1991 Formal Opinions
Page 2 of 3
-
We are writing in response to your letter dated January 9, 1991, in which you request our advice about the constitutionality of the residency requirement contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10a-77(d)(2), a statute concerning tuition waives for eligible veterans.
-
This is in response to your request for opinion wherein you raise the following issues: In response to a recommendation contained in the most recent report of the Auditors of Public Accounts on the University of Connecticut Health Center, we are examining available options relative to the Health Center's Academic Enhancement Fund.
-
We are in receipt of a letter dated August 28, 1989, from Major John M. Watson wherein our opinion is sought concerning numerous compensation issues relating to highway constriction projects.
-
In your letter, dated February 5, 1991, you requested our opinion concerning whether there are any limitations on a licensed professional engineer's authority to design buildings. You have noted the overlap of practices between architecture and professional engineering2 with regard to design of buildings and have asked us to review this matter.
-
This is in response to your request for advice regarding access to nursing home facilities by patient advocates and ombudsmen. You have asked the following questions: 1. Does an Ombudsman/Patient Advocate have access to a facility to visit, observe conditions and operation only in response to a specific complaint? 2. Must an Ombudsman/Patient Advocate notify the administration or staff of the reason for their presence? 3. Can a facility require that a schedule including date and time of visits be posted with the intent of limiting access? 4. May a facility announce the presence of the Ombudsman/Patient Advocate over the PA system? 5. Can the facility require that a staff person accompany the Ombudsman/Patient Advocate? 6. Can the facility refuse to send an Accident and Incident or A500 report to the Ombudsman Office?
-
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.
-
The issue in this request for opinion is whether the Connecticut General Assembly can, by repealing the authorization for charitable Las Vegas Nights in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-186a et seq., eliminate the right of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe (Tribe) to conduct a casino on its reservation in Ledyard.
-
By letter dated February 20, 1990, your predecessor in office, Commissioner Papandrea, requested our opinion on whether the Department of Housing (DOH) is a public housing agency within the purview of the United States Housing Act of 1937.1 The request was prompted by letters from William H. Hernandez, Jr., Manager of the Hartford Office of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD").
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning the terms of office of Commissioners of the Department of Liquor Control. Specifically, you seek an opinion on the applicability of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-2, which states that Commissioners are to be appointed to staggered, six-year terms.
-
In 1961, the Attorney General's Office issued an opinion to the State Employees' Retirement Commission concerning the interaction between 1961 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 295 and federal Social Security reporting requirements. The opinion concluded that the State must report, for FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) purposes, all fees and salaries, from all sources, paid to sheriffs and chief deputy sheriffs. Former State Comptroller J. Edward Caldwell requested us, by letter dated December 18, 1990, to re-evaluate our 1961 opinion in light of current Social Security laws
-
You have requested our advice on the applicability of 1990 Public Acts No. 90-304, now codified in Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-570d, to the Department of Correction. You specifically ask whether an official of the Department of Correction is a criminal law enforcement official for purposes of the exception contained in subsection (b)(1) of Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-570d.
-
We are in receipt of a letter dated June 6, 1990 from your department, wherein you request our opinion on an issue concerning Conn. Gen. Stat. §54-132 et. seq., the Interstate Compact for Parole and Probation Supervision. Specifically you question "whether or not it is necessary to obtain a warrant from a Connecticut court, in addition to that of the sending state, in order to take custody of and confine an out-of-state probationer in a Connecticut correctional facility until he/she can be returned to the sending state."
-
In your letter dated December 5, 1990, you expressed concern over the extent of the financial responsibility to which the State is potentially exposed pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 28-14.
-
You have requested an opinion of the Attorney General regarding an inquiry from Wesleyan University Office of Public Safety.
-
In a letter dated January 15, 1991, your predecessor requested the opinion of this office regarding two questions concerning the implementation of 1990 Conn. Pub. Acts. No., 90-226 (codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-396 et seq.).