The Office of Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 1 of 41
-
This is in response to your request for advice dated November 16, 1989 in which you ask "whether the unclassified employees of a board of trustees of any constituent unit of the state system of higher education who are members of ARP are actually subject to the dictates of this arbitration award, [on state employees retirement benefits] specifically Issue 17 ... which mandated that the members of the Alternate Retirement Program (ARP) be provided with Social Security coverage effective July 1, 1989."
-
In your letter dated June 25, 1990, you requested our opinion on the following questions regarding the meaning of subsection (g) of Section 7-147b of the Connecticut General Statutes: If the possible creation of a local historic district is being considered by a municipality under Conn. Gen. Stat. §7-147a and 7-147b, and if a municipality owns real property within the proposed local historic district, is the municipality's legislative body entitled to vote, under Conn. Gen. Stat. §7-147b(g), on the proposed establishment of the district? Under the circumstances described in (1) above, would community members, either those in the municipality as a whole or only those within the proposed historic district, be entitled to cast a vote as collective owners of the municipal property in a vote taken under Conn. Gen. Stat. §7-147b(g)?
-
As Chairman of the Bridgeport Financial Review Board ("the Board"), you requested my opinion on the legal authority of the City of Bridgeport to file for relief under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy code without the approval of the Board.
-
In your letter of July 30, 1991, you asked our opinion on the following issue: In those situations where a registered nurse has determined and pronounced the death of a patient pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes, § 20-101a, do the statutes require a licensed physician to view and examine the body when preparing the medical certification potion of the death certificate?
-
James A. Gasecki, Sheriffs' Advisory Board, 1994-016 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
In your letter of June 19, 1990, you refer us to 1990 Conn Pub. Acts, 90-120 e2 and seek our interpretation of the meaning of the phrase "police officers who have managerial duties."
-
This is in reply to your September 17, 1991 letter, renewing your earlier request for an opinion on August 9, 1991. In that letter, you asked "whether the Governor may act, through executive order, to appropriate and expend state monies by authorizing the continuation of government operations."
-
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.
-
We are in receipt of a letter dated June 6, 1990 from your department, wherein you request our opinion on an issue concerning Conn. Gen. Stat. §54-132 et. seq., the Interstate Compact for Parole and Probation Supervision. Specifically you question "whether or not it is necessary to obtain a warrant from a Connecticut court, in addition to that of the sending state, in order to take custody of and confine an out-of-state probationer in a Connecticut correctional facility until he/she can be returned to the sending state."
-
By letter dated November 27, 1990 you have asked two questions raised as a result of a request of a member of the State Teachers' Retirement System who has not received any retirement benefit payments since his retirement in 1986. The first question concerns whether retirement benefits can be paid to the member retroactively to 1986 pursuant to a payment plan which he selected in June, 1990, which differs from a payment plan which he previously had on file with the Board in 1986. The second question is whether the Board may pay interest at a reasonable rate from the time each payment was due until the date payment is made.
-
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).