The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 6 of 42
-
This is in reply to your letter of March 13, 1990. You ask whether the following provision included in Conn. Gen. Stat. e 19a-460(a) (Rev. to 1989), amended by P.A. 89-325, e 21, is an unconstitutional infringement upon the executive branch: The department of mental retardation shall be under the supervision of a commissioner of mental retardation, who shall be appointed by the governor in accordance with the provisions of sections 4-5 to 4-8, inclusive, on recommendation of the council on mental retardation. The question is directed to the last phrase of this sentence, "on recommendation of the council on mental retardation."
-
You have asked for our opinion whether the provisions of 1987 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 87-554, Sec. 10.(c), now Conn. Gen. Stat. e 54-211(c), should be applied retroactively to a claim which arose prior to the effective date of the act.
-
This is in response to your request for advice dated November 16, 1989 in which you ask "whether the unclassified employees of a board of trustees of any constituent unit of the state system of higher education who are members of ARP are actually subject to the dictates of this arbitration award, [on state employees retirement benefits] specifically Issue 17 ... which mandated that the members of the Alternate Retirement Program (ARP) be provided with Social Security coverage effective July 1, 1989."
-
In your letter dated January 24, 1990, you request our advice on the Bureau's implementation of 1989 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 89-259. Public Acts No. 89-259 contains provisions for certification of telecommunicators as well as provisions for automatic certification of telecommunicators who meet special requirements.
-
In your letter of August 9, 1990, you call our attention to the provisions of P.A. 90-261, Sec. 5 and ask our advice with regard to the following two questions: 1. Does Section 5 of the Act apply retroactively, i.e., are all persons incarcerated "as of" October 1, 1990 who meet all other specified criteria, eligible to be considered for parole under the Act. 2. Does the Act permit the Board to consider for parole persons who are already serving their sentences in either Community Release or Community Residence (SHR) programs.
-
You have requested an opinion on the following questions: l. Does legislation which changes the terms and conditions of loan forgiveness programs apply to borrowers who signed promissory notes prior to the enactment of such legislation? 2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, under what circumstances may the terms of the promissory notes be changed; and 3. Which of the changes made in the l986 legislation would apply to pre-l986 borrowers; and 4. For those provisions which do apply, what is the effective date for applying the changed provisions.
-
In your letter of June 19, 1990, you refer us to 1990 Conn Pub. Acts, 90-120 e2 and seek our interpretation of the meaning of the phrase "police officers who have managerial duties."
-
We are writing in response to your letter dated February 22, 1990, in which you request our advice about the constitutionality of the residency requirements and waiting periods contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. ee 27-103 and 27-122b, two state statutes concerning veterans' benefits. We are also responding to your oral request, based upon your responsibilities under Conn. Gen. Stat. e27- 102l(c)(4),1 for our opinion on the constitutionality of the residency requirement found in Conn. Gen. Stat. e 27-104, which is contained in Part II of Chapter 506.
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion from this office regarding the constitutionality of provisions of the proposed interstate banking bill which would set interest rate caps on credit cards as a condition of entry by out-of-state bank holding companies, out-of-state savings and loan holding companies, out-of-state banks, out-of-state savings banks, and out-of-state savings and loan associations.
-
This is in response to your recent request for an opinion on the self-defense rights of liquor control agents. Specifically, you ask whether self-defense rights are greater if exercised in the "workplace", and you ask us for a definition of the workplace for agents.
-
By memoranda dated October 20, 1989, you asked for a formal opinion on whether there are any statutes which prohibit towns from imposing "special exception" zoning permit requirements on family day care homes that are registered by the Department of Human Resources.
-
In a letter dated May 29, 1990, you request our advice on the effect of 1989 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 89-255 e4(c) on the plan review application and permit procedures and issuance of certificates of occupancy sections of the Connecticut State Building Code. Your questions appear to be directed primarily at the scope of the independent engineering consultant review required by 1989 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 89-255.
-
In a letter to our office from your predecessor, our advice is requested on the authority of the codes and standards committee to review the actions of the state building inspector taken pursuant to General Statutes e 29-200.
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion from this office regarding the constitutionality of provisions of the proposed interstate banking bill which would set interest rate caps on credit cards as a condition of entry by out-of-state bank holding companies, out-of-state savings and loan holding companies, out-of-state banks, out-of-state savings banks, and out-of-state savings and loan associations.
-
In your letter dated June 1, 1990, you requested the opinion of this office as to whether any person designated by you as a serving officer to collect money owed the Unemployment Compensation Fund would be entitled to a statutory right of indemnification. Specifically you inquire as to whether there is a right to indemnification from financial loss and expense from the state for any negligence or civil rights violations arising from such a person's actions while functioning as a serving officer.