The Office of Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 19 of 41
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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 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.
-
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 ask whether payment of reimbursement expenses incurred by state employees is subject to wage garnishment under Conn. Gen. Stat.
-
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
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.