The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
1992 Formal Opinions
Page 1 of 3
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
Robert 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."
-
Robert 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 ... ?"
-
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.
-
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.
-
This letter is in response to your request, dated June 10, 1992, for our opinion concerning access by researchers to identifiable bail commission information.