The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 31 of 42
-
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 ask whether payment of reimbursement expenses incurred by state employees is subject to wage garnishment under Conn. Gen. Stat.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 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.
-
Judge Aaron Ment, Supreme Court Building, 1996-011 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
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.?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
John F. Merchant, Esq., 1996-007 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
I have reviewed the relevant statutes applicable to your appointment as Consumer Counsel and the term of your office.
-
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.
-
John Meeker, Chairman, Board of Parole, 1996-015 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
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.
-
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").