This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion clarifying the Judicial Branch’s duty to disclose juvenile delinquency and youthful offender records
This letter responds to your request for a formal legal opinion as to whether Article Fourth, § 16, of the Connecticut constitution permits a Governor to veto individual line items in an appropriations bill
You asked for a legal opinion as to the circumstances under which subsection (b) of section 3 of Public Act 09-214 would require the legislative Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee and the Appropriations Committee (the Committees) to prepare and vote on adjusted appropriations
The Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation (“the Church”) has filed a federal lawsuit against officials of the Office of State Ethics (“OSE”) seeking court orders preventing the OSE from seeking to enforce against the Church certain state laws governing lobbyists
You have requested a formal legal opinion regarding the allocation of costs associated with resident state troopers detailed, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-5, to towns lacking an organized police force
You have asked for our opinion whether a gasoline retailer who offers a discount for cash paying customers must affirmatively disclose to consumers when such a cash discount does not apply to debit card purchases of gasoline
You have requested an opinion concerning the operation of the Family Support Council (the “Council”). Specifically, you have asked whether the Council’s enabling statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-219c, prohibits you from delegating your voting authority to a member of your staff
You have asked for our opinion whether the State Employees Retirement Commission may use retirement fund assets for the purpose of paying overtime to employees
In anticipation of heavy voter turnout in Tuesday's Presidential election, you have asked for my opinion as to whether the voting hours can be extended to accommodate an unusually large number of voters
This is a formal legal opinion in response to several questions that you raised concerning the ramifications of the Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health
You have asked for advice with regard to the impact on state tax laws of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health regarding same-sex marriages
This formal opinion responds to several questions that the Department of Public Health (“Department”) has asked concerning the effect the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion concerning the interpretation and application of 2008 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 08-32, “An Act Concerning Teenage Drivers.”
You have asked for our opinion on whether the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a -816(15) apply to out-of-state health care providers who provide health care to Connecticut residents
The property in question, comprised of 14.49 acres together with the improvements thereon, including the Theatre building and a two story house that had long been utilized as office space
Your staff has explained the background as follows. A number of months ago, a feral dog pack was found roaming around the Southern Connecticut State University area
You have asked for my legal opinion on whether federal law would bar the state of Connecticut from requiring Connecticut gasoline retailers to offer cash customers a discount.
Specifically, you ask whether this issue is solely within the purview of federal authority
You ask whether an individual who is an officer or employee of a tenant of the Hartford Regional Market may serve as a "public member" of the Authority's board of directors
You have asked for an opinion on whether the Set-Aside program for small contractors, minority business enterprises and other disadvantaged businesses (collectively, “SBE/MBEs”) applies to Regional Councils of Governments, Regional Planning Agencies and Transit Districts
It is the opinion of this office that the Department has the authority to obtain, without customer consent, customer identifying information from retail food establishments in connection with a foodborne illness outbreak.
This letter responds to your request for an opinion regarding the legality of proposed legislation to extend the State’s ban on smoking in public places to the Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun Casinos (the “Casinos”).
This office has been asked whether the Commissioner of the Department of Higher Education may, consistent with the Financial Aid Code of Conduct (“Code of Conduct”), appoint an employee of the Department of Higher Education whose “spouse works in the financial aid office of Charter Oak College” as the Commissioner’s representative to the Connecticut Student Loan Foundation (CSLF).
You have asked whether the State Board of Education should continue to enforce Connecticut’s elementary and secondary school intra-district racial imbalance statutes
Public Act 07-161 requires municipalities to continue to provide survivor benefits to the surviving spouse of a paid police officer or firefighter who dies in the line of duty even after the spouse remarries.
Your department has asked whether the state is responsible for paying increases to the minimum wage when state contracts are silent as to which party will absorb the cost associated with such increases
You have asked for my opinion on the authority of the Board of Education and Services for the Blind (BESB) to choose the brand name products to be sold in vending machines placed on public property by BESB pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-303
You have asked this office for an opinion as to whether Tilcon Connecticut, Inc. (Tilcon) may select and pay for an independent third party environmental evaluation under Public Act 07-05 §64
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion concerning an employment issue impacting Representative Bruce Morris. I understand from your letter that Representative Morris is employed as the director of human relations for the Norwalk Board of Education
Thank you for your letter requesting my opinion on two questions: (1) whether the Judicial Review Council (“the Council”) has jurisdiction over misconduct committed by acting workers’ compensation commissioners appointed on a per diem basis pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-280(a)
You have requested our opinion on whether religious organizations are eligible to accept awards in the Arts Presentation Grant Program (Grant Program) of the Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism
Thank you for your letter requesting my opinion on whether the Council on Probate Judicial Conduct (“the Council”) has jurisdiction over a complaint concerning alleged misconduct committed during a Judge of Probate’s term of office, but not filed until after the expiration of the judge’s term
This letter is in response to your November 19, 2007 request that I reconsider my formal legal opinion issued to Comptroller Nancy Wyman on July 25, 2007 (Attorney General Opinion 2007-012).
Your agency has requested our legal advice concerning the impact of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-38aa et. seq., on eligibility for certain programs of the Department of Social Services.
You have asked for advice on whether inmates working within a correctional institution other than as part of an enterprise program combining State Use Industries with Private Sector Prison Industries may be considered employees of the Connecticut Department of Correction
Recently, you requested an opinion regarding whether a conflict of interest exists for a member of the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners (hereinafter the Board) arising from his participation as the named plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety
In your August 28, 2007 memorandum, you sought this Office’s advice regarding the interpretation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-417i(n) of the New Home Construction Contractors Act, and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-432(o) of the Home Improvement Act
I have received your request for advice asking whether the publication of a so-called cartoon entitled "Polydongs" in the student newspaper at Central Connecticut State University (hereinafter “CCSU” or the “University”) is speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion as to whether the Judicial Branch has a legal duty to disclose to the public the master list of prospective jurors compiled pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-222a.
You have requested an opinion (1) whether “the Insurance Department has the legally required jurisdictional authority to hear and decide an employment status dispute between an insured and its insurer where the dispute solely involves the factual determination of whether a worker should be classified as an employee or an independent contractor
I appreciated your September 25, 2007 letter raising additional questions about the Department's responsibilities under the federal Low Income House Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
In response to questions raised by the Auditors of Public Accounts related to a whistleblower complaint, you have asked my opinion on two related questions concerning the Department of Social Services’ (the Department or DSS) administration of the federal Low Income House Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) in Connecticut, by and through Community Action Agencies
As Chairman of the State Marshal Commission, you have requested a formal opinion of the Attorney General as to whether state marshals are prohibited from participating in a business entitled Connecticut Service Network, LLC
This letter responds to your request for a formal opinion on “whether or not the Board of Pardons has the authority to commute a non-parole eligible offense, as defined by CGS § 54-125a(b)(1), to make it a parole eligible offense.”
Your agency has asked for an opinion on whether the Connecticut Siting Council (“Council”) has jurisdiction over the siting of municipal towers pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-50i (a)(6)
You have asked this Office for an opinion concerning the use of the City of New Haven’s “Elm City Resident Cards" during the electoral process. Specifically, you have asked us to opine whether your Office has the legal authority to issue the following directives with respect to the use of such cards by individuals seeking to vote or register to vote in Connecticut
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion as to whether attorneys who serve dually as attorneys and guardians ad litem (“GALs”) in certain Juvenile Matters are entitled to “state employee immunity and liability defense” by the Attorney General
This opinion is in response to your request for advice on whether § 33 of Public Act 07-253 (Public Act), which imposes a tax on gross earnings from the provision of community antenna television service, video programming service by satellite, and certified video programming service in the State
This letter responds to your request for a formal opinion as to whether the Office of the Child Advocate (OCA) is authorized, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13m, to obtain records in the possession of the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion as to whether, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 5-259, municipalities may purchase risk-pooled, self-funded health insurance through the Municipal Employees Health Insurance Plan
You have asked me several questions regarding the funding the University of Connecticut (“UConn”) may use to repair code violations discovered in buildings constructed or renovated under the University of Connecticut 2000 Act
You have asked me to provide “an opinion as to what the rights and responsibilities are of the utility companies relative to their use of existing easements” in connection with the Middletown – Norwalk 345 kV electric transmission line and associated facilities approved by the Council in Docket No. 272.
You have asked for a formal opinion as to whether Connecticut's "Voter's Bill of Rights" requires municipalities to provide a voting system accessible to the physically disabled in each polling place in non-federal elections, including elections held this year.
This letter responds to your request for a formal opinion on whether the Department of Children and Families (DCF) is prohibited by the federal Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2 (the Federal Act) from disclosing to the Office of the Child Advocate (OCA) certain substance abuse treatment records that you requested pursuant to your authority under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13m.
Your Department has asked for our opinion whether the state's Enhanced 9-1-1 database may be used by the state and its municipalities as part of a system to place or deliver telephone calls notifying residents of an emergency
You have requested our opinion as to whether Section 27-76 of the Connecticut General Statutes permits honor guards from bona fide Connecticut State Veteran’s Organizations to accept pay at a rate of less than the fifty dollars per day as set forth in that statute.
You have asked for our opinion whether federal and state law permits a municipality to operate a Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Section 8 housing program outside of its geographical area.
This letter responds to your request for a formal legal opinion concerning the Office of the Child Advocate’s (“Child Advocate”) right to obtain records from entities covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”)
Asked this office whether the Board of Governors of Higher Education and the Department of Higher Education's have the statutory authority to require the constituent units of the state system of higher education to provide the Board and DHE with personally identifiable confidential student and student family information, including social security numbers.
In your letter dated August 15, 2006 you have asked this office to render a formal opinion concerning the service of capias mittimus by state marshals. Your letter raises the following questions
This letter responds to your request dated January 23, 2007, for an opinion as to whether the City of Hartford’s proposed construction of the Pathways Interdistrict Magnet School (“School”) on property that was transferred from the State to the City qualifies as “economic development” within the meaning of deed restrictions on that property.
This is in response to your request for a formal opinion regarding Public Act No. 05-149: An Act Permitting Stem Cell Research and Banning the Cloning of Human Beings.
You ask whether the United States Marshals Service (“the Marshals Service”) may access the Judicial Branch’s Paperless Rearrest Warrant Notification (“PRAWN”) database, which contains records of all rearrest warrants issued by the Superior Court.
This will acknowledge and reply to your request on behalf of the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) for amplification of DCP’s authority over apprentices, as expressed in a formal opinion of my Office to the Commissioner of Labor dated November 8, 2005, in light of the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-333.
You have asked whether transfers of surplus State property to municipalities, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 3-14b , or pursuant to special or public acts of the Connecticut General Assembly directing the disposition of particular parcels of property, implicate the provisions of the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act
You have asked my opinion regarding the Judicial Review Council’s obligation to permit public access to records of investigations of complaints of judicial misconduct.
This letter is in response to a request from Karen McDonough, Division Counsel for the Office of the Comptroller’s Retirement and Benefit Services Division, for a legal opinion as to whether the State of Connecticut will recognize a same-sex domestic partnership entered in Seattle, Washington, by a retired Connecticut state employee.
This opinion is in response to your letter dated June 19, 2006, requesting advice as to certain issues relating to the Connecticut estate tax that arise from legislation enacted by the General Assembly in 2005.
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion as to whether $2.8 million designated for non-emergency medical transportation and vision benefits under the State-Administered General Assistance program (“SAGA”) in the recently approved state budget may be spent without further legislative action
You have requested our advice on whether volunteers under the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) are protected under Title 28 of the Connecticut General Statutes during the course of their training for, and participation in, civil preparedness activities.
You ask for our opinion on whether you may issue rulings on two issues that have been presented to you: (1) whether to approve the party designation "Independent Party" proposed by the Independent Party of Waterbury in connection with an anticipated gubernatorial candidacy
By request dated June 23, 2006, you have asked for my opinion as to whether Connecticut General Statutes § 4a-59a(b) allows the Department of Administrative Services (“DAS”) to extend contracts “up to or beyond one year
You have requested an opinion whether, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-460(a), a Connecticut bank may sell or issue a gift card for which the agreement governing the card provides that the card’s value will not expire and that no inactivity fee is imposed, although the card itself contains an expiration date.
The Tunxis Management Co. (“Tunxis”) and William A. Tomasso, former president of Tunxis, recently pled guilty to federal charges related to the corrupt relationship between William A. Tomasso, and Peter N. Ellef and Lawrence E. Alibozek, chief of staff and deputy chief of staff to former Governor John G. Rowland, that resulted in the selection of Tunxis for state property management contracts.
You have requested an opinion on whether the one million dollar annual cap on assessments by the Connecticut Siting Council (“Council”) contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-50v (b)(1) is a cap on assessments on individual energy companies or a cap on total assessments on the energy industry as a whole.
You have requested an opinion as to whether, in light of the State Properties Review Board’s (the “SPRB”) March 27, 2006 ratification of the November 2, 2005 Purchase and Sale Agreement (the “Agreement”) between the State of Connecticut (the “State”) and the Town of Preston
You have asked this Office whether Section 32-664(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes preempts the City of Hartford’s Living Wage Ordinance, Ord. No. 17-99, Art. XII, Sec. 2-761-744, as that ordinance may apply to the operations of the Marriott Hartford Downtown Hotel (the “Hotel”).
As you know, Section 31-57f of the Connecticut General Statutes provides for the payment of a standard wage rate to certain service workers employed by contractors of the state or its agents.
You have requested our opinion with respect to an application by the Town of Trumbull for a temporary moratorium from the affordable housing land use appeals procedure under the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-30g(l).
Thank you for your letter of February 1, 2006, seeking my opinion concerning the continuing force and effect of advisory opinions, declaratory judgments, and memoranda of decision issued by the former State Ethics Commission (“the Commission”) in light of the passage of Public Act 05-183 (“the Public Act”), which created the new Office of State Ethics (OSE).
You asked for a formal opinion concerning the Superior Court’s scope of review in an appeal of a municipal commission's decision on an affordable housing application under the Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Procedure set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. §8-30g.
You have requested an opinion concerning a proposed resolution by the City of New London (“City”) to deal with the issue of the continuing possession of certain properties by their former owners after the properties were taken by eminent domain.
You have asked for a formal legal opinion concerning the State's options when a pharmacy that is part of the State's network of provider pharmacies refuses to dispense a certain prescription drug to covered members of the State's prescription drug insurance plans.
I am writing in response to your request that I review the proposal for needy Connecticut citizens to receive heating oil assistance from Citizens Energy through its agreement with CITGO, a major oil refiner in the United States owned by a company controlled by the Venezuelan government.
You have asked for an opinion on the following two questions:
1. Does a municipal corporation have the authority to set different mill rates for the taxation of non-vehicle personal property and real property located within the same municipal tax or sub tax district?
2. Does OPM have the authority to pursue a reimbursement, either by direct payment or by offsetting the pending claim of the City of Stamford, for grant claims it has paid based upon Grand List years 1999, 2000 and 2001?
Thank you for your letter of December 23, 2005, seeking my opinion concerning issues relating to your on-going efforts to procure voting machines that comply with the requirements of the federal Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”). Does Connecticut state law require that electronic voting machines utilize a “full face” ballot?
You have asked for an opinion whether non-profit employers’ mutual insurance associations under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 31-328 to 31-339 (“Mutual Association Statutes”) are “insurance companies” within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. §12-201(4) and are therefore subject to the Connecticut insurance premium tax, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§12-201 to 12-212a (“Connecticut Premium Tax”).
In my opinion, there is no legal distinction between a PSA and a POS, even though the Office of Policy and Management (“OPM”) may choose to establish certain administrative procedures treating these types of agreements differently; they are both valid vehicles for entering into binding State contracts.
This will acknowledge and reply to your request on behalf of the State Apprenticeship Council (SAC) for a formal opinion concerning the propriety of the issuance of apprenticeship registrations by an agency other than the Department of Labor (DOL), in particular the State Apprenticeship Council (SAC) or the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP).
You have requested an opinion as to whether the provisions of Public Act No. 05-107, An Act Protecting Consumers in the Making of Income Tax Refund Anticipation Loans (Act), and in particular the provision limiting the interest rate on income tax refund anticipation loans, are enforceable (a) against national banks doing business in Connecticut or (b) against "facilitators" of such loans by national banks.
You have requested a formal opinion whether the Department of Revenue Services (DRS) is required to release certain tax documents and information to the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee (Committee) in connection with the Committee’s study of Connecticut’s tax system. In addition, you ask, if we conclude that DRS is required to provide the Committee such documents and information, may the Committee permit access to an outside consultant with which the Committee may contract to conduct a compilation and analysis of the tax data.
Your department has asked for advice on the payment of wages to service workers employed by contractors of the state or vendors supplying services to state contractors. You ask if the standard wage rate provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-57f apply to contracts between the state and management companies and between management companies and their vendors under various scenarios.
I write to advise you that you can and should release all information concerning provider rate reimbursement. You have the authority to disclose such provider rate reimbursement information that has been produced to you by Medicaid Managed Care Organizations (“MCOs”). You should reject assertions by the MCOs that the information must be kept confidential under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and the terms of their contracts with the Department of Social Services (“DSS”).
You have requested a formal legal opinion concerning the protections afforded to members of the General Assembly by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 2-3a, which prohibits discrimination in the workplace against those who hold the office of state senator or representative.
This letter is in response to a request from Elizabeth Frugale, Registrar of Vital Records, for a legal opinion as to whether Connecticut courts will recognize out-of-state civil unions, same-sex marriages and same-sex domestic partnerships after Connecticut's Act Concerning Civil Unions, 2005 Conn. Pub. Act No. 05-10 (the "Act" or "P.A. 05-10"), takes effect on October 1, 2005. In particular, Ms. Frugale has asked whether, after October 1st, a couple that has entered into a civil union, same-sex marriage, or domestic partnership out-of-state may legally enter into a civil union in Connecticut with the same partner.1 Because this issue is of statewide interest and importance, we are addressing our response to you in the form of a formal legal opinion.
Your department has requested our opinion as to the authority of a local health department to conduct warrantless inspections and its authority to issue "hold" orders on food items.
Your department has requested advice on whether marriages performed on the Mashantucket Pequot Indian Reservation in Ledyard are valid under state law.
In your letter dated June 7, 2005, you have asked for advice concerning the length of time for which accessory apartments must be deed-restricted for affordable housing to allow such apartments to be considered in determining whether a town has sufficient existing affordable housing to qualify for a temporary moratorium pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-30g(l). According to your letter, the Town of Trumbull has submitted an application for a moratorium which includes 106 ten year deed restricted accessory apartments.
You have requested our advice on whether you have the authority to place offenders serving sentences of two years or less into halfway houses pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-100c prior to completion of one-half of their sentences. You also seek our advice on whether you are prevented, by statute, from transferring offenders serving sentences greater than two years to a halfway house prior to completion of one-half of the sentence imposed.
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion as to whether Executive Order No. 7 (the "Order") establishing a State Contracting Standards Board (the "Board") is unconstitutional, in whole or in part, as a violation of the separation of powers clause of article second of the state Constitution.
You have asked several questions about the propriety of a possible transaction between the Department of Public Works ("DPW") and the Eastern Connecticut State University Foundation, Inc. ("Foundation") whereby the DPW would agree via a lease/purchase agreement to purchase the "Foster building" in Willimantic, Connecticut, which was donated by the Foster family to the Foundation on or about December 15, 2000.
You have asked whether the Board of Education and Services for the Blind ("BESB") has the authority under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-303 to seek to provide all the food services that Central Connecticut State University ("CCSU") determines are desirable at the University if BESB decides it wants to pursue that location for the placement of blind vendor operated food service facilities.
As Chairman of the State Marshal Commission you have requested a formal Opinion of the Attorney General as to the following two questions:
1. Are the two ex officio, nonvoting members of the State Marshal Advisory Board, appointed pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6-38b(a), entitled to attend executive sessions of the State Marshal Commission’s meetings?
2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are they entitled to attend all executive sessions, or are there executive sessions they are not entitled to attend? Specifically, are ex officio members entitled to attend executive sessions regarding personnel and disciplinary matters?
Your department has requested a formal opinion concerning the following questions: “What impact, if any, does the placement of a lis pendens against property (real estate) have upon the bond limit set for a properly licensed and authorized bondsman, when the property in question has been designated as an asset by the bondsman in the calculation of their authorized bond limit?”
In your letter of November 1, 2004, you have asked our opinion whether Teikyo Post University should continue to be considered eligible to participate in the Connecticut Independent College Student Grant Program given that on or about October 22, 2004 the University was sold to a group of private investors who will, contrary to prior practice, operate the University as a "for profit" entity.
You have requested our advice on whether the Department of Correction should continue to follow its procedure of initiating speedy trial paperwork for an arrest warrant that has not been served. You advised us that the Court Operations Division of the Judicial Branch sent you a memorandum in which they indicate that the right to a speedy trial does not apply to an arrest warrant that has not been served
This is in response to your request for an opinion on whether it would be lawful, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-77(b), for students at Connecticut College to form a brewing club for the purpose of making beer on the college campus in New London, Connecticut, without a liquor permit required by the Liquor Control Act. Consumption would be restricted to persons over the age of twenty-one.
This is to respond to your request for advice of December 15, 2004 which asks if a participating board of education may charge an administrative fee in addition to the insurance premium charged for coverage selected by a retired teacher. This retiree receives a pension from the State Teachers' Retirement System, but is also covered by health insurance through the retiree's last employing board of education.
You have asked whether the exclusion under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-860(f)(2)(D)(iii) of the Connecticut Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Association Act ("Act") applies to an excess loss health insurance policy issued by Legion Insurance Company ("Legion"), an insurance carrier that is in liquidation, to ProFlow, Inc. ("ProFlow"), a Connecticut corporation, which procured the policy as part of its health benefits plan for its employees.
This letter responds to your request for a formal opinion on two questions that have arisen in connection with Substitute Senate Bill No. 963, "An Act Concerning Civil Unions" (File No. 24), passed by the Senate on April 6, 2005, and soon to be considered by the House of Representatives.
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion concerning the authority of the Judicial Review Council (the "Council") to initiate investigations into judicial conduct. Specifically, you question whether the Council "may proceed to independently initiate an investigation based on information discovered by the Council." Such information might "include an anonymous complaint or other information which becomes known to the Council, other than through a notarized complaint." If the Council may initiate an investigation based on such information, you question what the applicable procedures are.
You have asked for a formal opinion regarding the possible consequences of enacting Substitute House Bill 6438, An Act Extending Husky Plan, Part A Benefits for Parents and Needy Caretaker Relatives. The proposed Bill would temporarily continue the Medicaid eligibility of individuals whose eligibility for Medicaid under the Transitional Medical Assistance ("TMA") coverage group will end between March 31, 2005 and May 31, 2005. Eligibility for this group of individuals would be extended through June 30, 2005 under the proposed Bill. You inquire whether or not this proposed temporary extension of benefits may "ultimately allow these adults to qualify for any additional extension under federal law?"
This is in response to your request for an Attorney General's Opinion on whether the disclosure by the Department of Social Services ("DSS") to the Offices of the Connecticut Attorney General and the Connecticut Child Advocate of information concerning Medicaid medical assistance recipients, to be used in an investigation into the liability of insurance companies for the cost of services paid for by Medicaid, is provided for purposes directly connected with the administration of the Medicaid program, and is fully permitted by federal law.
You have asked for a formal opinion on whether you have the authority to continue a long standing practice of allowing "local law enforcement agencies and certain state agencies to use Department of Correction (DOC) firing ranges in order to maintain appropriate certifications for their officers." These ranges are located on the grounds of the Cheshire and Enfield Correctional Institutions." In the past, these agreements were informal, but you indicate that you believe formal written agreements are necessary if the practice is to continue.
You have each separately requested the opinion of the Attorney General concerning the eligibility of Connecticut state employees to receive retirement credit under Connecticut General Statutes §§ 5-192i(j) and 5-192j(d)1 for periods of full-time National Guard service in the armed forces of the United States. Such service may occur both while an individual is employed by the State of Connecticut, during periods of extended military leave, and, if the service occurred in time of war as defined by Connecticut General Statutes § 27-103, or qualifies as national emergency service, as defined by law, during periods of time which may have preceded an individual's state employment.
Through your General Counsel, Catherine E. LaMarr, you requested an opinion of this Office on a matter concerning the Second Injury Fund and its assessment audit program. At issue is the meaning of the statutory language "from the date the sum should have been paid" with respect to the statutory interest penalty in Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-354(a). You indicate that the Fund has been applying the statutory interest penalty from the beginning of the audit period on any unpaid amounts resulting from accounting errors, reporting errors, or otherwise.
This is in response to the request for an opinion from your agency on the legality of devices known as "three button slot machines," and whether these devices fall within the definition of "video facsimile" as used in the agreements between the State of Connecticut and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe and Mohegan Tribe. The agreements require the tribes to contribute twenty-five percent of their gross operating revenues from the operation of video facsimile machines at the tribal casinos, provided no other person within the state may lawfully operate "video facsimile games or other commercial casino games."
You have requested our advice regarding the State Marshal Commission's course of action regarding auditing the records of a deceased marshal. You advised us in your letter that the daughter of a deceased marshal inquired of your office as to whether or not she could "continue to collect on wage executions," which collection had apparently been commenced by her deceased father but had not been completed at the time of his death.
This is in response to your request for an opinion on the lawfulness of a proposed entertainment program at liquor permit premises involving the playing of poker for prizes. The proposal comes in the wake of recent announcements outlawing the betting on poker tournaments due to criminal laws against gambling.
You have raised several questions concerning the statutes governing the establishment and activities of the Soldiers', Sailors' and Marines' Fund (&quo;Fund"), as well as the current operation of the Fund. In particular, you have inquired whether: i) these statutes' apparent delegation of public functions to a private agency, in this instance the American Legion, violates constitutional principles; ii) whether current law restricts expending Fund assets for administrative expenses; and iii) whether the law would permit the Department of Veterans' Affairs ("DVA") to conduct the intake and processing of veterans' applications for benefits from the Fund.
You have asked for my opinion whether the contract entered into by the Department of Social Services (DSS) with the Community Health Network of Connecticut, Inc.(CHN) to provide medical services to eligible clients under the State-Administered General Assistance program (SAGA) is a personal service agreement which must comply with the competitive bidding or competitive negotiations provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-212 et seq.
Your department requested an opinion concerning the authority of the Milk Regulation Board under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-133 and other related statutes "specifically in relation to the pricing of milk in the state."
You have asked for an opinion as to the possible overcollection of sales tax on certain food items by supermarket vendors and the receipt of such overcollected taxes by the Department of Revenue Services ("DRS"). Specifically, you have asked for an opinion as to two questions: (1) Is DRS obligated to inform the retailer of its miscollection of taxes? and (2) Is the State obligated to disgorge the overtaxation received and is the retailer obligated to disgorge to consumers the taxation collected?
A recent inquiry from the City of Waterbury has brought to our attention that some marshals are charging a fee of fifteen per cent of the amount of taxes collected for the service of alias tax warrants under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-261 as amended by Public Act No.03-224.
This letter responds to your August 3, 2004 amended request for a formal opinion as to whether Dr. D. Ray Sirry, the Juan F. Court Monitor, would be entitled to indemnification from the State in connection with services he has agreed to provide to the State to assist it in implementing reforms at the Connecticut Juvenile Training School (CJTS).
In response to then Commissioner Joxel Garcia's and Chairman Murphy's requests, this is a formal opinion responding to the following questions: 1) Does "phototherapy" as used in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-34, incorporate the use of "laser therapy equipment"?; 2) Does the State Board of Natureopathic Examiners have the authority to expand its scope of practice either with or without the consent of the Commissioner?; 3) Does the Department of Health's use of the 1997 Connecticut Medical Examining Board's "declaratory ruling on use of hair removal" to prohibit a licensed natureopathic physician from employing laser hair removal constitute an unfair restriction of trade?
You have asked for an opinion interpreting Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-101i(a) regarding the Department's obligation to notify and provide records to an employing superintendent of schools when it has substantiated abuse of a child by certain school employees. Specifically, you are requesting a determination as to whether the applicable notification requirements apply to abuse of any child or only to abuse of a child who is a student in the employing school or school system.
You have asked for an advisory opinion concerning the appointment of members to the Connecticut Employment and Training Commission ("CETC"). The CETC has been designated Connecticut's state workforce investment board (board) pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-3h(b)(5), which implements the federal Workforce Investment Act of 1998, P.L. 105-200 ("WIA") Sec. 111(b)(1)(C). You have asked whether restrictions on appointments to the board contained in § 31-3i(b) conflict with appointment provisions of WIA, and if so, whether the state statutory provisions are preempted by the federal law.
By letter dated July 23, 2004, you advised us that on June 23, 2004, Richard L. Judd, the former President of Central Connecticut State University (the "University"), signed a document entitled "University Manual Food Services Agreement," to which the University and the Chartwells Division of Compass Group USA, Inc. ("Chartwells") are the designated parties. The purported "Agreement" contemplates the payment to Chartwells of some forty million dollars over a term of ten years, commencing July 1, 2004.
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion concerning the legality of the Connecticut Development Authority's ("CDA") plan to pay its President and former Chairman, Arthur H. Diedrick, $170,794.52 for 2002.75 hours of claimed accumulated compensatory time when he resigns on August 1, 2004. You have also asked whether it was legal for Mr. Diedrick to have served as both the Chairman of the CDA Board and its President.
You have asked me to determine whether the Ethics Commission adhered to applicable state statutes and regulations when it informed Alan Plofsky, the Commission's Executive Director, of the Commission's desire to suspend him without pay for two weeks as a result of remarks he made on June 3, 2004, to the League of Women voters concerning former Governor Rowland.
As you have described in prior communications, including your recent letter to me dated April 28, 2004, the Office of Policy and Management ("OPM") and the Department of Public Works ("DPW") have been attempting to make an appropriate and beneficial disposition of certain surplus State property, namely the property and facilities known as the Norwich State Hospital (the "Hospital"). You previously requested and received from me a formal opinion (dated April 12, 2004) treating certain questions regarding the legal ramifications of allowing a consultant to the State, named Spaulding & Slye, to submit a competitive proposal for its own purchase and development of the Hospital after it had worked for many months, under contract to the State, studying the possible development and sale of the Hospital, and helping to solicit and evaluate proposals for the property from other parties.
In your capacity as Chairman of the Waterbury Financial Planning and Assistance Board (the "Board"), you have asked for an advisory opinion concerning the membership of the Board. Specifically, you have asked whether Board member Mr. Jack Cronan, an appointee of the Governor who is the chief executive officer of the Waterbury Teacher's Association, may continue to serve as a Board member following his planned retirement from employment with the City of Waterbury (the "City") on July 1, 2004 and end of his tenure as chief executive officer of the Waterbury Teacher's Association.
This is in response to your request for an opinion on whether your agency, consistent with the law, can approve a proposal by the Connecticut Lottery Corporation ("CLC") to launch a new lottery game with a "Treasure Island" theme featuring a novel second chance drawing feature.
I write in response to your letters, which request my interpretation of Connecticut's General Statutes as they pertain to the legality of same sex marriages in our state. Specifically, you wish to know whether local officials may issue marriage licenses to, or perform marriage ceremonies for, same sex couples.
In separate letters to us you requested our advice on two questions concerning indemnification of state marshals. Your first question seeks our opinion on whether state marshals serving capias warrants on behalf of Support Enforcement Services are entitled to indemnification by the State of Connecticut. Your second question asks whether state marshals who train new appointees would be indemnified under Connecticut General Statutes § 4-165.
In June 2000, the Office of Policy and Management retained Spaulding & Slye ("S&S") as a consultant to assist in the development and marketing of the Norwich State Hospital property. The 2000 contract also gave S&S the right to offer to purchase the property. The contract with Spaulding & Slye terminated in December 2003 and in March 2004 OPM issued a Request for Proposals ("RFP") for the purchase and development of the hospital property. In a letter dated March 3, 2004 you have asked whether Spaulding & Slye may submit a proposal in response to the RFP and what the state's legal exposure would be from other bidders if S&S is allowed to submit a proposal or from S&S if a bid from them is precluded. Subsequently on March 5, 2004, you also asked whether the state may place a restriction on the property prohibiting it from being annexed by an Indian Tribe.
You have asked for a formal legal opinion regarding the recommendation by the Judicial Selection Commission of Joseph Mengacci for nomination as a judge. You ask specifically what actions constitute "consideration" of a candidate's application by the Judicial Selection Commission (hereinafter "Commission"). As you set forth in your letter, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-44a(l) prohibits a former Commission member from being "considered for recommendation to the governor for nomination as a judge" for two years after termination of his tenure on the Commission.
You have asked for a formal legal opinion as to whether the State's decision to stop accepting applications from legal aliens1 for certain state benefit programs violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution.
This is in response to your request for a reconsideration of a previous informal opinion, and request for a formal opinion, on whether you can give permission to Autotote Enterprises, Inc. (AEI) to install Color Tiny TIMs (CTTs) and Hand Held Personal Account Terminals (PATs) at the Mohegan Sun Race Book under the terms of the Mohegan Tribe – State of Connecticut Gaming Compact.
This is in response to your request for opinion on whether municipalities that have voted to allow bazaars and raffles, but that have no chief of police or first selectman to investigate applications and issue permits as required by the Bazaar and Raffle Act, nevertheless may permit qualifying organizations to conduct bazaars and raffles.
You have requested our opinion as to the following question: "Given the requirements of Section 4-9d [of the General Statutes] or any applicable Statute, [may] a Commissioner [of the Departments of Motor Vehicle, Public Safety or Transportation] delegate to a member of his or her staff not appointed as a Deputy Commissioner the authority and responsibility to vote on the State Traffic Commission ['STC']?"
This is in response to your request for an opinion on certain issues concerning the repeal of the games of chance statutes.1 These statues, until they were repealed, allowed Las Vegas Nights charitable gambling in the state. The repealer, enacted during the January 6, 2003 Special Session in 2003 Conn. Pub. Acts (Jan. 6 Spec. Sess.) 03-1, terminated this type of gambling effective January 7, 2003 in an effort to prevent federal allowance of more Indian casinos in Connecticut.
You have asked for a formal opinion as to whether Public Act No. 03-45, An Act Concerning Secondhand Smoke in Work Places, applies to Foxwoods and the Mohegan Sun casinos. In particular, you ask whether section 14 of the gaming compacts,1 which requires the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan Tribes to adopt health and safety standards that are at least as rigorous as the State's health and safety laws, requires application of the smoking ban to the Tribes' gaming facilities.
Your office has requested a formal opinion regarding whether the Department of Veterans' Affairs (hereinafter "DVA") has properly amended its Veterans' Benefits Guide (hereinafter "Guide") to reflect recent changes in the law.
This is in response to your request for advice on whether Connecticut law would prohibit Autotote Enterprises, Inc. ("AEI") from continuing to purchase the New York Racing Association's ("NYRA's") signal if NYRA were indicted on criminal conspiracy to commit tax fraud charges.
You have asked whether certain vehicle identification number ("VIN") etching reimbursement products ("the Products") should be regulated as insurance under Title 38a of the Connecticut General Statutes.
As you are aware, section 31-57f of the Connecticut General Statutes provides for the payment of a standard wage rate to certain service workers employed by some contractors of the State or its agents. It has come to our attention that there has been uncertainty as to whether this statute requires such employers to raise wages during the life of a contract to match the prevailing standard wage rate as that rate increases, or whether the statute only requires those employers to pay service workers at the rate that was in effect at the time the contract was executed.
You have asked for a formal legal opinion concerning the General Assembly's authority to enact a continuing resolution to appropriate funds for the operation of the state government in the absence of a state budget. As you note in your July 11, 2003 letter, the General Assembly passed two biennial budget bills earlier this year, both of which were vetoed by Governor Rowland. Given the lack of a budget for the new fiscal year beginning July 1, 2003, the General Assembly passed a two week continuing resolution or temporary appropriations measure on June 30, 2003.
This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning the continuing legality of the use of merchandise prize wheels at bazaars in Connecticut in the wake of the repeal of the statutes authorizing Las Vegas Nights charitable gambling and the use of money wheels at bazaars. The repealer, enacted during the January 6, 2003 Special Session in 2003 Conn. Pub. Acts (Jan. 6 Spec. Sess.) 03-1, terminated these types of gambling effective January 7, 2003.
In your letter of January 23, 2003, you have asked this Office for advice regarding the legal authority of the Board of Education for Regional School District No. 8 to create and fund from year to year what is referred to as an accrued liability reserve fund for the stated purpose of paying certain teacher retirement benefits under the terms of the district's collective bargaining agreement with its teachers. You note that the municipalities participating in the district currently pay annual assessments, which are deposited in the reserve fund each year.
In your letter of January 23, 2003, you have asked this Office for advice regarding the legal authority of the Board of Education for Regional School District No. 8 to create and fund from year to year what is referred to as an accrued liability reserve fund for the stated purpose of paying certain teacher retirement benefits under the terms of the district's collective bargaining agreement with its teachers. You note that the municipalities participating in the district currently pay annual assessments, which are deposited in the reserve fund each year.
You have requested advice regarding the Early Retirement Incentive Program (ERIP) enacted in 2003 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 03-02. This retirement program was extended by the legislature to state employees who are members of the State Teachers' Retirement System (TRS or the system) in 2003 Conn. Spec. Acts No. 03-02.
You have requested a formal opinion as to whether employees of state-aided institutions, as defined in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 5-175, are authorized to participate in the Early Retirement Incentive Program (ERIP) created in 2003 by Conn. Pub. Act No. 03-02. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, you have also inquired as to whether such employees are bound by the reemployment provisions contained in the State Employees Retirement Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 5-152 to 5-192x (hereinafter SERA or the Retirement Act).
We write to clarify our April 14, 2003 opinion concerning whether the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe (the "Tribe") could conduct Casino Night events at Foxwoods Casino ("Foxwoods") to benefit state charities. This issue had arisen in the wake of action by the Connecticut General Assembly earlier this year repealing the Games of Chance Act, which had allowed charities to run Las Vegas Nights events within the state as fundraisers, subject to the provisions of the Act. As a result of this repeal, charitable organizations may no longer legally conduct Las Vegas Night events in this State.
You have requested an opinion regarding two issues related to charitable gaming events to be held at Foxwoods Casino ("Foxwoods"). Foxwoods is owned and operated by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe (the "Tribe"), a federally recognized Indian tribe. The Tribe conducts gaming at Foxwoods, which is located on the Tribe's federal reservation, pursuant to Gaming Procedures authorized by federal law.
Thank you for arranging our meeting with the Connecticut Lottery Corporation to discuss my concerns with the new lottery game entitled "Treasure Tower." Following my viewing of the game, and our helpful round-table discussion, I appreciate the thorough review this game has received from your agency. However, I continue to have grave concerns about the legality of this game and its design characteristics that are very likely to appeal directly to young children. Accordingly, I must and I hereby advise you to withdraw approval for the distribution and implementation of this game, unless and until the legislature passes legislation allowing this type of gaming.
You have asked for a formal opinion as to whether the State is obligated to provide recently laid off state employees with certain severance benefits, including payment of the State's share of health insurance premiums for a period of six months after their termination from state service, pursuant to certain collective bargaining agreements and during administrative proceedings and/or additional negotiations with the unions on this issue.
Your staff has asked whether persons convicted of violating Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-73a, Fourth Degree Sexual Assault, under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-8 (Accessory), 53a-48 (Conspiracy), or 53a-49 (Attempt) are required to register pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-251. That statute requires registration of persons convicted of a "nonviolent sexual offense," defined as persons convicted of violating Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-73a.
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion as to the proper construction of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-44a, which governs the appointment of the Judicial Selection Commission, given an internal inconsistency in the statute created by the recent reapportionment of Connecticut's congressional districts.
You have requested an opinion as to whether the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS) is required to apply to the Office of Health Care Access (OHCA) to obtain a certificate of need authorizing the reduction or elimination of health care services provided by DMHAS.
You have asked for a formal opinion concerning the community behavioral health treatment program being developed at Natchaug Hospital in Mansfield, CT.
You have requested our advice as to the required number of State Marshals in each county pursuant to the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6-38. Specifically, you have requested a formal opinion of the Attorney General as to "whether the Commission has the discretion to determine whether to fill these vacancies or whether the Commission is required [to] fill all vacancies in every county up to the statutory maximum."
On October 9, 2002, the Freedom of Information Commission (Commission) ruled that the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) was not required to disclose to the public eight documents in CRRA's possession which were the subject of an April 17, 2002, and an April 23, 2002 Freedom of Information Complaint filed by Paul A. Green and the Journal Inquirer. According to the Commission, the eight documents in question either constitute attorney-client communications or relate to CRRA's possible litigation strategy to recover the $220 million loaned to Enron and are, therefore, exempt from public disclosure pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §§1-210(b)(10) and 1-210(b)(4). By letter dated October 11, 2002, you have asked me to obtain from CRRA the eight documents that have not yet been disclosed and release them to the public.
You have asked for an opinion interpreting Conn. Gen. Stats. § 17a-101a, the mandated reporter statute. Section 17a-101a requires certain individuals enumerated in Conn. Gen. Stats. § 17a-101(b)1 to notify the Department of Children and Families (the Department or DCF) or a law enforcement agency when they have "reasonable cause to suspect or believe" that child abuse or neglect, as defined in Conn. Gen. Stats. § 46a-120, has occurred. Your question concerns the obligations of a mandated reporter who becomes aware that a minor under the age of sixteen is engaged in a sexual relationship.
I am writing in response to your request for a formal opinion regarding the protection of public deposits pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes, §36a-330 et seq. The issue presented is whether funds belonging to the City of West Haven ($454,761) that were deposited into a Connecticut Interest on Lawyers' Trust Account ("IOLTA") constitute a public deposit within the meaning of sections 36a-330 et seq. of the Connecticut General Statutes.
I am writing in response to your request for a formal opinion as to whether the Department of Banking ("Department") has the authority to reimburse an electronic service provider for reasonable costs associated with complying with an administrative subpoena, in light of the requirements imposed by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 2706 ("ECPA") and section 36b-26(b) of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act ("Act").
In your letter of June 17, 2002, you requested that I issue an opinion regarding whether the $12,000.00 annual cap on compensation for members of the Connecticut Siting Council (Council) contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-50j (f) is a limit on total compensation or only compensation for attending hearings.
You have requested an opinion of this office as to whether a surviving spouse of a Teachers’ Retirement System member can receive the survivor’s benefits provided by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-183h(d) when the member’s sole designated beneficiary is a trust to which she was the sole beneficiary until her death.
You have requested an opinion concerning the validity of certain claims of testimonial privilege asserted by officials of the State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) subpoenaed to testify at a hearing of the Joint Committee on Labor and Public Employees ("Joint Committee").
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion as to whether your office is "authorized to issue or accept primary petitions of candidates for state and district offices?"1 It is our understanding you are questioning whether you are required to place the name of a candidate for state or district office2 on the Democratic or Republican Party primary ballot based solely on the fact that the candidate has obtained the signatures of a certain percentage of the political party's registered voters within the candidate's district.
You requested an opinion from this office regarding a complaint that was made under the whistleblower statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-61dd. The Division of Special Revenue ("the Division") received a copy of a letter that was filed with the Auditors of Public Accounts under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-61dd. The Division has initiated its own internal investigation into the allegations set forth in the letter. One of the Division's employees, who believes that she has been accused of possible wrongdoing in the letter, has requested a copy of "any documents, notes, or materials, which are the basis for [the Division's] investigation."
You requested an opinion of this Office as to whether former State Treasurer Paul Silvester had the authority to exempt the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the "Tribe") from the Second Injury Fund ("the Fund") assessment, required of all state employers pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-354, and to bind the Fund to an apparent agreement for this purpose.
This is in response to your recent request for an opinion on whether the Division of Special Revenue (DOSR) must review and approve the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Commission's Cashless Wagering System (CWS) for slot machines proposed for use at Mohegan Sun Casino in Uncasville, Connecticut, in advance of implementation.
This letter responds to the June 25, 2002 letter from Ann Stravalle-Schmidt, CRRA Director of Legal Services, seeking our opinion on several questions concerning the Separation Agreement between CRRA and former CRRA President Robert E. Wright that was approved by the previous CRRA Board of Directors. In particular, Stravalle-Schmidt asked: (1) whether the previous Board had the authority to enter into the agreement; (2) whether the language of ¶7 of the agreement — the provision concerning indemnification and reimbursement for legal expenses — was legally permissible; and (3) whether ¶7 of the agreement is enforceable against CRRA.
You have asked for an opinion regarding the provision of § 17b-8(a) of the General Statutes, under which the Commissioner of the Department of Social Services ("Commissioner") is required to submit applications for waivers of federal assistance program requirements to the Joint Committee on Appropriations and the Joint Committee on Human Services ("Joint Committees").
This is in response to the letter drafted on your behalf by Commission Counsel Murphy dated May 24, 2002, as amended and supplemented by the letter dated June 14, 2002, in which you request our opinion as to the validity of two recent appointments to vacancies on the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (hereinafter CHRO).
You have requested an opinion as to whether the Governor has the authority, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §4-96, to increase the Banking Department’s (the "Department") fiscal year 2002 budget by $3.193 million for expenses associated with the proposed relocation of the Department, including building renovations and new furniture.
You have asked for an opinion on whether your interim appointment of the new chairman of the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority ("CRRA"), Michael Pace, made pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-191, is valid in light of the fact that the appointment was made after the legislature had convened a special session limited to considering legislation related to the state budget.
You have asked for our opinion regarding the State Marshal Commission’s authority to investigate and, if appropriate, withdraw the appointment of a state marshal for improper conduct engaged in prior to December 1, 2000.
This is in response to your question as to whether the Compact between the Mohegan Tribe and the State of Connecticut allows off-track betting and viewing of races from hotel rooms at the Mohegan Sun Casino utilizing hotel telephones and television sets.
You have requested our opinion as to whether certain provisions of the retirement plan for state employees are preempted by federal law. In particular, you inquire as to the enforceability of state statutory and contractual provisions prohibiting those who qualify for military pensions from purchasing retirement credit for military service during war or national emergency.
I write to supplement my opinion dated April 17, 2002, regarding the constitutionality of House Bill No. 5346, and to notify you of a United States Supreme Court decision providing powerful and decisive support for my conclusion that the measure is constitutional.
You have asked for an evaluation of the constitutionality of the Governor's Executive Order No. 26, issued April 12, 2002 ("Executive Order"), with respect to large-scale gas and electric transmission facilities.
You have asked for my opinion regarding the constitutionality of House Bill No. 5346, which would impose a one year moratorium on the construction of any electric power line or gas pipeline across Long Island Sound.
You have requested our opinion regarding the responsibility for providing police services at the University of Connecticut Stadium at Rentschler Field in East Hartford and at the Adriaen’s Landing Project in Hartford.
This is in response to your request for an opinion on whether a greyhound racing association licensee can block the simulcasting of similar racing events during days and times when it is not conducting its own racing events pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §12-571a(c)(1).
This letter is in response to your request, on behalf of the Waterbury Financial Planning and Assistance Board ("WFPAB"), for a formal legal opinion on three questions concerning the appointment of a 2002 Charter Revision Commission for the City of Waterbury.
You have requested an opinion regarding an amendment to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-215, relating to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund. The purpose of that fund is to provide compensation and services for the victims of crimes.
This will acknowledge and reply to your request of November 28, 2001 for an advisory opinion as to whether the State has the authority to consolidate workforce development regions pursuant to the federal Workforce Investment Act and, if so, what criteria must be satisfied before such consolidation is approved. You also ask whether a workforce development board which has demonstrated adequate fiscal capability and achieved satisfactory performance results can be forced to change its current service area or method of operation.
You requested our opinion "concerning the determination of how much of an individual’s disposable income may be taken to satisfy a tax warrant when the individual also is subject to a dependent support order."
You have requested an opinion regarding the ownership and management of approximately 2.2 million shares of Anthem, Inc. stock recently distributed to the State of Connecticut, as a result of the demututalization of Anthem Insurance Company ("AIC"). You raise the question of the State's "ownership of, and, therefore, [your] authority to receive and manage these assets" in light of legal challenges to the State's ownership currently pending.
This is in response to your request for an opinion on whether a certain bill, proposed in last year’s legislative session, and which is expected to be proposed again, would conflict with the Tribal/State agreements or Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan Tribes concerning the operations of the two casinos in Connecticut. The bill would allow businesses to conduct games of chance under certain circumstances.
This is in response to your letter dated August 27, 2001, in which you request our opinion on whether the Department of Economic and Community Development ("DECD") is a "public housing agency" within the purview of the United States Housing Act of 1937 ("Housing Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 1437 et seq., and, therefore, is an entity able to participate as a public housing agency in programs authorized under the Housing Act.
Your office has asked whether the recent injunction regarding Connecticut's Sexual Offender Registration Act (SORA) issued by the United States District Court of Connecticut, and upheld by the Second Circuit, impedes in any way the implementation of Public Act 01-211, concerning victim notification. That Act requires victim notification of applications for exemption from the Sex Offender Registry or its notification requirements.
This is in response to your letter dated December 4, 2000, in which you request our opinion on whether judicial marshals who transport prisoners in motor vehicles between various facilities within the State of Connecticut are required to have a special operator's license.
In your letter dated October 9, 2001 you requested an opinion of this office as to whether the State Marshal Commission has the authority to institute a policy and procedure for the service of restraining orders by state marshals.
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion regarding the authority of the Chief Court Administrator, the Honorable Joseph Pellegrino, to eliminate the Connecticut Superior Court’s Geographical Area 16 ("G.A. 16") by closing the G.A. 16 courthouse in West Hartford and expanding the boundaries of G.A. 14 to incorporate all of the towns that are currently in G.A. 16.
On behalf of the Council of Environmental Quality ["CEQ"] you sought this office’s formal opinion as to a number of questions regarding the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act.
You have requested a formal opinion of the Attorney General as to "whether a former Deputy Sheriff, former High Sheriff or a State Marshal who resigns from his appointment may continue to collect wage executions they had served while acting in their official capacities."
I am writing in response to your request for a formal opinion regarding the effect of E-Sign (Public Law 106-229; Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act) on Connecticut’s electronic records and signatures laws.
This is in response to your request for an opinion on whether the Watertown Scholarship Committee is eligible to receive a raffle permit. The central issue is whether this type of committee is an educational or charitable organization as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. §7-172(5).
You have inquired whether the provisions of Special Act No. 01-7 (S.A. 01-7), and in particular Section 5 of the Special Act, empower the Hartford School Building Committee, created by the Special Act, to hire a school construction or program manager of its choosing, without having to comply with the strictures and mandates of the Hartford City Charter and various municipal ordinances or regulations addressing the purchase of goods and professional services by the city.
In your June 26, 2001 letter you request our opinion as to whether P.A. 01-141, §4 authorizes the Board of Trustees for the Connecticut State University System (CSUS) to establish, subject to authorization by the Board of Governors of Higher Education, a pilot education doctoral program to be conducted at one of its institutions only or whether such a doctoral program may be conducted at more than one of its institutions.
You have requested our opinion on whether or not the provisions of Chapter 250a of the Connecticut General Statutes would prohibit a proposed business joint venture involving the Pilot Corporation ("Pilot") and Marathon Ashland Petroleum ("MAP") from operating a retail service station at the Pilot travel center in Milford, Connecticut.
You have requested our advice regarding your obligations under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-61dd, known as the "whistleblower" statute. You have explained that, in the course of reviewing a whistleblower complaint, you have obtained access to client records from the Office of Protection and Advocacy.
You have asked whether the Division of Criminal Justice or the Office of Attorney General should represent the State's interests in matters concerning Youth in Crisis ("YIC"), brought under Public Act 00-177.
As Chairman of the State Marshal Commission you have requested a formal Opinion of the Attorney General as to the following four questions:
1. While the State Marshal Commission has duly appointed all state marshals, none has been “sworn.” Must state marshals be "sworn"? If so, what oath is to be administered and who may administer it?
2. Does a state marshal have "police" or law enforcement powers? If so, what is the scope of such powers?
3. State marshals are referred to in the General Statutes as "peace officers." What powers are conferred upon "peace officers"? Are these the only "police" or law enforcement powers that state marshals possess?
4. Do you have any suggested modifications to the above certificate language?
The Auditors of Public Accounts have notified this Office of what they consider to be an irregularity in the delegation of purchasing authority from the Department of Information Technology ("DOIT") to the Department of Social Services ("DSS") in connection with the selection of a contractor to administer and develop a management information system for DSS’s consolidated Child Care Assistance Program. Specifically, the Auditors express the opinion that the delegation of authority in question, if permitted under the Connecticut General Statutes, should have been made in writing, rather than given verbally, as appears to have been the case. The Auditors have asked whether this Office agrees with their position and, if so, they have suggested that we inform you.
In response to your request, this is a formal opinion regarding whether advanced practice registered nurses ("APRNs"), licensed nurse-midwives and physician assistants in Connecticut are authorized to dispense, prescribe and administer the drug mifepristone (brand name "Mifeprex", also known as "RU-486") to women in licensed clinics for the purpose of terminating early pregnancies in a non-surgical manner.
You have forwarded questions from members of your staff related to operation "Stand Down." Specifically, you inquire whether the agency is authorized to fund Stand Down when it is possible that individuals may attend who are not "veterans," as defined in state statute. You also inquire about the potential liability of your Department in the event of misconduct by a Stand Down program participant in the form of an assault on another Stand Down participant.
You have requested our advice on whether a creditor of a person licensed as a first mortgage lender can collect on the bond required to be maintained by the licensee pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §36a-492.
You have requested our opinion of whether renewal of the certificate of authorization of a private occupational school on the basis of the school's institutional accreditation by an accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education (USDOE) pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §10a-22b(a), in lieu of the Connecticut Department of Higher Education's (DHE's) evaluation, effectively relieves that school of compliance with the requirements of Conn. State Ag. Regs. §10a-22k-5(f) regarding the contents and maintenance of a private occupational school's student attendance records so that the school is subject only to the student attendance record-keeping requirements, if any, of the particular USDOE recognized accrediting agency.
This letter is in response to your request for a formal opinion concerning the effect of the federal Extradition Act, 18 U.S.C. §3182 et. seq., and the Interstate Transportation of Dangerous Criminals Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-560, 114 Stat. 2784 (2000), on the Department of Public Safety’s ability to enforce the provisions of Chapter 534 of the Connecticut General Statutes. Chapter 534 governs the licensing of private security companies that provide private prisoner transportation services for the State of Connecticut and requires a special permit if the individuals providing such services carry firearms in the course of duty.
You have asked the extent of the responsibility and potential liability of the Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter "DEP"), regarding the marking, through signage (beacons) and/or barrier floats, of potentially hazardous state-owned dams. The issue involved affects 15 to 20 sites statewide. This opinion is limited to water retention dams only.
You have asked whether annual legislative approval would be required for legislation allocating unappropriated surplus funds under article third, §18(c) of the Connecticut Constitution.
This is in response to a request for an opinion from your agency on certain provisions of the Liquor Control Act concerning package stores and cafes. 1. Must a package store be open to the public? 2. When does a cafe "regularly" keep food available to its customers?
You have asked whether the expenditure of state funds to pay for costs related to the nursing home strike, including the cost of mobilizing the National Guard and the expedited payment to nursing home operators of the cost of replacement workers, would violate any state or federal labor laws.
You have requested an opinion concerning the scope of the Governor’s authority to deploy the National Guard in the context of a nursing home strike at a number of nursing homes across Connecticut. In particular, you ask whether the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") would limit state activity that would "tend to favor, by intent or effect, either side in a labor dispute."
Your Department has asked our opinion whether Section 6 of Public Act 00-201 requires that an owner of a residential underground heating oil storage tank system contract with a registered contractor for all work necessary for the removal or replacement of that tank system, and remediation as may be necessary, in order for the Underground Storage Tank Petroleum Clean-Up Account Review Board ("Review Board") to reimburse eligible costs.
This is in response to the request for advice from your department as to the proper interpretation of P.A. 00-139. Section 1(b) of the act provides subject to certain specified exceptions, that "(no) state agency may disclose to the public an individual’s photograph or computerized image in connection with the issuance of an identification card or other document by such state agency, unless such individual has provided his or her express consent for such disclosure."
In response to your request, this is a formal opinion regarding whether advanced practice registered nurses ("APRNs"), licensed nurse-midwives and physician assistants in Connecticut are authorized to dispense, prescribe and administer the drug mifepristone (brand name "Mifeprex", also known as "RU-486") to women in licensed clinics for the purpose of terminating early pregnancies in a non-surgical manner.
In your memorandum dated November 16, 2000, you have in essence asked us for an update of an informal opinion dated March 18, 1991 regarding the maximum permissible deviation from strict mathematical equality courts have allowed in reapportionment plans. Your inquiry comes in connection with the Commissioner of Education's statutory duty under Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-63q to notify each regional board of education and each chief executive officer of each town within a regional school district whether or not representation on the respective regional boards of education is "consistent with federal constitutional standards."
By letter of June 14, 2000, the Department of Revenue Services ("DRS") requested an opinion from my office as to whether a telephone recording system ("the system"), which the Collections and Enforcement Division ("C&E") of the DRS intends to implement, is in compliance with Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d(a). Your agency also asked several other questions relating to implementation of the system.
In connection with the Department of Social Services’ (the "Department") Elder Financial Abuse Project (the "Project"), your Department requested an opinion as to whether an employee of a financial institution who suspects that an elderly customer is the victim of financial exploitation may disclose the elderly customer’s financial information to the Department’s Protective Services for the Elderly (PSE).
Watershed lands are among Connecticut’s most precious natural resources -- a legacy for future generations that we have a responsibility to preserve and protect. Besides their vital role in protecting the purity of the state’s water supplies, the natural beauty of these lands, undisturbed and tranquil, provides a refuge and respite from development and commercialism. These pristine lands are irreplaceable; once developed they are forever lost.
This is in response to your request for a formal opinion of the Attorney General regarding the ability of the Department of Public Health ("Department") to access information contained in the personnel files of employees of institutions licensed by the Department. The Department's inspectors have recently been refused access to institutional employee personnel files when conducting inspections at a hospital. The hospital asserted that unless the Department issued an "administrative summons", the records could not be released unless consent of the employee was obtained. You also asked whether such information would be subject to release by the Department pursuant to a Freedom of Information request.
This is in response to your request for an opinion on whether the two-store limit rule in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-48a bars the issuance of a package store permit to Jaimax, Inc. for premises at 701 North Colony Road, Wallingford, CT.
I am writing in response to the letter of August 12, 2000 requesting an opinion on whether a contract between the Connecticut Department of Correction (Department) and the Virginia Department of Correction will terminate on October 21, 2000 for noncompliance with the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stats. §§ 4a-60 and 4a-60a.
In your letter dated August 31, 2000, you asked whether the state can recover interest from the United States Postal Service as a result of the late delivery of certified mail containing tax returns and $140 million in tax payments. In analyzing this issue, it must be noted that any action against the United States Postal Service is, in fact, an action against the United States.
This opinion responds to Commissioner Armstrong’s request for advice regarding the Department of Correction's leave policy for employees who participate in the military reserves or National Guard. Because his question concerns the implementation of a General Notice issued by the Department of Administrative Services, we address this advice to both of you.
You have written to this office seeking an interpretation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §12-63c(a), a statutory provision concerning the procedure local tax assessors are to employ in the valuation of commercial and industrial property used "primarily for purposes of producing rental income." Specifically, you ask whether the term "primarily" as used in this provision means "that more than 50% of the area of the structure is used for the purpose of producing rental income, or does 'primarily' mean that more than 50% of the income from the property is a result of rental income?" You posed a second question that stated: "If the second interpretation is correct, would gross or net income be used to determine the primary purpose?"
You have asked for our opinion on whether towns can spray for mosquitoes in areas in which the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) does not intend to spray and whether towns can prevent the state from conducting its own spraying program within town boundaries.
You have asked two related questions about the State Employee Campaign for Charitable Giving (the "campaign"), which is an annual campaign "to raise funds from state employees for charitable and public health, welfare, environmental, conservation and services purposes." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 5-262(a)(3). Specifically, you ask whether the State Employee Campaign Committee (the "Committee") may prohibit a federation1 from participating in the campaign if one or more of the federation's member agencies solicits from state employees during the designated campaign period other than through the campaign. You have also asked whether the Committee may require a federation that seeks to participate in the campaign to certify to the Committee that it will refrain from soliciting charitable contributions from state employees during the designated campaign period other than through the campaign.
You recently requested an opinion from this office regarding the following question:
Whether DRS may disclose information including the names and/or addresses of rebate check payees who, as a result of the U.S. Postal Services or other reasons, did not receive their checks.
This is in response to your request for an expedited opinion on the proposal of the Connecticut Lottery Corporation (CLC) to participate in a new multi-state lottery game which, in part, lets players appear on a televised game show to compete and win.
You recently requested an opinion from this office regarding the following question:
Whether bonds issued in 1784 became a responsibility of the United States Government at the time of the adoption of the Constitution around 1790, provided claim was made within ten years of the due date.
You have asked what regulatory authority the Elections Enforcement Commission ("EEC") has with respect to alleged violations of Conn. Gen. Stat. §2-30a(b), which provides in relevant part: "No expenditure of state funds shall be made to influence electors to vote for or against any such proposed constitutional amendment."
You have asked for advice regarding the legal consequences of the General Assembly's approval of a particular arbitration award. In your letter of May 10, 2000, you explained that the leadership of the General Assembly is considering calling a special session to approve a recent arbitration award between the State of Connecticut and the Administrative and Residual Union P-5 Bargaining Unit (hereinafter "A&R"), pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 5-278(b). Before the General Assembly will be able to convene to approve the award, however, you anticipate that the State will file in the superior court an application to modify or vacate it. You ask, therefore, what effect the General Assembly's approval of the award may have on the State's legal challenge to it.
In your letter dated April 27, 2000 you requested a formal opinion as to whether the chairman of a council of government has the authority to sign on behalf of all the chief elected officials of a workforce investment area an agreement by which the council of government will administer and oversee federal Workforce Investment Act funds and activities.
I reviewed the questions that you have presented to me as follows: 1. Must an HMO medical plan, the terms and conditions of which contain a custodial care exception, offer a plan to the public, after receiving Department of Insurance approval, that: (a) meets the requirements of CGS 38a-553(c)(10), (b) complies with CGS 38a-478 et seq., as from time to time amended, and Article XXI of the Connecticut Constitution, and (c) does not use rehabilitation or improvement as criteria in determining whether care for disabled persons or persons suffering from biologically-based mental illnesses or nervous conditions is to be considered custodial? 2. Must the external appeal panel, acting pursuant to CGS 38a-478n, when reviewing appeals certified by the Department of Insurance and which construe or involve the custodial care exception (CGS 38a-553(c)(10)) as applied to disabled persons or persons suffering from biologically-based mental illnesses or nervous conditions (CGS 38a-478 et seq., as from time to time amended): (a) apply said CGS 38a-478 et seq. and Article XXI of the State Constitution, and (b) not use rehabilitation or improvement as tests for custodial care?
You have asked this office for our opinion as to the exact conditions under which the Waterbury Budget Advisory Council ceases to exist and whether Waterbury's positive fund balances for Fiscal Years 97, 98, and 99 trigger the sunset provisions. An interpretation of the method of dissolution (i.e., a vote of the WBAC members on dissolution) would also be welcomed.
By letter dated March 28, 2000 you requested an opinion as to whether Substitute Senate Bill 311, "An Act Concerning The Observance of Martin Luther King Day," if enacted, would unconstitutionally impair a municipality's contracts with its employee collective bargaining units."
This is in response to the letter from Representative Shawn T. Johnston dated February 4, 2000, inquiring whether the Governor can enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Veterans Memorial Casino Organization to allow it to operate high stakes bingo1 in Connecticut.
Your letter of March 16, 2000, asks whether the South Central Regional Council of Governments ("SCRCOG") is a "political subdivision of the State" for purposes of applying for and receiving a "Brownfields" grant under a program funded by the federal Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA").
You have asked for an interpretation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 26-3 as regards DEP's authority to take any animal by whatever means reasonably necessary to carry out its functions, even if the means DEP intends to use is contrary to another statutory provision.
In your communication of December 27, 1999, you state that the Board of Trustees for the Community-Technical Colleges ("Board of Trustees") had voted earlier in 1999 to change its name and the names of each of its twelve colleges by reducing "regional community-technical college(s)" to "community college" in each title. You state that the Board of Trustees' action was based upon a "yearlong public relations study." On behalf of the Board of Governors for Higher Education ("Board of Governors") you asked whether the approval of the Board of Governors pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §10a-6 and/or of the General Assembly is required to effect legally these name changes.
This office previously responded to an inquiry concerning the authority of a Special Deputy Sheriff to serve a capias. At that time we provided an informal advice to the effect that the "better practice" was for a regular Deputy Sheriff to serve the capias, but that a Special Deputy Sheriff could assist, and suggested that it would be advisable to obtain legislative clarification with respect to what authority a Special Deputy Sheriff had.
During the period since that informal advice the issue of what authority a Special Deputy Sheriff had in connection with serving a capias has continued to arise. Accordingly, you have asked us to issue a formal opinion on this question. We have carefully considered the relevant legal authorities.
You have inquired whether the State has authority to establish standards for air emissions which are stricter than those established under the federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et. seq. You have also inquired whether the cost of establishing more stringent standards must be borne by the State.
You have asked this Office for an opinion regarding the administration of health insurance benefits for retired state employees receiving workers' compensation payments. In your request, you mention a 1984 Attorney General's opinion [Op. Atty. Gen. No. 84-93, July 24, 1984] that advised the Comptroller that retired state employees receiving workers' compensation payments "must have health insurance maintained at the level provided for active state employees." You also cite a Comptroller policy dated September 16, 1985, which is based on the Attorney General's opinion.
You have asked our opinion on whether a firefighter injured in the line of duty on April 5, 1997 is eligible for benefits from the Connecticut State Firefighters Association under the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 3-123, as amended by Public Act 98-263.
This is in response to your letter dated January 19, 2000, in which you request our opinion on whether the Department of Transportation ("DOT") has the authority to enter into major contracts regarding development at Bradley International Airport ("BIA") when the Bradley International Airport Commission ("Commission") believes that DOT has failed to fully cooperate with the Commission in accordance with the provisions of subsection (b) of Section 15-101s of the Connecticut General Statutes.
You have asked for our opinion as to whether Section 36a-158(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes violates the Commerce Clause of the Unites States Constitution or the Equal Protection Clauses of the state and federal constitutions as to an out-of-state state-chartered bank that wishes to establish an automated teller machine ("ATM") in this state.
This letter responds to yours of December 29, 1999, in which you ask this office for a formal opinion regarding the applicability and effect of Sections 26 and 45 of Public Act 99-2, June Special Session on tobacco settlement monies. Specifically, you have asked for an opinion "concerning whether Section 45 alters, in any way, the express provisions of Section 26 and, if so, the nature and extent to which it does."
In your letter of September 9, 1999, you asked us whether an active judge participating in the Judges, Family Support Magistrates, and Compensation Commissioners Retirement System (hereinafter referred to as the judges retirement system) may concurrently receive a benefit from the State Employees Retirement Fund (SERF).
This is in response to a request for advice from the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (hereinafter CHRO) which asked this office to consider the following questions: 1. Is the Criminal Justice Commission required to comply with Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-68(a) which requires state agencies to file affirmative action plans with the CHRO? 2. Is the Criminal Justice Commission required to cooperate with the Division of Criminal Justice by providing information and support necessary to allow the Division of Criminal Justice to meet its responsibilities to file and implement an affirmative action plan pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-68?
You recently requested an opinion from this office regarding the following questions: 1. Is the filing of a notice and fee by a federally-registered investment adviser under Section 36b-6(d) or 36b-6(e) of the Connecticut
General Statutes, for which a letter of acknowledgment is issued by the Department, considered to be a "license or permit to operate a business in this state" within the meaning of Section 31-286a(b) of the Workers' Compensation Act? 2. Is the filing of an annual notice renewal fee by such an investment adviser under Section 36b-6(e) of the Connecticut General Statutes considered the renewal of a license or permit within the meaning of Section 31-286a(b) of the Act? 3. If the response to either of the foregoing questions is yes, is
Section 31-286a(b) of the Act preempted because it exceeds what
is reserved to the states under Section 307(a) of NSMIA, viz., the
filing by federally-registered investment advisers of any documents filed with the SEC? 4. If it is determined that Section 31-286a(b) of the Act is preempted, will the Department be liable for failure to comply with Section 31-286a(b) if it fails to obtain from federally-registered investment advisers sufficient evidence of current compliance with the workers' compensation insurance coverage requirements of Section 31-284?
You ask us whether the Division of Special Revenue (DOSR) may approve a contract between Autotote Enterprises, Inc., the licensee of the Connecticut Off-Track Betting System, and Wyvern International, Ltd., which would provide for simulcasting and common pool wagering on thoroughbred races in Australia pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-571(a).
Your department has asked for an opinion of this office on several liquor control issues involving the inspection of permit premises. Your first inquiry concerns the extent to which liquor control agents may search for, and seize, sundry evidentiary items in the course of an investigation. Specifically, you inquire about illegal gambling tickets or records and illegal gambling devices, as well as permittee guest books, invoices and coil cleaning records. Your second inquiry asks whether the department is able to seize "buy" money which is used in undercover investigations by liquor control agents. Your third inquiry concerns the detention of minors, or intoxicated persons, in a casino setting.
Your office requested our opinion on whether the Town of Seymour may enter into an agreement with a third party agent to collect current and delinquent sewer use charges pursuant to authority granted in Public Act 96-217, as amended.
You have requested our opinion on whether the Department of Economic and Community Development ("DECD") may accept discounted repayments of financial assistance from financially distressed funding recipients either without or before complying with the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 3-7.
You recently requested our advice regarding the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision in Velez v Commissioner of Correction, 250 Conn. 536 (1999). Specifically, you have asked us for clarification with respect to this decision's impact on DOC's procedure for determining when inmates become eligible for release to an approved community correction program pursuant to §18-100c.
In your letter dated July 7, 1999, you requested the opinion of this Office as to whether the provisions of Public Act 97-148 entitle deputy sheriffs and special deputy sheriffs to receive health care benefits at state expense. Because this Office has also received several other letters inquiring whether various benefits are available to special deputy sheriffs, this opinion will consider special deputy sheriffs' entitlement to health insurance and life insurance, vacation and sick leave, paid holidays, personal leave, longevity pay and participation in the state retirement system.
This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning your access, as the Auditors of Public Accounts, to certain documents of the Judicial Selection Commission (the "Commission") in connection with audits of the Commission pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 2-90. In particular, you ask whether, pursuant to subsection (g) of that statute, the Commission is obligated to provide you with documents concerning the evaluation of judicial candidates and incumbents that are considered confidential under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-44a (j).
The Connecticut Real Estate Commission has requested the Attorney General's Office to render a formal legal opinion regarding the interpretation of C.G.S. § 20-317(a) as it relates to the following question: Does a non-resident real estate broker or real estate salesperson who is currently licensed in Connecticut under a bona fide Reciprocal Agreement need to qualify with course and experience and take a written exam to establish competency when such licensee becomes a resident of the State of Connecticut?
Your office recently requested an opinion from this office regarding the following question:
Whether a municipality, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-162, may pursue and levy against the assets of delinquent municipal taxpayers held in custody by the State Treasurer in the form of abandoned property under the State's Unclaimed Property Laws?
This opinion responds to your office's request for opinion concerning the proper application of Public Act 95-175 ("the Act") to operations in the Office of Victim Services
You have asked whether the state, through the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) and the Occupational trade licensing boards within its jurisdiction, is preempted by federal law from imposing its licensing requirements for contract personnel working at a nuclear power plant facility in Connecticut.
You asked for my advice concerning the payment of an invoice issued by a State agency for the purchase of 500 computers. It is my understanding that you have approved the purchase order issued by the Department of Children and Families ("DCF"), but that upon discovery of additional information, you now ask whether you can pay an invoice submitted for that purchase.
Section 2-120 of the Connecticut General Statutes establishes a Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission ("Commission") composed of thirteen members. Three of the members are appointed by the governor; two are appointed by the president pro tempore of the senate; one by the majority leader of the senate; two by the minority leader of the senate; two by the speaker of the house; one by the majority leader of the house; and two by the minority leader of the house. The gubernatorial appointees serve for terms of three years from February first of the year of their appointments, and all other appointees serve for terms of two years. You have asked whether commissioners must automatically leave the Commission when their terms expire, even if no one has been appointed to fill their positions, or whether they may continue to serve after their terms have expired until they are either reappointed or replaced as commissioners.
You have asked: If an elector files a written request to remove his/her social security number from the records of the registrars of voters (to whom the elector voluntarily gave it on his voter application card under section 9-20 of the General Statutes) may the registrar remove it from his/her records, and may the registrar of voters then refuse to provide such social security number to the Jury Administrator in the format prescribed under Section 51-222a?
You have asked this office for an opinion regarding whether Conn. Gen. Stat. 20-627 to 20-630 apply to the "Pequot Pharmaceutical Network", a pharmacy owned and operated by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation on the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation in Ledyard, Connecticut. These statutory provisions regulate "nonresident pharmacies", which are defined as "any pharmacy located outside this state which ships, mails or delivers, in any manner, legend devices or legend drugs . . . into this State." Conn. Gen. Stat. 20-627. Thus, the dispositive question is whether a pharmacy located solely on reservation land situated within the geographical boundaries of the State of Connecticut is "within" the State of Connecticut for purposes of the statute.
In a memorandum dated October 5, 1998, your agency asked for our opinion regarding two questions that have arisen since the issuance of our September 28, 1998 opinion regarding Public Act 98-111. The first question asks the following: 1) A review of the opinion would seem to indicate that an individual convicted of, for example, C.G.S. Sec. 53a-71(a)(1), and sentenced to a term of probation commencing September 28, 1998 would not have to be registered under either Public Act 97-183 or Public Act. 98-111. Your second question is as follows: 2) Section 3(b) of the Act provides that any individual who has been subject to the registration requirements of Public Act 97-183 must register under Public Act 98-111 in the manner required for sexually violent offenders.
This is a formal opinion regarding whether abortion must be included in the coverage provided under the Husky Plan, Part B ("Husky B"), a program designed to ensure health care coverage to all children in Connecticut.
You have asked our office to provide an opinion on the legality of random drug testing of student-athletes at the University of Connecticut. The Division of Athletics at the University has revised its drug testing policy; this opinion addresses that revision.
Your office has inquired about the status of a pending application to extend a permit previously issued to Fedus Associates, LLC to construct an asphalt plant in Colchester, Connecticut. Your inquiry asks about the effect Public Act 98-216 has on the company's application.
In a letter dated April 16, 1998, you requested our advice on the authority of the New Haven County Sheriffs Department to operate the Union Avenue Detention Center (New Haven lockup). Your request arose as a result of a report by the Auditors of Public Accounts which questions whether your continued operation of the New Haven lockup is in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
This is in response to your request for an opinion on whether the "revolving door" limitation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 12-557d(c) applies to you if you resign as Acting Executive Director of the Division of Special Revenue to accept a position as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Connecticut Lottery Corporation (CLC).
You have requested a formal opinion by this office regarding issues presented in Public Act 98-111, Connecticut's most recent "Megan's Law." Public Act 98-111, which becomes effective October 1, 1998, establishes a sexual offender registration system for Connecticut that significantly expands the circumstances under which a convicted sexual offender is required to register with and provide current information to the Department of Public Safety and Connecticut State Police. Failure to register as required is a Class D felony under the act.
Your office has asked this office for advice about the applicability and constitutionality of Public Act 97-58, 1, with regard to Allstate's "Do I Need An Attorney?" flyer.
This is in response to your request for opinion pertaining to reimbursement of regulatory costs under the Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Procedures, 56 Fed. Reg. 24996 (May 31, 1991) (Procedures). You ask whether the Procedures, which allow you to assess the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe (Tribe) for "reasonable and necessary costs" of regulating and investigating operations at Foxwoods, include reimbursement of indirect as well as direct costs.
This is in response to a request from your Department for an opinion on whether your agency can use minors in unannounced tobacco age law enforcement checks at Connecticut bars serving alcoholic liquor.
You have asked for general advice regarding correspondence the Department of Consumer Protection (the "Department") received from the Mohegan Tribe and Mashantucket Pequot Tribe concerning the proposed sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages at particular sites on the Tribes' federal reservations.
You have requested our opinion on whether Conn. Gen. Stat. 7-374b(b) and 7-403a authorize municipalities to issue general obligation bonds to fund their unfunded actuarial accrued pension liabilities. We understand that this request for opinion is prompted by the proposed issuance of general obligation bonds by the Town of Stratford for the foregoing purpose, and that the Town's bond counsel, Squire Sanders & Dempsey, has opined that the issuance is authorized under state law.
This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning the term of office of the Executive Director of the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (Commission). You ask specifically when the term of office of Louis Martin, who was appointed executive director in 1994, expires, and whether he may hold over after the expiration of his term until a successor is appointed.
This is in response to your request for an opinion on whether an employee of the Division of Special Revenue (DOSR) may own stock in International Game Technology, Inc. (IGT) in light of the conflict of interest rules contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. |12-561.
This is in response to your letter dated June 2, 1998, in which you request our opinion regarding the scope of authority delegated to the State Traffic Commission ("Commission") to establish speed limits on multiple lane, limited access state highways. More specifically, you ask whether or not the Commission has the authority to establish a speed limit above fifty-five (55) miles per hour but less than the sixty-five (65) miles per hour maximum speed limit set forth in Conn. Public Acts No. 98-181, Sec. 1.
You have asked whether the Southeastern Connecticut Regional Resource Recovery Authority (SCRRRA) is subject to your auditing authority as set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. 2-90.
In 1995, the Commissioners of the Departments of Social Services and Children and Families requested a legal opinion on their ability to share information about families and children, notwithstanding certain statutory client confidentiality restrictions. Both Commissioners indicated that increased sharing of client-specific information would allow their agencies to fulfill their statutory responsibilities more effectively.
Your department requests clarification of a previously issued opinion regarding the question of whether interior designers, practicing within the scope of services described in Conn. Gen. Stat. 20-377k, may submit plans and specifications to a licensed building official for issuance of a building permit for a structure or addition classified in any of the specific groups enumerated in Conn. Gen. Stat. 29-276c. Our advice is sought specifically on the issue of whether a licensed architect or professional engineer is required to seal plans and specifications for work on the structures or additions specified in Conn. Gen. Stat. 29-276c(b), when such plans and specifications are prepared by interior designers.
Your department requested our advice on whether individuals or firms providing personal services to the Department of Public Safety, to examine fire damaged electrical systems in order to determine whether such systems caused the fire, must be licensed as private detectives in accordance with Section 29-153 of the Connecticut General Statutes.
This is in response to your December 2, 1997 request for an opinion regarding the status of state employee home addresses under the state Freedom of Information Act ("FOI Act" or "Act"), Conn. Gen. Stat. 1-7, et seq. Your primary question is whether the FOI Act requires your agency to notify state employees in response to broad requests for the home addresses of large numbers of employees, such as those of an entire agency staff.
You have asked for my opinion with regard to a question raised by the state auditors on the propriety of an expenditure made by the Criminal Justice Commission. It is my understanding that your request was prompted by a recommendation made by the auditors, who concluded that it appeared that the Division's June 1996 reimbursement of legal fees to a State's Attorney in connection with his reappointment to that position in 1988 may have circumvented the intentions of the General Assembly with respect to the total monies approved for payment to the State's Attorney by the Claims Commissioner.
I have reviewed your December 23, 1997 request for our opinion on whether local registrars of voters are required by law to supply the Social Security numbers of voters to the State Jury Administrator to assist the Administrator in the preparation of the master jury list. According to your letter, the legislature mandated the disclosure of this information in Public Act 97-200 as a means to properly and more precisely compile lists of potential jurors.
You have asked for an opinion regarding the interpretation of certain provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), originally executed April 25, 1994, between the State of Connecticut and the Mohegan Tribe ("Tribe") which permits the Tribe to operate video facsimile games as long as the Tribe contributes to the State a percentage of the revenue generated from those games in accordance with the terms of the MOU. In particular, a dispute has arisen between the Division of Special Revenue ("Division") and the Tribe concerning how to calculate certain payments.
You have asked this Office for an opinion regarding the right of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe ("Tribe") to establish its own workers' compensation code and Commission. You state that the Tribe has enacted the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Workers' Compensation Code ("Tribal Code"), effective July 1, 1997, which provides that any accident or personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment with the Tribe, which has a date of injury after the effective date, will be governed solely by the Tribal Code.
You have asked the advice of the Office of the Attorney General as to "whether Connecticut General Statute 17a-543 includes the Connecticut Department of Correction and/or whether Connecticut General Statute 17a-540(a) definition of 'facility' includes the Connecticut Department of Correction."
You have asked whether the University of Connecticut possesses the legal authority to pay directly vendors of UConn 2000 projects. You noted that if the bond proceeds had as their source a State bond issue, the University could not make such direct payments.
You have asked whether alternative sanctions contractors have authority to access medical and psychiatric records held by a juvenile detention center for juvenile delinquents assigned to the contractor's program without violating the confidentiality requirements contained in Chapters 899 and 368X of the Connecticut General Statutes.
You have asked for an opinion with regard to the implementation of Public Act No. 94-83, An Act Implementing the Recommendations of the Telecommunications Task Force.
This is in response to your letter dated January 27, 1997, in which you asked our opinion with respect to the following two questions concerning an application of Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-362 to certain portions of the Workers' Compensation Act.1 Specifically, you asked whether subsistence payments provided by the Workers' Compensation Commission Workers' Rehabilitation Unit are subject to orders for wage withholding obtained by the Support Enforcement Division from family court judges for the support of dependent children, and whether the Workers' Compensation Commission in general is subject to such orders with respect to all workers' compensation benefits.
You have asked for our opinion about whether you have correctly interpreted two aspects of Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-51 within the context of a rather long-standing fiscal dispute between Regional School District No. 12 acting through its board of education ("the board") and one of its member towns, Bridgewater, acting through its first selectman.
This letter is in response to your February 6, 1997 inquiry regarding the Legislative Regulations Review Committee's rejection without prejudice of your agency's proposed regulations implementing amendments to the lobbyist registration laws set forth in Public Act 96-11.
You have asked us whether the Comptroller has authority to remit funds, which have been offset from amounts payable to state vendors who have defaulted on their federal student loans, to the Connecticut Student Loan Foundation (CSLF).
You seek our advice concerning the proposal of the Connecticut Lottery Corporation to introduce a Bingo type game as a new lottery product and inquire whether such a proposal is a permissible lottery game.
This in response to a request for an opinion regarding the Department of Transportation's ("Department") responsibility under the aircraft registration program, Conn. Gen. Stat. 13b-39a et seq. In particular, you asked if the requisite statutory payments to municipalities set forth in Section 13b-39h are computed upon the municipal grand lists of October 1, 1992 or on the actual number of 1992 grand list aircraft based or primarily used within the particular municipality on the respective April first payment dates.
This letter responds to your request for an opinion dated January 31, 1997. Briefly stated, your letter relates that since 1993 the Division's regulations have provided: "A prize to which a purchaser may become entitled shall not be assignable." Conn. Stat. Regs. 12-568-5(d). Until June 6, 1996, the general statutes were silent on the issue of assignment.
This is in response to your request for an opinion regarding the settlement of an employment dispute with Marc Schillinger, a former state employee. Specifically, you inquire "whether the Governor, upon the recommendation of the Attorney General, has the authority under Section 3-7(c) [of the General Statutes] to compromise a claim in a manner which is not in accordance with Section 5-162 and 5-155a of the General Statutes."
You requested an opinion of this office as to whether the State Teachers' Retirement Board [hereinafter Board] can pay increased benefits, resulting from an election of recalculated benefits under Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-183aa(g), retroactively to a date earlier than the date of the member's election.
We are replying to your letter of January 16, 1997 in which you ask a number of questions concerning the legality and propriety of Mr. John B. Meskill's January 15, 1997 resignation as executive director of the Division of Special Revenue (the "Division") to become the executive director of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Gaming Commission (the "Tribal Commission"). In particular, you would like to know (1) whether the specific revolving door limitation contained in General Statutes 12-557d(c) applies to Mr. Meskill and includes the Tribal Commission; (2) whether Mr. Meskill violated any provision of the General Statutes by negotiating with the Tribe while still employed by the State; and (3) whether Mr. Meskill or the Tribe violated Section 53a-147 of the criminal code or Section 1-84(f) of the ethics code.
This letter is written in response to your request, on behalf of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station1 ("the Station"), for an opinion concerning several legal questions arising out of a recent report by the Auditors of Public Accounts. The report questioned the propriety of how the Board of the Station ("the Board") had managed four private charitable trusts.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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").
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.
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.?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Your office presented us with the following two questions relating to Section 51 of 1994 Conn. Pub. Act No. 94-4 of the May Special Session now codified as Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-62h:
1) Is a municipality required to revalue all real property for property tax purposes by taking all the normal and necessary actions involved in the revaluation of real property, before its legislative body may vote to stay the implementation of said revaluation?
2) Does this legislation allow a municipality to defer beginning the process of revaluation until after the conclusion of the 1995 session of the General Assembly?
You have written to this office seeking an opinion on the eligibility of a trustee to vote at a school district meeting. In your letter you relate that the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-6 apply to this voters' meeting, which is a type of referendum as defined in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-1(n)(2). Section 7-6 permits "any citizen" to vote who is 18 or older and who is "liable" to the town or district on property assessed at one thousand dollars or more.
This is in response to your letter dated October 16, 1995, wherein you requested a legal opinion from this office concerning the computation of cost of living adjustments (COLAs) under the Workers' Compensation Act for the years 1994 and 1995 for persons injured prior to July 1, 1993.
On September 25, 1995, the Attorney General issued a formal opinion concerning the regulation of invalid coach and wheelchair livery services within the State of Connecticut. The Office of Emergency Medical Services ("OEMS") regulates invalid coach service as an ambulance service pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §19a-180. The Department of Transportation ("DOT") regulates the transportation of livery service for the elderly and the handicapped pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §13b-105. Subsequent to the issuance of the opinion, a question has arisen regarding the distinction between invalid coach and wheelchair livery service, and therefore, whether the regulation of a particular transportation service falls under the jurisdiction of OEMS or DOT.
You have asked this office to determine whether the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) must reimburse the Town of Brookfield for exemptions granted to Fairfield Resources, Inc. (FRI), given that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has determined that FRI is operating illegally, and given that FRI operated in violation of a cease and desist order from October, 1993 until January, 1994.
You have requested our opinion regarding the jurisdiction of the Connecticut Siting Council (the "Council") in connection with the proposal of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak") to complete the electrification of the Northeast Corridor rail line from New Haven, Connecticut to Boston, Massachusetts (the "Project"). Specifically, you have asked whether the Federal Railroad Administration (the "FRA") has preempted the Council by its oversight and involvement in the Project, including in particular its preparation and issuance of an environmental impact statement.
This advisory opinion responds to your letter of September 25, 1995. That letter asks whether you may "nominate a sitting associate justice of the [Supreme] Court to succeed Chief Justice Peters if the associate justice in question's name is not on the list of eligible candidates for the position provided ... by the Judicial Selection Commission?"
I am in receipt of your letter dated September 21, 1995, in which you emphasize your concern that the establishment of a third casino in this state not jeopardize the level of revenues currently being received by the State under the Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) between the State and the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan Tribes. In response to this concern, you issued an RFP that required each casino proposal to provide a guarantee that the State will receive, over a three-year period, up to $610 million to make up for any cessation in the Tribes' payments under the MOUs.
This is in response to your request for a formal opinion regarding the current reimbursement system for wheelchair accessible livery under the Department of Social Services (DSS) regulations enacted in 1989.
Recently, it has come to the attention of this office that certain retail firearms dealers have advertised that customers may purchase handguns until October 1, 1995 without a permit to carry such weapons, and without an eligibility certificate. This "policy" is apparently prompted by their interpretation of the interplay between Connecticut General Statutes §§ 29-33 and 29-36j. The purpose of this letter is to (1) clarify the relationship between these two statutes, and (2) afford the Department of Public Safety appropriate guidance concerning the proper implementation of the statutes' provisions.
You have asked this office for an opinion regarding your authority to approve and to regulate a branch (the "Branch") of a Connecticut bank (the "Bank") to be established in Foxwoods Casino (the "Casino") on the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation (the "Reservation") in Ledyard, Connecticut.
You have requested our opinion on whether the owner of an unimproved parcel of land abutting a state highway must obtain a certificate of operation from the State Traffic Commission ("STC") under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-311 in order to operate a so-called "flea market" on the land.
You have asked for our opinion on whether the provisions of Special Act 95-12 preclude you from entering into a contract with Corporate Express, a private corporation, for a statewide direct delivery service for office supplies.
You have asked for an opinion regarding whether the payments for educational and other services which the Board of Education and Services for the Blind ("BESB") makes for the benefit of blind or visually impaired students and blind or visually impaired students with additional disabilities, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-295(a) and (b), respectively, are discretionary expenditures or in the nature of mandatory entitlements.
This is a response to your request for formal advice regarding whether it is lawful, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-202, for licensed funeral establishments to invest escrow monies received pursuant to funeral service contracts in life insurance policies.
This is in response to your predecessor, William E. Curry's request for an opinion inquiring whether the Departments of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and Children and Family Services may operate trustee accounts for their outpatient clients as activity funds pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-52, et seq.
This is in response to your request for an opinion on whether the Department of Liquor Control is authorized to issue a package store permit in the Town of Bozrah under the package store ratio law, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-14a.
Your department has sought our opinion on two questions relating to the interplay, if any, between Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 36a-380 and 42-202. The first question asks us:
(1) Is a broker-dealer which is a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. or registered under CUSA [Connecticut Uniform Securities Act] a "registered broker-dealer", "authorized by law to act as an escrow agent", within the meaning of Section 42-202 of the Connecticut General Statutes?
The second question was posed as follows:
(2) Does Section 36-314 apply to a corporation that is appointed to act as escrow agent with regard to the money or securities received from the sale of funeral services contracts? If the answer to this question is in the affirmative: (a) Must such corporation obtain a special act of the Connecticut General Assembly in order to act as an escrow agent under Section 42-202, or is such corporation, by virtue of Section 42-202 or otherwise, "specifically empowered so to act by a general statute of this state" within the meaning of Section 36-314; and (b) Does such corporation come within the jurisdiction of both the Department of Banking and the Department of Public Health and Addiction Services?
By letter dated March 3, 1995 you requested an opinion from this office which raises the following question: Has the department of labor's practice of annually transferring those funds in excess of $500,000 from the Employment Security Special Administration Fund to the regular Employment Security Administration Fund, for the purpose of offsetting projected deficits of federal administrative funds in future fiscal years, complied with Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-259 and any other applicable laws?
In your letter of December 7, 1994 you seek our advice with regard to two questions related to the provisions of P.A. 93-219. 1. Is an inmate who is subject to Section 10 of the Act and who under your letter of November 23 must serve the full term imposed by the court unreduced by any good time credits and who is in the custody of the Commissioner of Correction on the date he or she historically would have been discharged entitled to be mandatorily paroled by the Parole Board and then subject to its supervision for the remainder of the full term imposed by the sentencing court?
2. For those persons who are serving sentences for which there is no parole eligibility, but who may be eligible for community release under the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-100c, are they entitled to be mandatorily transferred to community supervision on the date they historically would have been discharged?
On February 17, 1995, you requested an opinion of this office on whether or not seven individuals appointed by former Governor Weicker are qualified to serve as members of the Employees' Review Board, and the terms they can serve if they are qualified.
You have requested our advice on whether first selectpersons who exercise criminal law enforcement powers must successfully complete the training requirements established by the Municipal Police Training Council ("MPTC") pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-294d.
In your letter of November 7, 1995, you asked several questions concerning the relationship between the University of Connecticut and the University of Connecticut Foundation. You have asked three specific questions.
First: May University employees work under the direction of the Foundation, with the Foundation reimbursing the University for the salary and fringe benefits of these employees? Second: May the Foundation utilize money received from the University for fund-raising services to repay its obligations (including salaries) to the University? Third: May the University provide services, such as computer support services, to the Foundation at no cost?
You have asked this office whether, upon passage of Senate Bill No. 158, authorizing the creation of a "commission on the future of gaming in Connecticut," the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe and the Mohegan Tribe (if they commence casino operations) would continue to be obligated to the terms of the Memorandums of Understanding ("MOUs") related to the operation of video facsimile machines at tribal casinos. You have also asked about the State's ability to enforce its agreement with the Tribes, and its ability to prevent any loss of revenue from the monthly contributions made by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe under the agreement.
You have requested our opinion as to whether the State Insurance Purchasing Board (the "Board") has authority under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4a-20 to make payment on a premium for a surety bond purchased directly by the Treasurer.
This is in response to a request for advice from fromer President Pro Tempore John B. Larson in which he asked if owners of commercial or residential rental properties are required to permit telecommunications providers access to their buildings prior to adoption of implementing regulations by the Department of Public Utility Control.
We have received your letters of February 8, 1995, soliciting our opinion on issues concerning temporary gubernatorial appointments arising from the application of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-7(b)(2). Specifically, you both ask whether a "designate" under § 4-7(b)(2) must be sworn in pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-1 before exercising the powers and duties of the office.
In a letter dated August 16, 1994, Representative Krawiecki, then House Minority Leader, requested that this office answer two questions regarding an alleged boundary dispute in the Borough of Newtown. We now reply to your attention.
1. His first question asked:
What is the appropriate method for taxpayers who assert that the boundaries of a political subdivision of the state are unknown or inadequately marked to compel that entity to conduct a survey of its boundary? 2. His second question asked: Does an individual member of the General Assembly have the power to compel a political subdivision such as a borough to survey its boundary?
You have requested an opinion regarding the applicability of the Freedom of Information Act ["FOIA"], Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-7 et seq., to the Connecticut Student Loan Foundation ["CSLF"]. Specifically, the issue you raised is whether the CSLF is a public agency subject to the public records and meeting requirements of the FOIA.
Your office requested our opinion on four questions arising out of audits of municipalities and nonprofit entities conducted pursuant to the State Single Audit Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-230 et seq. (the "Act"). The Act establishes a uniform annual single audit procedure for recipients of combined federal and state financial assistance. The Act eliminates duplicate audits required under other state laws and regulations.
We are responding to your request for advice as to how a December 8, 1994 informal opinion to former Commissioner Nicholas Cioffi regarding the Department of Public Safety Division of Fire, Emergency, and Building Services' civil regulatory jurisdiction over certain activities on the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation ("Reservation") would "impact the services" your agency provides with respect to boxing on the Reservation.
You have asked for an opinion regarding the Board of Education and Services for the Blind's ("BESB") reimbursement to towns, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-295, for certain special education instructional and service costs for special education students who are blind or visually impaired. In particular, you have indicated that while the statute places yearly monetary limits on the amount BESB may reimburse towns per student for such costs, due to billing and paperwork delays, reimbursements owed to towns have gone into arrears in recent years. Further, you have indicated that in dealing with this statutory reimbursement scheme, BESB has switched from a cash to an accrual basis of accounting, and you now wish to know whether, consistent with the statutory amount limitations, actual reimbursement payments to towns in a given year may exceed the statutory limits, provided the costs being reimbursed accrued within the yearly statutory limits per child.
You have requested our opinion regarding the scope of the Connecticut Siting Council's (the "Council") jurisdiction over the placement of an FM radio station antenna on an existing community antenna television tower.
You have requested our opinion regarding the legal status of a tower to be used by WHUS, the radio station funded by student activity fees at the University of Connecticut at Storrs (the "University"). Specifically, you have asked whether the tower, on which the Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police (the "State Police") intends to place telecommunications equipment, is "owned or operated by the state" within the meaning of the Public Utility Environmental Standards Act ("PUESA"), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-50i(a)(6).
We are in receipt of your letter of June 22, 1994 wherein you call our attention to P.A. 93-219, Sec. 10. In your letter you seek our advice as to what extent, if any, the provisions of this section affect the computation of discharge dates for sentences subject to this statute.
Section 10 of this Act provides as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of the general statutes, any person convicted of a crime committed on or after October 1, 1994, shall be subject to supervision by personnel of the department of correction or the board of parole until the expiration of the maximum term or terms for which he was sentenced.
This is in response to your letter dated June 30, 1994, in which you requested our opinion regarding whether the proposed Safety and Health Regulations, drafted pursuant to Conn. Pub. Acts No. 93-228 28(b), violate the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). In particular, you were concerned that a Tennessee regulatory scheme, similar to that suggested by Conn. Pub. Acts No. 93-228, was found by the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB"), Office of General Counsel, to be preempted by Sections 8(a)(2) and (5) of the NLRA. Goody's Family Clothing, Inc., NLRB Memorandum, Case 10-CA-26718 (September 21, 1993).
This letter is in response to your request for our opinion as to whether a pharmacy engages in fee-splitting, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 20-175(7), if physicians who own stock in the pharmacy receive certain benefits from their stock ownership.
We are in receipt of your August 16, 1994 letter, wherein you seek our advice "[i]n anticipation of a possible freedom of information request." The anticipated request, we learned, may seek, inter alia, the addresses of state employees that you have in computer files maintained for state payroll purposes.
In a letter dated July 21, 1994 you wrote to the Attorney General seeking an opinion concerning the status of the Mobil Oil Corporation pursuant to a cost reimbursement request to the Underground Storage Tank Petroleum Clean-up Fund Review Board ("Review Board").
In your letter of May 20, 1994, you inquired whether the State of Connecticut should continue to require car rental companies to be licensed as sellers of gasoline. You explained that some car rental agencies require their customers to return the vehicles with a particular amount of gasoline. If the vehicles are not returned with the requisite amount of gasoline, the agencies will provide gasoline from their own pumps and will charge the customers for the gasoline.
We have received an inquiry from each of you relating to persons currently serving as justice of the peace. We first answer the Secretary's question and then that raised by the Speaker.
1. In a May 24, 1994, letter from Secretary Kezer, the Secretary inquires as to the validity of legislation providing for the extension of terms of current justices of the peace in light of Judge Dorsey's ruling in ACP v. Kezer, 2:92CV00550 (PCD) prohibiting holdover-terms after June 30, 1994. We answer that the legislation extending these terms is valid. 2. In an August 1, 1994, letter from Speaker Ritter, the Speaker asks whether "it is proper to fill vacancies which now exist" in the office of justice of the peace.
This is in response to your request for an opinion regarding Public Act 94-241 ("the Act") authorizing the establishment of "enterprise corridor zones" by three or more contiguous municipalities with the approval of the Commissioner of Economic Development. Businesses located within approved enterprise corridor zones receive the same tax benefits as those located in enterprise zones.
You have requested our advice regarding the interpretation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 17a-17 and regulations promulgated thereunder. These provisions require the Commissioner of Children and Families and the Commissioner of Education to jointly develop regulations to implement "a single cost accounting system" which is the system of determining payment for room, board and education to private residential treatment centers.
By letter dated July 6, 1994, your office made an inquiry pertaining to 15 of 1994 Conn. Pub. Act No. 94-6 of the May Special Session (hereinafter the "1994 Act"). The July 6, 1994 letter phrased the question as follows:
Subsequent to your legal opinion of May 24, 1994, the General Assembly passed Public Act 94-6(15), copy enclosed, which provides for a definition of 'Free Standing Chronic Disease Hospitals' applicable retroactively to the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1993. As a result of this amendment, we respectfully request a formal opinion on the impact this revision has in relationship to the grand list year and fiscal year Free Standing Chronic Disease Hospitals payments should commence.
In your letter of May 12, 1994, you ask about the applicability of Conn. Gen. Stat. 51-44a(j) (non-disclosure of information)1 to evidence introduced at a "hearing" conducted by the Judicial Selection Commission (JSC) as required by 51-44a(e) (procedure for reappointment of judge to same court).
You have asked our opinion on whether the Connecticut Historical Commission may establish gift shops in historic properties that are maintained by the Commission for the purpose of generating revenues to be used to help defray the costs associated with the operation of the properties.
This is in response to your letter dated January 31, 1994, in which you request a formal opinion of the Attorney General concerning an issue relating to the jurisdiction of the tax review committee (hereinafter "the committee") under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-3a. Please advise me whether the tax review committee has statutory authority to consider and to waive any penalty in excess of one hundred dollars that the Commissioner of Revenue Services has determined not to waive.
In your letter of April 26, 1994, you asked several questions concerning the responsibility of the Southern New England Telephone Company ("SNET") for state-owned telecommunications equipment that was stolen from a SNET truck. You have informed us that the University of Connecticut (the "University"), which owns the equipment, did not pursue a claim against SNET, and you have asked two questions:
First: Does SNET have responsibility for State equipment in its custody?; and,
Second: If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is there a valid c1aim against SNET? http://www.cslib.org/attygenl/images/rainbow.gif
The following is in response to your request of June 30, 1994, for an opinion concerning the applicability of the gun certification requirements of 1993 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 93-306, An Act Concerning Assault Weapons, to licensed firearms dealers and distributors. Specifically you ask: "Do licensed firearms dealers and distributors need to obtain a certificate of possession for all assault weapons in their possession that were 'in stock' as of October 1, 1993? Is a certificate needed with respect to assault weapons acquired after October 1, 1993?" The Act addresses "licensed gun dealers" and we assume, for the purposes of this opinion, that your questions concern these entities.
In your letter of March 15, 1994, you indicate that in two lawsuits, Kennedy St. George v. Mak, Case No. 5:92-CV-00587(JAC), United States District Court, District of Connecticut, and Lewis v. Mak, Case No. 5:92-CV-00593(JAC), United States District Court, District of Connecticut, the Attorney General's Office has advised the High Sheriff of Fairfield County and several persons in his department that it would be inappropriate for the Attorney General's Office to continue to represent them in those cases. Consequently, on behalf of the Sheriffs' Advisory Board you have asked for legal advice on the following question:
Does the Sheriff's Advisory Board have authority to appropriate funds for the defense of sheriffs, deputy sheriffs and special deputy sheriffs in lawsuits brought against them in their individual capacities after the Attorney General has determined that providing a defense would be inappropriate pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 5-141d(b)?
Prior to the merger of the Department of Health Services and the former Connecticut Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission (CADAC), the Executive Director of CADAC, Dr. John Higgins-Biddle, requested a formal opinion from this Office regarding the impact of the federal regulations concerning confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records, 42 C.F.R. Part 2, or any other pertinent state or federal law or regulation related to patient confidentiality, on a new data system that CADAC was having designed by Andersen Consulting, Inc. After the merger of CADAC into the Department of Public Health and Addiction Services (DPHAS),1 you informed us that your Department is continuing with the development of the proposed data system, that the merger has not affected either the scope or nature of Dr. Higgins-Biddle's previous opinion request, and that you still need advice regarding the questions that he originally posed
In your letter of June 16, 1994, you ask whether an employee of the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) may, upon election to the General Assembly, continue to hold his employment with CRRA, or be prohibited from holding the CRRA position due to the "dual job ban" set forth in either Conn. Const. Art. III, 11 or Conn. Gen. Stat. 2-5.
This will respond to your request for advice concerning State funding for the purchase, by the Town of East Haven, of property of the Colony Beach Club. Specifically, you inquire as to whether the use of State funds for such a purchase would make the facility available for use by all Connecticut residents.
You have asked for our opinion as to whether section 9 of 1993 Conn.Pub. Acts No. 93-388 applies to the payments in lieu of taxes made under Conn.Gen.Stat. 12-20a for fiscal year 1993-1994 due in September of this year.
You have requested our advice on several questions relating to the liability of the Second Injury Fund for payment of workers' compensation claims when an insurer of such claims has been determined to be insolvent. The Second Injury Fund ("the Fund") and the Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association have asserted differing interpretations of the statutes governing such liability.
By letter dated April 27, 1994, you have asked for the opinion of this Office as to whether the Governor had the authority to bind the State to the Gaming Compact between the State of Connecticut and the Mohegan Tribe of Indians pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) Pub.L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701 or whether the Gaming Compact must also be submitted to the General Assembly for its approval.
You have requested an opinion as to whether proposed legislation regulating hospitals' net revenues, imposing taxes related to the provision of hospital services, and appropriating funds for Medicaid disproportionate share payments to hospitals is likely to be preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") because the amended statutes may "relate to" ERISA plans.
You have sought our advice regarding the issue of whether a hospital which has been licensed as a chronic disease hospital may be issued a second chronic disease hospital license for a discrete portion of its premises which it intends to operate as a rehabilitation unit.
You have requested the opinion of this office as to whether "it would be possible for the Milford and Hartford Jai Alai to be the subject of wagering at off-track betting (OTB) facilities."
We are writing in response to your request for a legal opinion regarding the "accessibility" of income and assets of the Hutterian Brethren in Connecticut, Inc., a Connecticut nonstock corporation, to its individual members. You report that many Hutterians (including families, the elderly, pregnant woman, and young children) are currently receiving medical assistance benefits under the state's Title XIX Medicaid Program from the Department of Social Services (DSS). Specifically you ask:
1. What amount of income of the Brethren is available to its individual members?
2. What amount of assets of the Brethren is available to its individual members?
3. What legal obligation does the Brethren have to financially support its members?
4. What legal obligation does the Brethren have to meet the medical needs of its individual members?
This is in response to your letter dated December 1, 1993, in which you request our opinion on whether the Department of Transportation's use of on-call consultants is contrary to the requirements of Sections 13b-20b through 13b-20l of the Connecticut General Statutes.http://www.cslib.org/attygenl/images/rainbow.gif
This is in response to an October 19, 1993 request for an opinion regarding the prescriptive authority of advanced practice registered nurses ("APRNs"), which request was generated by Marie Hilliard, the Board's Executive Officer. The question is whether APRNs have prescriptive authority in a private practice setting.
At the close of the last Legislative session, you posed a number of questions about the Memorandum of Understanding executed by Governor Weicker and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe relating to the operation of video facsimile machines at the Foxwoods Casino on the Tribe's reservation in Ledyard.
By letter dated August 17, 1993, you have asked our office as to the appropriateness of compensating a public member of the Commission on Hospitals and Health Care, Gwen B. Weltman, for the period September 4, 1992 to June 3, 1993.
This letter is in response to your joint request dated August 11, 1993, for a formal opinion concerning interior design. In particular, you have asked three questions:
1. What effect does the requirement of Conn.Gen.Stat. 20-293 that building officials only accept plans or specifications that are stamped with the seal of a licensed architect or licensed engineer have on Public Act No. 93-435, 23?
2. What is the scope of an interior designer's practice and is it limited to those activities exempted by Conn.Gen.Stat. 20-298?
3. How does the definition of "interior designer" as set forth in Conn.Gen.Stat. 20-377k interrelate with Conn.Gen.Stat. 20-298?
By letter dated December 2, 1992, you have requested an opinion as to whether the State Employees' Retirement Commission [hereinafter Commission or SERC] has the authority to place Nicholas A. Cioffi, who joined the State Employees' Retirement System [hereinafter SERS or the Retirement System] after July 1, 1984, in Tier I of that system, with no Social Security coverage.
You have asked what liability, if any, a state agency would have "with respect to any incidents arising at, during or after" an off-site holiday party attended by agency employees during working hours.
In your letter of August 12, 1993, you relate that by a Resolve of May, 1824, a Borough of Newtown was created. Subsequently the General Assembly passed 1931 Special Act No. 290 and 1953 Special Act No. 106 also relating to the formation of this borough. You ask three questions relating to this borough. First you ask whether the borough may be dissolved. Secondly you ask the procedure in accomplishing this dissolution. Thirdly you ask what legal requirements are imposed upon the officials of the borough to assist residents in bringing about dissolution.
This is in response to your memorandum dated September 22, 1993 wherein you request our opinion on whether the members of the Connecticut Pilot Commission ("Commission") have a right to defense by the State of Connecticut and indemnification should the exercise of their duties as Commission members result in litigation against them in their official or individual capacities.
We are writing in response to your letter of October 27, 1993 in which you request our advice on the question of whether the proceeds of a sale of certain pistols, the "Van Syckel Dragoons" (the "firearms"), by the State Library Board (the "Board") in connection with the deaccession of the firearms from the collection of the Raymond E. Baldwin Museum of Connecticut History, must be used exclusively for the purpose of furthering or of enhancing the Museum's collections of Colt materials.
You ask in your letter to this office whether Conn.Pub.Act No. 93-435, § 87(b) violates Art. II, Conn. Const., relating to the separation of powers. You suggest that this question arises because the legislature would be imposing the UAPA rule-making procedure of the executive branch upon the probate courts.
This is in response to your request for a formal opinion as to whether Connecticut's child support-related wage withholding legislation is in compliance with certain federal statutory and regulatory mandates.
In your letter of March 16, 1993, you requested our opinion regarding the ability of the Department of Mental Health to obtain information on individuals who are receiving services from grantee agencies of the Department of Mental Health (DMH). Specifically, DMH seeks to require these grantee agencies to supply information regarding patients which is subject to the statutory psychiatric privilege set forth in Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-146d et seq. Disclosure of patient information to DMH without prior patient consent would be a condition of reimbursement or funding of the grantee agency.
This is in response to your department's request for a formal opinion from this office as to whether or not Section 3-7 of the General Statutes is applicable to certain internal service/revolving funds administered by the Department of Administrative Services (DAS). Your department's request focuses on whether monies owed to the funds by other State agencies may be cancelled from the books of DAS or otherwise compromised in accordance with the provisions of Section 3-7.
This is in response to your letter dated July 23, 1993, wherein you asked our opinion concerning the application of Public Act 93-288 (the Act) to cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for certain injured employees and their dependants.
You have asked our opinion on several matters pertaining to the extent of the authority of the Municipal Police Training Council (MPTC) to impose mandatory training requirements upon those persons empowered by statute to act in the capacity of a police officer.
This letter is written in response to your May 3, 1993, request for an opinion on Substitute Senate Bill No. 1055, An Act Concerning Medicare Supplement Policies.
This will respond to your request for advice regarding how the Second Injury Fund should proceed on the administration of Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 31-284b, 31-349(e) and (f) in light of the United States Supreme Court's recent ruling in District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Board of Trade, _U.S._, 113 S. Ct. 580 (1992) (hereinafter referred to as Board of Trade).
You seek our guidance concerning several interrelated issues arising from recent legislation which authorizes the conversion of the Bridgeport Jai Alai fronton to a dog track. Your questions are essentially three in number: (1) must Bridgeport Jai Alai surrender its Jai Alai license before construction can begin on the actual conversion to a dog track; (2) must the Board conduct a hearing before it can award playing dates to the pari-mutuel facilities; and (3) if such a hearing is required, how are conflicts resolved, when does Bridgeport Jai Alai cease to exist as a fronton, and when may the Board waive a regulation?
I write to respond to your request for an advisory opinion regarding religious exemption provisions included within Connecticut's child abuse and neglect statutes. The critical statutory language is contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-104 (with essentially similar language found in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-120) which provides:
"...[t]he treatment of any child by a Christian Science practitioner in lieu of treatment by a licensed practitioner of the healing arts shall not of itself constitute maltreatment."
This is in response to your letter of August 3, 1993 concerning the Health Care Cost Containment Committee (HCCCC) and U.S. Healthcare. Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 5-259, you have the statutory obligation to establish group hospitalization, medical and surgical insurance coverage for state employees, retirees and others, and are authorized to enter into contracts for that purpose.
This is in reply to a request for advice asking if the person you appoint as an Executive Director of the Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC), pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-2(f), to fill a vacancy in that position receives an appointment for four years or rather serves the balance of the prior Executive Director's unexpired term.
You have requested our advice regarding whether Connecticut's laws on protection of public deposits1 are adequate to fully secure such deposits in the event the depository institution in which such funds are deposited fails and is placed in receivership. The security of public deposits is an issue because federal deposit insurance for public deposits is limited to $100,000 per account, 12 U.S.C. § 1821(a)(2)(A), and public deposits often exceed that amount. Specifically, you are concerned about the security of state deposits in the event of a challenge by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in its role as receiver of a failed depository institution, under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1811, et seq.
You recently sought our advice as to whether you may discontinue the practice of providing on request lists of outstanding state checks to asset finder organizations ("AFO").
You have requested our opinion on two issues raised by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-199 which imposes an athletic tax of five percent of the gross receipts from any boxing exhibition. The first issue is whether the Commissioner of Consumer Protection is responsible for the collection of the tax or whether it is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Revenue Services. The second issue is whether the athletic tax can be waived for United States Amateur Boxing, Inc., due to the fact that it is a non-profit association that is otherwise tax-exempt.
This is in response to your letter dated April 20, 1993, in which you request a formal opinion of the Attorney General concerning an issue arising under 1992 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 92-184 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
You state as follows:
The issue involves the room occupancy tax, a portion of which funded the visitors and convention districts and coliseum authorities under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 7-136a to 7-136c, inclusive (repealed by e 18 of the Act), and will now fund tourism districts and coliseum authorities under § 15 of the Act.
Conn.Gen.Stat. § 4b-3 establishes the state properties review board and provides criteria for membership. That statute provides, inter alia, that "[n]o person shall serve on this board who holds another state or municipal governmental position...." Conn.Gen.Stat. § 4b-3(b). By letter dated March 23, 1993 you have asked two questions concerning the above quoted portion of Conn.Gen.Stat. § 4b-3(b).
1. You initially ask whether "there is a definition of 'state or municipal government position' which applies to [§ 4b-3(b) ]?" 2. Your second question is whether an individual who serves without compensation on a municipal board is ineligible for membership on the state properties review board.
By your letter of May 4, 1992, you requested our opinion on several questions about the exclusion of irrevocable funeral accounts from consideration as assets in determining eligibility for your Department's programs. Essentially, you asked whether the monetary limit Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-207 places on such accounts is a requirement for their validity. If it is, you asked whether the limit may be exceeded either by creating an account outside the state and then transferring it to the state or by creating multiple irrevocable accounts whose total amount exceed the limit.
You have requested our opinion regarding the temporary rules and regulations of the Department of Revenue Services under Conn. Pub. Act 91-3, ee 51 to 93, of the June 1991 Special Session, as amended (the "Public Act"). The Public Act is entitled "An Act Making Appropriations for the Expenses of the State for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992, Providing Funds for Such Expenses and Concerning Fiscal Reform." Sections 51 to 93 of the Public Act relate to the state income tax.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has asked for an opinion analyzing the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (the Act) 42 U.S.C. § 5101 and regulations issued under that Act in relation to state law, particularly Conn. Gen. Stat. § l9a-570 et seq. Specifically, HHS questions whether Connecticut law meets the requirement imposed by the federal statutory mandates regarding critically-ill children.
You have asked whether or not foster parents are entitled to representation and indemnification from the State of Connecticut. The corollary question is whether they are independent contractors and therefore not entitled to representation or indemnification.
In your letter of March 26, l993, you requested our opinion concerning perceived conflicts between the requirements of proposed House Bill 7114, "An Act to Assist Connecticut Communities Seeking Economic Stability" (the "Act"), and Article Tenth, Section 1 of the Connecticut Constitution which preserves home rule for Connecticut municipalities.
By letter dated February 26, 1993 you have asked for our advice as to whether an increase in the amount of money appropriated to municipalities under the Education Cost Sharing (ECS) grant program (Conn. Gen. Stat. e10-262h) which has been recommended by the governor for SFY 1993-94 is properly counted as a "general budget expenditure" for the purposes of determining whether the authorized expenditure limitation imposed by Conn. Gen. Stat. e2-33a, commonly known as "the spending cap", will be exceeded.
This letter responds to the March 25, 1993, inquiry of Assistant Treasurer Lawrence A. Wilson wherein he asked whether the Connecticut Bar Foundation, Inc. may invest Interest On Lawyers' Trust Account ("IOLTA") funds in the State's Short-Term Investment Fund ("STIF").
This is in response to your letter of April 1, 1993 to this office in which you ask whether an active state employee who is currently a member of the State Employees Retirement System is barred from collecting a pension from the Judge's Retirement System while serving as a state employee.
In your letter of February 11, 1993, you ask whether the State of Connecticut, as a creditor, is disabled from being the assignee of a Connecticut lottery winner because of a regulation which prohibits any assignment of lottery funds.
By letter dated March 5, 1993, you have asked our office for a formal opinion as to whether Gwen B. Weltman, Esq. of Bethany, who has been nominated by Governor Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. as a public member of the Commission on Hospitals and Health Care ("the Commission") qualifies as such pursuant to Conn.Gen.Stat. § 19a-146. Specifically, you question whether Attorney Weltman's previous employment as a social worker by Yale-New Haven Hospital between April 1980 and July 1983 violates § 19a-146's mandate that a public member "shall not ... have any past professional affiliation with any health care facility or institution...."
By letter dated January 11, 1993 you ask one question regarding the effect of Art. III, § 18(a), the balanced budget amendment, on deficiency legislation authorized by Conn.Gen.Stat. § 2-36. You also ask four questions on the relationship between the statutory and constitutional spending caps set forth in Public Act 91-3, § 30 and Article III, § 18.
You have requested our advice on several questions related to 1992 Conn. Public Act 92-158, An Act Concerning Extending Continuation Benefits to the Unemployed (hereinafter "Public Act 92-158"). Public Act 92-158 amended Conn. Gen. Stat. e 38a-538, which requires employers to offer employees whose employment has terminated for reasons other than death the option to purchase continued health insurance coverage under the employer's group health plan at the same group rate. Public Act 92-158 extended the time period for such continuation coverage from 78 weeks to 104 weeks.
We are replying to your letters of January 14, 1993 and January 22, 1993 in which you ask whether the Governor has the constitutional and statutory authority to execute without legislative approval a Memorandum of Understanding between the State and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe regarding the installation and operation of video slot machines (i.e., video facsimile games as defined in that Memorandum and the Federal Procedures to which it refers) at Foxwoods Casino at Ledyard, and whether the Secretary of the Interior has to approve the agreement or take any action relating to it
This is in response to your letter of September 11, 1992 in which you relate that the State Teachers' Retirement Board has requested an opinion of this office on the following question: Does the Veterans' Reemployment Rights Act preserve a right for persons covered by the Act to purchase retirement service credit in the State Teachers' Retirement System under the terms of the state law governing such purchases of service credit as were in effect when such persons were inducted into the Armed Forces?
You have requested a formal opinion from this office as to whether the Department of Administrative Service's ("DAS") use of private collection agencies on a contingency fee basis would be in violation of Conn.Gen.Stat. § 4-100 or any other section of the General Statutes of Connecticut.
This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1992 in which you relate that the State Employees' Retirement Commission's Subcommittee on Purchase of Service and Related Matters has requested an opinion from this office on the entitlement of Tier I hazardous duty members to obtain retirement credit for a leave of absence for service in the armed forces during peacetime, pursuant to the Veterans' Reemployment Rights Act.
This letter is in response to your memorandum of August 4, 1992, in which you requested our opinion concerning the meaning and enforcement of Conn. Gen. Stat. §3-112.
We understand from the correspondence which you provided with your memorandum that you have requested information and documentation from the Department of Revenue Services ("DRS") concerning the agency's processing of state income tax refunds. In particular, you have requested information concerning the numbers of refunds processed, when they were processed, how they were processed and the estimated number of refunds still pending. You have also inquired into possible reasons for any delays including any instructions which the agency may have given or received to delay the refund process or to separate refunds based on their face amount, and any hardware or software problems which may have occurred.
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 ... ?"
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."
This is in reply to your request for our opinion of whether the Central Connecticut State University Alumni Association, Inc. (hereinafter "the Association") is a "foundation" as defined by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-37e(2). Foundation status would subject the Association to the requirements of Chapter 47 of the General Statutes (Conn. Gen. Stat. §§4-37e - 4-37i), including possibly full audits by the State Auditors.
In your letter of June 5, 1992, you requested our opinion regarding the validity of certain legislation proposed by the Department Of Income Maintenance (DIM). That legislation would require any recipient, or any attorney representing such an individual, who initiates a legal action against a third party for recovery of medical expenses, to report the filing of that suit to the Department of Income Maintenance.
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.
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 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.
I am writing in response to your request for an advisory opinion regarding the imposition of sales and use taxes on certain utility companies' purchases of goods to be installed in state facilities in performance of energy conservation measures mandated by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16a-37a and 1991 Conn. Pub. Act No. 91-6 (June Spec. Sess.).
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."
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.
This will respond to your request for an opinion of the Attorney General concerning political activity of commissioners of the Public Utility Control Authority. The provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-5 provide that a commissioner may be removed for: "Misconduct, material neglect of duty, incompetence in the conduct of his office, or active participation in political management or campaigns by any commissioner.... In particular you ask whether the following two scenarios present violations: attendance at dinners, or social events (1) in connection with financial contributions to political parties or candidates of such political parties for public office; or (2) in connection with the affairs of the political parties or their candidates, without regard to any financial contributions.
This is in response to your recent request for an opinion on whether the Division of Special Revenue must conduct a hearing, under the provisions of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), prior to revoking a lottery agent's license1 for failure to meet pre-established minimum sales levels for on-line and instant lottery ticket sales.2 Specifically, you inquire as to whether a lottery license is a "license" as that term is contemplated by the UAPA. We also understand that a question is raised as to the practical need for a hearing inasmuch as evidence of sales levels is documented and, presumably, incontestable.
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.
This letter is in response to your request, dated June 10, 1992, for our opinion concerning access by researchers to identifiable bail commission information.
This is in response to your request for a formal opinion regarding the question whether municipalities of this state may utilize the services of an independent contractor, such as a collection agency, to aid municipal officials in collecting delinquent taxes.
In your March 16, 1992 letter, you have sought this Office's advice as to whether a consumer may access the Home Improvement Guaranty Fund on more than one occasion against the same contractor.
This is in response to your request for our opinion on whether it is a violation of Chapter 376 of the Connecticut General Statutes for a chiropractor to bill patients and/or seek insurance reimbursement for "physical therapy" services, as opposed to chiropractic services, provided to patients.
By letter of February 4, 1992. you requested an opinion of the Attorney General on the State's ability to pursue statutory support obligations against the community (non-institutionalized) spouse of an institutionalized Medicaid patient, in view of certain provisions contained in the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (MCCA), Pub.L. 100-360.
This letter is in response to your letter of March 12, 1992, in which you requested our opinion on the following issue: Is there any lawful basis upon which a municipality may refuse to meet the requirements of a state law when compliance with the law will result in costs to the municipality which are not reimbursed or otherwise borne by the state?
You have requested the opinion of the Attorney General as to whether you have the authority to provide state reimbursement to a town that fails to meet the requirement that two-thirds of the employable general assistance recipients participate in a work or education program in accordance with § 17-281a(a). Conn.Gen.Stat. § 17-281a(f); § 17-292.
In your letter of February 27, 1992, you posed the question whether the filing of an annual report by a trustee under mortgage may be waived by the Banking Commissioner.
We are in receipt of a letter dated December 3, 1991, from the Commission's Administrator, John C. Ford, with an attached letter dated October 21, 1991, from Dr. Roger J. Harris. The issue on which you seek our guidance is whether the Commission must conduct an administrative hearing on the individual's application based upon the oral surgeon's letter dated October 21, 1991, which your agency interprets as a request for such a hearing.
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.
The issue addressed in this opinion is whether Special Revenue Investigators may carry firearms.1 Special Revenue Investigators are employed by the Division of Special Revenue (DOSR) to investigate violations of the state's legalized gambling laws. In addition, they are statutorily granted the powers of State Police to make arrests for criminal offenses2 arising from the operation or conduct of the State's off-track betting and lottery.
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.
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.
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?
You have requested our opinion whether the Office of Policy and Management ("OPM") must provide a grant under Conn.Gen.Stat. § 12-170d1 to persons who are minor children living with their parents.
You have requested our advice on two questions: (1) Whether under Conn.Gen.Stat. § 12-19a(a), a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (P.I.L.O.T.) grant is payable to a town for a correctional facility if such facility is not on the town's assessment list on the preceding October 1? (2) Whether Public Act No. 91-79, applies to towns that conducted revaluations prior to October 1, 1990 and currently are phasing in such revaluations?
This is in response to your recent request1 for an opinion on whether there exists legislative authority for the Division of Special Revenue to institute a "cash" lotto in addition to the other lottery games currently conducted by, or under the authority of, the Division.
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.
This is in response to your request for advice regarding treatment rendered by emergency medical personnel. As we understand it, there have been a number of instances recently where it has come to the attention of the Office of Emergency Medical Services within the Department of Health Services that emergency medical personnel1 have rendered treatment in circumstances not limited to their employment by a licensed ambulance company or as vol
