Attorney General: Opinions
Opinions

1994 Formal Opinions
11/23/1994Honorable Larry R. Meachum, Department of Correction, 1994-031 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  We are in receipt of your letter of June 22, 1994 wherein you call our attention to P.A. 93-219, Sec. 10. In your letter you seek our advice as to what extent, if any, the provisions of this section affect the computation of discharge dates for sentences subject to this statute. Section 10 of this Act provides as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of the general statutes, any person convicted of a crime committed on or after October 1, 1994, shall be subject to supervision by personnel of the department of correction or the board of parole until the expiration of the maximum term or terms for which he was sentenced.
 
11/22/1994Jesse M. Frankl, Workers' Compensation Commission, 1994-030 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to your letter dated June 30, 1994, in which you requested our opinion regarding whether the proposed Safety and Health Regulations, drafted pursuant to Conn. Pub. Acts No. 93-228 28(b), violate the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). In particular, you were concerned that a Tennessee regulatory scheme, similar to that suggested by Conn. Pub. Acts No. 93-228, was found by the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB"), Office of General Counsel, to be preempted by Sections 8(a)(2) and (5) of the NLRA. Goody's Family Clothing, Inc., NLRB Memorandum, Case 10-CA-26718 (September 21, 1993).
 
11/1/1994William Summa, Jr., Chairman, Commission of Pharmacy, 1994-029 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This letter is in response to your request for our opinion as to whether a pharmacy engages in fee-splitting, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 20-175(7), if physicians who own stock in the pharmacy receive certain benefits from their stock ownership.
 
10/11/1994Honorable William E. Curry, Jr., State Comptroller, 1994-028 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  We are in receipt of your August 16, 1994 letter, wherein you seek our advice "[i]n anticipation of a possible freedom of information request." The anticipated request, we learned, may seek, inter alia, the addresses of state employees that you have in computer files maintained for state payroll purposes.
 
9/16/1994Timothy R.E. Keeney, Commissioner of Environmental Protection, 1994-027 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  In a letter dated July 21, 1994 you wrote to the Attorney General seeking an opinion concerning the status of the Mobil Oil Corporation pursuant to a cost reimbursement request to the Underground Storage Tank Petroleum Clean-up Fund Review Board ("Review Board").
 
9/16/1994Honorable Gloria Schaffer, Department of Consumer Protection, 1994-026 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  In your letter of May 20, 1994, you inquired whether the State of Connecticut should continue to require car rental companies to be licensed as sellers of gasoline. You explained that some car rental agencies require their customers to return the vehicles with a particular amount of gasoline. If the vehicles are not returned with the requisite amount of gasoline, the agencies will provide gasoline from their own pumps and will charge the customers for the gasoline.
 
9/2/1994Secretary Kezer and Speaker Ritter, State Capitol, 1994-025 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  We have received an inquiry from each of you relating to persons currently serving as justice of the peace. We first answer the Secretary's question and then that raised by the Speaker. 1. In a May 24, 1994, letter from Secretary Kezer, the Secretary inquires as to the validity of legislation providing for the extension of terms of current justices of the peace in light of Judge Dorsey's ruling in ACP v. Kezer, 2:92CV00550 (PCD) prohibiting holdover-terms after June 30, 1994. We answer that the legislation extending these terms is valid. 2. In an August 1, 1994, letter from Speaker Ritter, the Speaker asks whether "it is proper to fill vacancies which now exist" in the office of justice of the peace.
 
9/1/1994Honorable Joseph J. McGee, Department of Economic Development, 1994-024 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to your request for an opinion regarding Public Act 94-241 ("the Act") authorizing the establishment of "enterprise corridor zones" by three or more contiguous municipalities with the approval of the Commissioner of Economic Development. Businesses located within approved enterprise corridor zones receive the same tax benefits as those located in enterprise zones.
 
8/31/1994Representative Luby and Senator Eads, General Assembly, 1994-023 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  You have requested our advice regarding the interpretation of Conn. Gen. Stat.  17a-17 and regulations promulgated thereunder. These provisions require the Commissioner of Children and Families and the Commissioner of Education to jointly develop regulations to implement "a single cost accounting system" which is the system of determining payment for room, board and education to private residential treatment centers.
 
8/23/1994Susan Shimelman , Secretary, Office of Policy and Management , 1994-022 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  By letter dated July 6, 1994, your office made an inquiry pertaining to  15 of 1994 Conn. Pub. Act No. 94-6 of the May Special Session (hereinafter the "1994 Act"). The July 6, 1994 letter phrased the question as follows: Subsequent to your legal opinion of May 24, 1994, the General Assembly passed Public Act 94-6(15), copy enclosed, which provides for a definition of 'Free Standing Chronic Disease Hospitals' applicable retroactively to the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1993. As a result of this amendment, we respectfully request a formal opinion on the impact this revision has in relationship to the grand list year and fiscal year Free Standing Chronic Disease Hospitals payments should commence.
 
8/12/1994Richard A. Silver, Judicial Selection Commission, 1994-021 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  In your letter of May 12, 1994, you ask about the applicability of Conn. Gen. Stat.  51-44a(j) (non-disclosure of information)1 to evidence introduced at a "hearing" conducted by the Judicial Selection Commission (JSC) as required by  51-44a(e) (procedure for reappointment of judge to same court).
 
8/12/1994John W. Shannahan , Connecticut Historical Commission , 1994-020 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  You have asked our opinion on whether the Connecticut Historical Commission may establish gift shops in historic properties that are maintained by the Commission for the purpose of generating revenues to be used to help defray the costs associated with the operation of the properties.
 
7/29/1994Hon. Donald F. Miller, Commissioner of Revenue Services, 1994-019 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to your letter dated January 31, 1994, in which you request a formal opinion of the Attorney General concerning an issue relating to the jurisdiction of the tax review committee (hereinafter "the committee") under Conn. Gen. Stat. 12-3a. Please advise me whether the tax review committee has statutory authority to consider and to waive any penalty in excess of one hundred dollars that the Commissioner of Revenue Services has determined not to waive.
 
7/29/1994Johnston and Jaekle, Auditors of Public Accounts, 1994-018 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  In your letter of April 26, 1994, you asked several questions concerning the responsibility of the Southern New England Telephone Company ("SNET") for state-owned telecommunications equipment that was stolen from a SNET truck. You have informed us that the University of Connecticut (the "University"), which owns the equipment, did not pursue a claim against SNET, and you have asked two questions: First: Does SNET have responsibility for State equipment in its custody?; and, Second: If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is there a valid c1aim against SNET? http://www.cslib.org/attygenl/images/rainbow.gif
 
7/19/1994Honorable John B. Larson, Senate President Pro Tempore, 1994-017 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  The following is in response to your request of June 30, 1994, for an opinion concerning the applicability of the gun certification requirements of 1993 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 93-306, An Act Concerning Assault Weapons, to licensed firearms dealers and distributors. Specifically you ask: "Do licensed firearms dealers and distributors need to obtain a certificate of possession for all assault weapons in their possession that were 'in stock' as of October 1, 1993? Is a certificate needed with respect to assault weapons acquired after October 1, 1993?" The Act addresses "licensed gun dealers" and we assume, for the purposes of this opinion, that your questions concern these entities.
 
7/8/1994James A. Gasecki, Sheriffs' Advisory Board, 1994-016 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  In your letter of March 15, 1994, you indicate that in two lawsuits, Kennedy St. George v. Mak, Case No. 5:92-CV-00587(JAC), United States District Court, District of Connecticut, and Lewis v. Mak, Case No. 5:92-CV-00593(JAC), United States District Court, District of Connecticut, the Attorney General's Office has advised the High Sheriff of Fairfield County and several persons in his department that it would be inappropriate for the Attorney General's Office to continue to represent them in those cases. Consequently, on behalf of the Sheriffs' Advisory Board you have asked for legal advice on the following question: Does the Sheriff's Advisory Board have authority to appropriate funds for the defense of sheriffs, deputy sheriffs and special deputy sheriffs in lawsuits brought against them in their individual capacities after the Attorney General has determined that providing a defense would be inappropriate pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat.  5-141d(b)?
 
6/29/1994Susan S. Addiss, MPH MUrS, Department of Public Health & Addiction Services, 1994-015 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  Prior to the merger of the Department of Health Services and the former Connecticut Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission (CADAC), the Executive Director of CADAC, Dr. John Higgins-Biddle, requested a formal opinion from this Office regarding the impact of the federal regulations concerning confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records, 42 C.F.R. Part 2, or any other pertinent state or federal law or regulation related to patient confidentiality, on a new data system that CADAC was having designed by Andersen Consulting, Inc. After the merger of CADAC into the Department of Public Health and Addiction Services (DPHAS),1 you informed us that your Department is continuing with the development of the proposed data system, that the merger has not affected either the scope or nature of Dr. Higgins-Biddle's previous opinion request, and that you still need advice regarding the questions that he originally posed
 
6/24/1994Hon. William A. DiBella , Senate Majority Leader , 1994-014 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  In your letter of June 16, 1994, you ask whether an employee of the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) may, upon election to the General Assembly, continue to hold his employment with CRRA, or be prohibited from holding the CRRA position due to the "dual job ban" set forth in either Conn. Const. Art. III,  11 or Conn. Gen. Stat.  2-5.
 
6/20/1994The Honorable Robert M. Ward , Assistant Minority Leader , 1994-013 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This will respond to your request for advice concerning State funding for the purchase, by the Town of East Haven, of property of the Colony Beach Club. Specifically, you inquire as to whether the use of State funds for such a purchase would make the facility available for use by all Connecticut residents.
 
5/24/1994William J. Cibes, Jr., Office of Policy & Management, 1994-012 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  You have asked for our opinion as to whether section 9 of 1993 Conn.Pub. Acts No. 93-388 applies to the payments in lieu of taxes made under Conn.Gen.Stat.  12-20a for fiscal year 1993-1994 due in September of this year.
 
5/24/1994Honorable Joseph M. Suggs, Jr. , Office of the Treasurer , 1994-011 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  You have requested our advice on several questions relating to the liability of the Second Injury Fund for payment of workers' compensation claims when an insurer of such claims has been determined to be insolvent. The Second Injury Fund ("the Fund") and the Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association have asserted differing interpretations of the statutes governing such liability.
 
5/18/1994Senators Larson, DiBella, Eads and Representatives Ritter, Luby and Krawiecki, State Capitol, 1994-010 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  By letter dated April 27, 1994, you have asked for the opinion of this Office as to whether the Governor had the authority to bind the State to the Gaming Compact between the State of Connecticut and the Mohegan Tribe of Indians pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) Pub.L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C.  2701 or whether the Gaming Compact must also be submitted to the General Assembly for its approval.
 
3/25/1994Hon. William Cibes, Office of Policy and Management, 1994-009 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  You have requested an opinion as to whether proposed legislation regulating hospitals' net revenues, imposing taxes related to the provision of hospital services, and appropriating funds for Medicaid disproportionate share payments to hospitals is likely to be preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") because the amended statutes may "relate to" ERISA plans.
 
3/24/1994Susan S. Addiss, MPH, MUrS, Department of Public Health and Addiction Services, 1994-008 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  You have sought our advice regarding the issue of whether a hospital which has been licensed as a chronic disease hospital may be issued a second chronic disease hospital license for a discrete portion of its premises which it intends to operate as a rehabilitation unit.
 
3/15/1994Honorable Thomas D. Ritter, House of Representatives, 1994-007 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  You have requested the opinion of this office as to whether "it would be possible for the Milford and Hartford Jai Alai to be the subject of wagering at off-track betting (OTB) facilities."
 
3/10/1994Honorable Audrey Rowe, Department of Social Services, 1994-006 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  We are writing in response to your request for a legal opinion regarding the "accessibility" of income and assets of the Hutterian Brethren in Connecticut, Inc., a Connecticut nonstock corporation, to its individual members. You report that many Hutterians (including families, the elderly, pregnant woman, and young children) are currently receiving medical assistance benefits under the state's Title XIX Medicaid Program from the Department of Social Services (DSS). Specifically you ask: 1. What amount of income of the Brethren is available to its individual members? 2. What amount of assets of the Brethren is available to its individual members? 3. What legal obligation does the Brethren have to financially support its members? 4. What legal obligation does the Brethren have to meet the medical needs of its individual members?
 
2/22/1994Emil H. Frankel , Department of Transportation , 1994-005 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to your letter dated December 1, 1993, in which you request our opinion on whether the Department of Transportation's use of on-call consultants is contrary to the requirements of Sections 13b-20b through 13b-20l of the Connecticut General Statutes.http://www.cslib.org/attygenl/images/rainbow.gif
 
2/16/1994Janice Thibodeau, R.N. , Board of Examiners for Nursing , 1994-004 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to an October 19, 1993 request for an opinion regarding the prescriptive authority of advanced practice registered nurses ("APRNs"), which request was generated by Marie Hilliard, the Board's Executive Officer. The question is whether APRNs have prescriptive authority in a private practice setting.
 
2/4/1994Honorable Thomas D. Ritter , House of Representatives , 1994-003 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  At the close of the last Legislative session, you posed a number of questions about the Memorandum of Understanding executed by Governor Weicker and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe relating to the operation of video facsimile machines at the Foxwoods Casino on the Tribe's reservation in Ledyard.
 
1/24/1994Kevin P. Johnston & Robert G. Jaekle, Auditors of Public Accounts, 1994-002 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  By letter dated August 17, 1993, you have asked our office as to the appropriateness of compensating a public member of the Commission on Hospitals and Health Care, Gwen B. Weltman, for the period September 4, 1992 to June 3, 1993.
 
1/24/1994Honorable Nicholas A. Cioffi & Gloria Schaffer, Commissioner of Public Safety & Commissioner of Consumer Protection, 1994-001 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This letter is in response to your joint request dated August 11, 1993, for a formal opinion concerning interior design. In particular, you have asked three questions: 1. What effect does the requirement of Conn.Gen.Stat.  20-293 that building officials only accept plans or specifications that are stamped with the seal of a licensed architect or licensed engineer have on Public Act No. 93-435,  23? 2. What is the scope of an interior designer's practice and is it limited to those activities exempted by Conn.Gen.Stat.  20-298? 3. How does the definition of "interior designer" as set forth in Conn.Gen.Stat.  20-377k interrelate with Conn.Gen.Stat.  20-298?