The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 30 of 42
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
The Honorable Nancy Wyman, Comptroller, 1997-017 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
We have reviewed your request for guidance concerning questions you have raised regarding Social Security (FICA) payments for Special Deputy Sheriffs.
-
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 for an opinion with regard to the implementation of Public Act No. 94-83, An Act Implementing the Recommendations of the Telecommunications Task Force.
-
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 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.
-
Alan S. Plofsky, State Ethics Commission, 1997-010 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
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 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.
-
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.
-
You have asked for our opinion about whether you have correctly interpreted two aspects of Conn. Gen. Stat.
-
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).