Attorney General: Opinions
Opinions

1996 Formal Opinions
12/18/1996Hon. Walter J. Kupchunos, Jr., Office of the Sheriff--Court House, 1996-021 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  Thank you for your recent letter addressed to the Attorney General concerning the prohibitions on state employment known as the "dual job ban." You ask specifically if a special deputy sheriff, now a member-elect of the General Assembly, would be affected by the dual job ban.
 
12/18/1996Senator William A. DiBella, Connecticut Senate, 1996-020 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  You have inquired as to the proper interpretation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 2-3a, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees who are members of the general assembly. Specifically, you ask what is included in the term "duties of such office" as used in the statute, whether the "time off" provision contained in the statute applies to campaigning, and who determines the scope of a legislator's duties.
 
12/13/1996Honorable Theodore S. Sergi, State Board of Education, 1996-019 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  In a letter to our office you ask us whether state law permits a local board of education of a town which does not maintain a high school to pay partially the tuition for a local student to attend a state approved high school other than the high school designated under Conn. Gen. Stat. ?-33.
 
12/10/1996The Honorable Louis Martin, CHRO Executive Director, 1996-018 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to your letter of November 27, 1996, in which you requested the opinion of this office as to whether the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (hereinafter "CHRO") retains jurisdiction pursuant to Public Act 96-241 Section 1, to process discriminatory practice complaints filed on or before January 1, 1996 when CHRO has issued a finding of reasonable cause or no reasonable cause not later than January 1, 1997, and one of the following circumstances applies: The Complainant has requested reconsideration and the reconsideration request is pending action by the Commission on January 1, 1997. The Complainant has requested reconsideration, the Commission has reconsidered the complaint, and the Commission's investigator is conducting additional investigation pursuant to the Commission's reconsideration. The Complainant has appealed the Commission's determination (merit assessment review or no reasonable cause) to court, the appeal is pending on January 1, 1997 and the court subsequently remands the case to the Commission for further investigation. The Complainant has appealed the Commission's determination of no reasonable cause to court and the court already has remanded the case to the Commission. The Attorney General or Commission Counsel have withdrawn or withdraw after January 1, 1997, the certification of the complaint to public hearing for further investigation.
 
12/5/1996Chairman Reginald J. Smith, Department of Public Utility Control, 1996-017 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  You have asked whether Commissioners of the Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC) may accept post-State service employment by a subsidiary of a public service company or of a company certified to provide intrastate telecommunications services if the subsidiary is not itself a public service company or is not a company certified to provide telecommunications services within Connecticut.
 
10/25/1996Honorable Andrew G. DeRocco, Department of Higher Education 1996-016 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  In your letter dated June 20. 1996, you requested our opinion as to whether the Commissioner of Higher Education must obtain authorization of the Governor under Conn. Gen. Stat. 3-7 prior to forgiving under Conn. Gen. Stat. 10a-163(f)(4) an uncollectible loan made pursuant to the Teacher Incentive Loan Program.
 
10/21/1996John Meeker, Chairman, Board of Parole, 1996-015 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This letter responds to your request for advice concerning whether parole officers have authority to enforce conditions of parole with respect to parolees, Indians and nonIndians, on federal reservations.
 
9/4/1996Peter N. Ellef, Commissioner of Economic and Community Development, 1996-014 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to your request for an opinion inquiring whether the Commissioner of Economic and Community Development ("Commissioner") has the authority to amend the assistance agreement (the "Agreement") between the former Department of Economic Development, now the Department of Economic and Community Development ("DECD"), and the Dun & Bradstreet Company ("Dun & Bradstreet"), and whether such amendment, if permissible, must be submitted to this office for approval.
 
9/3/1996George M. Reider, Jr., Commissioner of Insurance, 1996-013 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  Deputy Commissioner Gilligan requested our opinion as to whether the H.E.L.P. Program, as currently constituted, is insurance. The H.E.L.P. Program is a plan marketed as a contractual appendix to service agreements sold by fuel oil dealers to fuel oil customers. Two versions of the plan are marketed: one version provides for the clean up of the accidental release of oil on a customer's property caused by a leaking fuel oil tank: the other provides for the clean up and replacement of a defective tank.
 
8/9/1996The Honorable Christopher B. Burnham, Treasurer, 1996-012 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  You recently wrote to this office explaining your desire to establish a global combined investment fund to replace nine combined investment funds currently in use. The proposed combined investment fund would include retirement funds as well as seven non-retirement trust funds (hereinafter the "seven funds").
 
8/2/1996Judge Aaron Ment, Supreme Court Building, 1996-011 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  Your office has posited several questions regarding the retroactive versus prospective application of Public Acts 96-63 and 96-79, which amend Conn. Gen. Stat. 54-142a, commonly referred to as the Connecticut Erasure Statute. The primary effects of the amendments are to remove the category of transcripts of criminal trials from the types of records that are subject to erasure, and to delay the actual physical destruction of erased records.
 
7/17/1996Mr. Burton S. Yaffie, Secretary, Trumbull Park Business Center, 1996-010 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticu
  The Board of Pardons asked this office the following questions with regard to the possibility of future executions in the State of Connecticut: When is the first execution likely to be scheduled? When will a hearing be required in anticipation of an execution date? On the date of execution? Just before the execution? After all other appeals have been exhausted? Is it necessary for the Board to convene a commutation hearing in all cases whether requested or not? Who could request the convening of this special session: the defendant, his attorney, the Governor, a family member, etc.?
 
7/15/1996John B. Meskill, Division of Special Revenue, 1996-009 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  In your letter of April 24, 1996, you seek our opinion as to whether the Connecticut General Statutes require that a local referendum be conducted whenever a new off-track betting facility is proposed to be operated by the Autotote Corporation in a municipality.
 
5/28/1996Gene Gavin, Commissioner, Department of Revenue Services, 1996-008 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  You have requested our advice on several issues involving the tourism districts created under Conn. Gen. Stat. 32-302(a). Your first question is whether the tourism districts are exempt from state sales tax under 12-412(l) as "political subdivisions" of the state or "agencies' of the state or any political subdivision thereof. You have also inquired whether the Single Audit Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. 4-230 et seq. and/or the Municipal Auditing Act, Conn. Gen. Stat 7-391 et seq. apply to the tourism districts. Your final question is whether the Department of Revenue Services has any responsibility under either the Single Audit Act or Municipal Auditing Act with regard to funds disbursed to the tourism districts.
 
5/24/1996John F. Merchant, Esq., 1996-007 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  I have reviewed the relevant statutes applicable to your appointment as Consumer Counsel and the term of your office.
 
5/3/1996Commissioner Reginald J. Smith, Department of Public Utility Control, 1996-006 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  As Chairman of the Department of Public Utility Control ("Department"), you request our advice regarding the application of Section 251(d)(3) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 1996 Pub. L. 104-104 ("Telecommunications Act"). The Telecommunications Act requires state commissions to set wholesale rates for any telecommunication service offered by the local exchange company, in this case the Southern New England Telephone Company ("SNET'), on the basis of retail rates, less avoided costs such as marketing and billing costs. These wholesale services will be purchased by rival telecommunication companies competing against SNET in the local exchange markets.
 
4/19/1996Sheriff Gerry Egan, Chairman, County Sheriffs/Sheriffs Advisory Board, 1996-005 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  Your agency forwarded the findings of the U. S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division audit investigation of Connecticut's employment and compensation of special deputy sheriffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),1 seeking our advice.
 
4/9/1996Christopher B. Burnham, Office of the Treasurer, 1996-004 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to your letter dated March 7, 1996, wherein you requested a legal opinion from this office concerning the computation of cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for injured workers pursuant to the provisions of the Connecticut Workers' Compensation Act as it may be affected by recent decisions of the Workers' Compensation Review Board (CRB).
 
3/27/1996Reginald L. Jones, Jr., Office of Policy and Management, 1996-003 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  You have requested the opinion and advice of the Attorney General regarding the status of the above-entitled case, and the alternatives that are available for the disbursement of funds that will be received by the state following its resolution.
 
3/19/1996William J. Gilligan, Deputy Insurance Commissioner, 1996-002 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  This is in response to your request for an opinion of the Attorney General on your authority to review an application under Conn. Gen. Stat. 38a-132 concerning the acquisition of The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company and The Standard Fire Insurance Company by The Travelers Insurance Group (hereinafter referred to as "the Travelers application") following a decision by Insurance Commissioner George M. Reider, Jr., to recuse himself.
 
3/6/1996Honorable Linda D'Amario Rossi, Department Of Children and Families, 1996-001 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
  You have asked for our advice in interpreting Public Act 95-237, "An Act Concerning Special Education Due Process, The Cost of Special Education And A School Construction Project." The principle questions you pose relate to the special education of children placed by the Department Of Children and Families.