-Department of Public Safety, 1992-023 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  You have requested our advice on whether the provisions of the Connecticut Fire Safety Code, the Connecticut State Building Code and Conn. Gen. Stat. 29-315, with regards to automatic fire extinguishing systems, preempt the field so as to preclude local ordinances on the subject.
 
8/17/1992Honorable Clifton A. Leonhardt, Chairperson-Department of Public Utility Control, 1992-022 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This will respond to your request for an opinion of the Attorney General concerning political activity of commissioners of the Public Utility Control Authority. The provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. 16-5 provide that a commissioner may be removed for: "Misconduct, material neglect of duty, incompetence in the conduct of his office, or active participation in political management or campaigns by any commissioner.... In particular you ask whether the following two scenarios present violations: attendance at dinners, or social events (1) in connection with financial contributions to political parties or candidates of such political parties for public office; or (2) in connection with the affairs of the political parties or their candidates, without regard to any financial contributions.
 
8/14/1992Demetrios Louziotis, Sr., Executive Director-Division of Special Revenue, 1992-021 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to your recent request for an opinion on whether the Division of Special Revenue must conduct a hearing, under the provisions of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), prior to revoking a lottery agent's license1 for failure to meet pre-established minimum sales levels for on-line and instant lottery ticket sales.2 Specifically, you inquire as to whether a lottery license is a "license" as that term is contemplated by the UAPA. We also understand that a question is raised as to the practical need for a hearing inasmuch as evidence of sales levels is documented and, presumably, incontestable.
 
7/27/1992Honorable Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., Governor-State of Connecticut. 1992-020 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  In your letter of May 12, 1992, you join with Howard G. lger, M.D., Chairman of the Board of Pardons, in seeking our opinion as to the respective authority of the Governor and the Board in the granting of pardons for persons sentenced to death.
 
7/21/1992The Honorable Aaron Ment, Chief Court Administrator, 1992-019 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This letter is in response to your request, dated June 10, 1992, for our opinion concerning access by researchers to identifiable bail commission information.
 
6/29/1992The Honorable William J. Cibes, Jr., Secretary-State of Connecticut, 1992-018 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to your request for a formal opinion regarding the question whether municipalities of this state may utilize the services of an independent contractor, such as a collection agency, to aid municipal officials in collecting delinquent taxes.
 
6/26/1992Honorable Gloria Schaffer, Commissioner of Consumer Protection, 1992-017 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  In your March 16, 1992 letter, you have sought this Office's advice as to whether a consumer may access the Home Improvement Guaranty Fund on more than one occasion against the same contractor.
 
6/26/1992William M. Hardy, Connecticut State Board of-Examiners for Physical Therapists, 1992-016 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to your request for our opinion on whether it is a violation of Chapter 376 of the Connecticut General Statutes for a chiropractor to bill patients and/or seek insurance reimbursement for "physical therapy" services, as opposed to chiropractic services, provided to patients.
 
6/16/1992Honorable Audrey Rowe, Department of Income Maintenance, 1992-015 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  By letter of February 4, 1992. you requested an opinion of the Attorney General on the State's ability to pursue statutory support obligations against the community (non-institutionalized) spouse of an institutionalized Medicaid patient, in view of certain provisions contained in the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (MCCA), Pub.L. 100-360.
 
6/9/1992Honorable Edward C. Krawiecki, Jr., Minority Leader-House of Representatives, 1992-014 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This letter is in response to your letter of March 12, 1992, in which you requested our opinion on the following issue: Is there any lawful basis upon which a municipality may refuse to meet the requirements of a state law when compliance with the law will result in costs to the municipality which are not reimbursed or otherwise borne by the state?
 
6/9/1992The Honorable Audrey Rowe, Department of Income Maintenance, 1992-013 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  You have requested the opinion of the Attorney General as to whether you have the authority to provide state reimbursement to a town that fails to meet the requirement that two-thirds of the employable general assistance recipients participate in a work or education program in accordance with 17-281a(a). Conn.Gen.Stat. 17-281a(f); 17-292.
 
5/28/1992The Honorable M. Adela Eads, Senate Republican Leader, 1992-012 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  In your letter of February 27, 1992, you posed the question whether the filing of an annual report by a trustee under mortgage may be waived by the Banking Commissioner.
 
4/21/1992Honorable Bessye Bennett, Commission on Victim Services, 1992-011 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  We are in receipt of a letter dated December 3, 1991, from the Commission's Administrator, John C. Ford, with an attached letter dated October 21, 1991, from Dr. Roger J. Harris. The issue on which you seek our guidance is whether the Commission must conduct an administrative hearing on the individual's application based upon the oral surgeon's letter dated October 21, 1991, which your agency interprets as a request for such a hearing.
 
4/13/1992Susan S. Addiss, MPH, MUrS, Commissioner-Department of Health Services, 1992-010 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to your request for a formal opinion regarding the confidentiality of information that the Department maintains on individuals with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and hepatitis B.
 
4/7/1992Demetrios Louziotis, Sr., Executive Director, Division of Special Revenue, 1992-009 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  The issue addressed in this opinion is whether Special Revenue Investigators may carry firearms.1 Special Revenue Investigators are employed by the Division of Special Revenue (DOSR) to investigate violations of the state's legalized gambling laws. In addition, they are statutorily granted the powers of State Police to make arrests for criminal offenses2 arising from the operation or conduct of the State's off-track betting and lottery.
 
3/24/1992Senator John B. Larson, President Pro Tempore, 1992-008 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  We are writing in response to your February 25, 1992, and February 27, 1992, requests for an Opinion on the constitutionality of proposed measures before the General Assembly which would impose durational residency requirements upon persons seeking General Assistance welfare benefits in the State of Connecticut. Specifically, you ask: 1) whether the State may deny General Assistance benefits to persons not satisfying a durational residency requirement; 2) whether the State may restrict General Assistance benefits for newcomers to a lower level of support than is available to longer term residents of Connecticut; and 3) whether any such restriction tied to the level of welfare support available in newcomers' previous states of domicile, is permissible.
 
2/28/1992Honorable Ronald F. Petronella, Department of Labor, 1992-007 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  By memo dated January 27, 1992 you requested an opinion from this office on whether state law can be construed to allow the Governor the option to not implement ("trigger off") an otherwise operable extended unemployment compensation benefit program (EB) should unemployment continue to rise to a certain level in this state. The purpose of this option is to allow the state's unemployed to be subject solely to a federally-funded emergency unemployment compensation (EUC) program. You also ask, assuming such a construction is allowable, whether the Governor may delegate the authority to "trigger off" state EB, as well as the authority to make all necessary contractual arrangements with the U.S. Department of Labor for administration of the EUC program, to the Administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act pursuant to Conn.Gen.Stat. Section 31-250.
 
2/21/1992Commissioner Alan A. Crystal, Department of Revenue Services, 1992-006 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  In your letter of November 25, 1991, you request our guidance concerning the issue of personal liability of state officials in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Hafer v. Melo, 112 S.Ct. 358 (1991). To better respond to the issues posed in your letter, we have framed your inquiry as follows: 1. How does the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Hafer v. Melo affect a state official's exposure to personal liability pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 for acts performed as part of his official duties? 2. Under what circumstances will the state provide for the defense as well as indemnification of a state official when sued personally pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 for acts taken in the course of the performance of his official duties?
 
2/20/1992Mr. William J. Cibes, Jr., Secretary, Office of Policy and Management, 1992-005 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  You have requested our opinion whether the Office of Policy and Management ("OPM") must provide a grant under Conn.Gen.Stat. 12-170d1 to persons who are minor children living with their parents.
 
2/7/1992William J. Cibes, Jr., Office of Policy and Management, 1992-004 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  You have requested our advice on two questions: (1) Whether under Conn.Gen.Stat. 12-19a(a), a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (P.I.L.O.T.) grant is payable to a town for a correctional facility if such facility is not on the town's assessment list on the preceding October 1? (2) Whether Public Act No. 91-79, applies to towns that conducted revaluations prior to October 1, 1990 and currently are phasing in such revaluations?
 
1/24/1992Demetrios Louziotis, Sr., Division of Special Revenue, 1992-003 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to your recent request1 for an opinion on whether there exists legislative authority for the Division of Special Revenue to institute a "cash" lotto in addition to the other lottery games currently conducted by, or under the authority of, the Division.
 
1/24/1992John R. Shears, State Teachers' Retirement Board, 1992-002 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  In your letter dated September 12, 1991, you asked us whether the conservator of the estate of a disabled child of a deceased member of the State Teachers' Retirement System is eligible for monthly benefits as a legal guardian under Conn.Gen.Stat. 10-183h(a).
 
1/7/1992Jon M. Alander, Department of Human Resources, 1992-001 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to your request for a formal opinion of the Attorney General, submitted in your capacity as Chairman of the Commission For Child Support Guidelines, on the following two questions: (1) Whether the child support guidelines, promulgated on January 1, 1991, are subject to the legislative review provisions of Public Act 91-209; and (2) Whether the January 1, 1991 child support guidelines, and all future guidelines, are subject to the rule-making procedures under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act.