Could Connecticut's emergency management director set training and qualification standards for local civil preparedness volunteers?

Plain-English summary

The Connecticut Attorney General concluded that the state Office of Emergency Management could direct municipalities to apply minimum qualifications and standards when recruiting, training, and assigning members of their local civil preparedness forces. The authority covered volunteers as well as paid personnel. Under the 1991 statutes, the state director controlled the statewide civil preparedness plan, and local directors operated “subject to the direction and control of the state director.”

The opinion arose after a volunteer diver said he became ill following a municipal training dive and made a workers' compensation claim and a civil claim. The state director asked about standards because the state could bear compensation costs for covered civil preparedness workers. The Attorney General answered the authority question. For statewide standards, the opinion said the director must adopt necessary orders and regulations under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act procedure specified in § 28-5(e); once adopted, those rules had the “full force and effect of law.” The opinion did not decide the diver's claims.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

For state emergency management officials: The opinion read the director's statutory duty to prepare and coordinate the civil preparedness plan, institute training, and make implementing orders and regulations as authority to set statewide personnel qualifications. It required the administrative procedure in § 28-5(e) for statewide orders and regulations.

For local civil preparedness directors: Local organizations had to operate within the state plan, and local directors were subject to the state director's control. The opinion said the state director could dictate standards for their recruitment, training, and assignment of personnel.

For volunteers: The opinion expressly included volunteer civil preparedness workers in the personnel standards. It quoted the statutes under which certain volunteers on an approved temporary mission were treated as state employees for workers' compensation purposes while in training or on duty; it did not decide whether the particular diver qualified for compensation.

Common questions

Could a Connecticut municipality choose its own civil preparedness personnel standards despite the state director's requirements?

The opinion said the state director could dictate minimum qualifications and standards to local organizations. The 1991 statute placed local directors under the state director's direction and control within the state civil preparedness plan.

Did the state director's authority include volunteer rescue workers?

Yes. The Attorney General's answer expressly covered individuals serving in local civil preparedness organizations “volunteer or otherwise.”

How did the state director make statewide standards legally effective?

The opinion said the director had to adopt orders and regulations under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act provisions cited in § 28-5(e). Once adopted that way, they had the “full force and effect of law.”

Background and statutory framework

The opinion linked the director's planning and training authority in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 28-5(e) to the local director's subordinate role under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 28-7(b). It described Conn. Gen. Stat. § 28-14 as treating covered workers as state employees for workers' compensation purposes while in training or on civil preparedness duty. It then identified Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 4-168 through 4-173 as the administrative procedures required for statewide implementing orders and regulations.

Citations and references

The opinion's cited statutory provisions appear in the original text below. Its factual account of the diving incident described claims against the municipality and state, but the legal conclusion addressed the director's authority to set standards.

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/1991-formal-opinions/mr-frank-mancuso-office-of-emergency-management-1991023-formal-opinion-attorney-general-of-connectic

Original opinion text

Mr. Frank Mancuso, Office of Emergency Management, 1991-023 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal

July 8, 1991

Mr. Frank Mancuso

Director

Office of Emergency Management

360 Broad Street

Hartford, 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 under qualified 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 only a workers' compensation claim, but also a civil lawsuit naming the municipality and the State of Connecticut as defendants.

The authority of the director of the Office of Emergency Management is set forth in Chapter 517 of the General Statutes, entitled "Civil Preparedness and Emergency Services". Conn. Gen. Stat. § 28-1 et seq. Chapter 517 provides for the Office of Emergency Management which is to operate "under the direction and supervision of an emergency management director appointed by the governor, which director shall be responsible for the civil preparedness program of the state." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 28-2(a) (1991). Conn. Gen. Stat. § 28-5 (1991) assigns to the director responsibility for the preparation of a "comprehensive plan and program for the civil preparedness of the state ...," and further directs him to "coordinate the civil preparedness planned program." Id. at § 28-5(b). This statutory provision requires the director to "institute such training programs ... as may be necessary to the prompt and effective operation of the state civil preparedness plan in time of emergency." Id. at § 28-5(c). Finally, and most importantly, it grants the director authority to "make such orders and regulations as may be necessary to develop and implement the civil preparedness plan and program." Id. at 28-5(e).

The statutes also define the responsibilities of the municipalities within the state civil preparedness plan. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 28-7(1991) provides that "[e]ach town or city of the state shall establish a local organization for civil preparedness in accordance with the state civil preparedness plan and program ..." Id. at § 28-7(a). It further provides for the appointment of a local director who "shall be responsible for the organization, administration and operation of such local organization, subject to the direction and control of the state director." Id. at § 28-7(b); see also, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 28-7(c) (each local or joint organization shall perform its civil preparedness functions in the territorial limits within which it is organized as the state director prescribes).

Where the local civil preparedness director acts within the scope of his authority under the statutes, volunteer civil preparedness workers affiliated with municipal organizations enjoy the benefits of the state workers' compensation statutes. "Whenever, in the judgment of a local civil preparedness director, with prior approval of the state director, it is deemed essential to authorize the temporary assignment, with their consent, of any members of civil preparedness forces who are not paid employees of the state or any political subdivision thereof, for a temporary civil preparedness mission, the provisions of § 28-14 shall apply." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 28-7(h) (1991). Conn. Gen. Stat. § 28-14 (1991) provides, in relevant part, that "any persons who are engaged in regular employment apart and separate from their duties as members of civil preparedness forces and for whom such compensation is not so provided shall, while in training for or engaged in civil preparedness duty under the provisions of this chapter, be construed to be employees of the state for the purposes of chapter 568 [the Workers' Compensation Act] ... and shall be compensated by the state in accordance with the provisions of said chapter 568 ..." Id. at § 28-14(a).

The statutes clearly vest the state director of emergency management with plenary authority over, and responsibility for, the training and qualification of civil preparedness personnel in accordance with the civil preparedness program of the state. It follows that the state director may dictate to local directors the minimum standards and qualifications to be applied by their organizations in recruiting, training and assigning such members to civil preparedness activities. In establishing minimum standards and qualifications applicable to local civil preparedness organizations statewide, the director of emergency management must comply with the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 28-5(e). This section directs that orders and regulations necessary to develop and implement the state's civil preparedness plan and program be adopted in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 4-168 through 4-173, inclusive. Once so adopted, however, such orders and regulations have the "full force and effect of law." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 28-5(e) (1991).

Accordingly, it is the opinion of the Attorney General 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 to positions of responsibility in their local civil preparedness organizations.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Stephen R. Sarnoski

Assistant Attorney General

RB/SRS/td