AGO 1991-023.

• Case Date: July 08, 1991
• Court: Connecticut

Connecticut Attorney General Opinions 1991. AGO 1991-023. July 8, 1991Opinion No. 1991-023Mr. Frank MancusoDirectorOffice of Emergency Management360 Broad StreetHartford, CT 06105 Dear Mr. Mancuso: 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. This statutory provision requires the State to compensate individuals for death, disability or injury incurred while in training for or on civil preparedness duty. Specifically, you suggest that, absent certain minimum standards, the State may be subjecting itself to unnecessary financial liability by utilizing underqualified civil preparedness workers who unwittingly expose themselves to avoidable danger in the performance of their duties. You requested our advice on the question of whether the Office of Emergency Management has the authority under statute to dictate to local unity of government specific standards for the qualification of individuals to serve as members of their civil preparedness forces. It is our opinion that the Office of Emergency Management does possess the statutory authority to dictate to local units of government the qualifications and standards to be adhered to in recruiting, training and assigning individuals, volunteer or otherwise, to positions of responsibility in their local civil preparedness organizations. The above inquiry was prompted by an incident which occurred on August 21, 1988, in which a Connecticut municipality requested its civil preparedness director to schedule a training dive for its local scuba squad. The object of the training exercise was to inspect the bottom of a small river to determine whether a private contractor had fulfilled its obligation to the city by removing old pilings supporting a railroad trestle which had long since been demolished. Three civil preparedness scuba divers were assigned to the task. All were volunteers. Following the dive, one of the workers became ill, claiming that he had been unwittingly exposed to toxic substances present in the water and bottom sediments. Investigation suggested that the diver's exposure may have been the result of inadequate training and the inadvertent use of substandard equipment for the task to which he was assigned. The complaint generated not...