The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 25 of 42
-
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.
-
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?”
-
Commissioner Shaun B. Cashman, 2005-027, Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
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”).
-
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.
-
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”).
-
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.
-
Honorable J. Robert Galvin, M.D., M.P.H., 2005-023 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.