1991 Formal Opinions
Page 1 of 3
Commissioner 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.
Dr. 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.
Hon. 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."
Hon. 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.
Hon. 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.
Hon. 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.
Honorable 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.
Honorable 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.
Honorable 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.
Honorable 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?
Honorable 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.
Honorable 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.
Honorable 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.
Honorable 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.
Honorable 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").