The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 35 of 42
-
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.
-
This is in response to your letter of September 11, 1992 in which you relate that the State Teachers' Retirement Board has requested an opinion of this office on the following question: Does the Veterans' Reemployment Rights Act preserve a right for persons covered by the Act to purchase retirement service credit in the State Teachers' Retirement System under the terms of the state law governing such purchases of service credit as were in effect when such persons were inducted into the Armed Forces?
-
In your letter of August 12, 1993, you relate that by a Resolve of May, 1824, a Borough of Newtown was created. Subsequently the General Assembly passed 1931 Special Act No. 290 and 1953 Special Act No. 106 also relating to the formation of this borough. You ask three questions relating to this borough. First you ask whether the borough may be dissolved. Secondly you ask the procedure in accomplishing this dissolution. Thirdly you ask what legal requirements are imposed upon the officials of the borough to assist residents in bringing about dissolution.
-
We are writing in response to your letter of February 19, 1991 in which you request our advice concerning whether certain physicians and psychologists, who serve as "medical consultants" and "psychological/psychiatric consultants'' to the Division of Rehabilitation Services and who are hired pursuant to personal services agreements, are immune from personal liability pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 4-165.
-
This is in response to your letter of July 22, 1991, in which you seek our opinion on whether the Department of Transportation ("DOT") has the authority to cancel the unexpended balance of purchase orders that the DOT has issued to Hartford Paving Inc. ("Hartford Paving") for bridge painting services under Contract Award No. 89--A-13-1054-C. You further ask whether the DOT can avoid contracting with Hartford Paving on future painting projects and instead use other companies listed in the contract award.
-
This is in response to a request by former Commissioner Heslin for an opinion of the Attorney General concerning whether a board or commission member who is disqualified from acting and voting on a particular matter because of a conflict of interest, may, for the purposes of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-7(6), be counted in determining if a quorum of such board or commission is present to legally act.
-
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.
-
By letter dated February 26, 1993 you have asked for our advice as to whether an increase in the amount of money appropriated to municipalities under the Education Cost Sharing (ECS) grant program (Conn. Gen. Stat. e10-262h) which has been recommended by the governor for SFY 1993-94 is properly counted as a "general budget expenditure" for the purposes of determining whether the authorized expenditure limitation imposed by Conn. Gen. Stat. e2-33a, commonly known as "the spending cap", will be exceeded.
-
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.
-
We are writing in response to your letter of October 27, 1993 in which you request our advice on the question of whether the proceeds of a sale of certain pistols, the "Van Syckel Dragoons" (the "firearms"), by the State Library Board (the "Board") in connection with the deaccession of the firearms from the collection of the Raymond E. Baldwin Museum of Connecticut History, must be used exclusively for the purpose of furthering or of enhancing the Museum's collections of Colt materials.
-
We are replying to your letters of January 14, 1993 and January 22, 1993 in which you ask whether the Governor has the constitutional and statutory authority to execute without legislative approval a Memorandum of Understanding between the State and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe regarding the installation and operation of video slot machines (i.e., video facsimile games as defined in that Memorandum and the Federal Procedures to which it refers) at Foxwoods Casino at Ledyard, and whether the Secretary of the Interior has to approve the agreement or take any action relating to it
-
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has asked for an opinion analyzing the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (the Act) 42 U.S.C. § 5101 and regulations issued under that Act in relation to state law, particularly Conn. Gen. Stat. § l9a-570 et seq. Specifically, HHS questions whether Connecticut law meets the requirement imposed by the federal statutory mandates regarding critically-ill children.
-
This will respond to your request for advice regarding how the Second Injury Fund should proceed on the administration of Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 31-284b, 31-349(e) and (f) in light of the United States Supreme Court's recent ruling in District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Board of Trade, _U.S._, 113 S. Ct. 580 (1992) (hereinafter referred to as Board of Trade).
-
This is in response to your letter of April 1, 1993 to this office in which you ask whether an active state employee who is currently a member of the State Employees Retirement System is barred from collecting a pension from the Judge's Retirement System while serving as a state employee.
-
This is in response to your letter dated July 23, 1993, wherein you asked our opinion concerning the application of Public Act 93-288 (the Act) to cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for certain injured employees and their dependants.