The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
1995 Formal Opinions
Page 1 of 3
-
You have requested an opinion regarding the applicability of the Freedom of Information Act ["FOIA"], Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-7 et seq., to the Connecticut Student Loan Foundation ["CSLF"]. Specifically, the issue you raised is whether the CSLF is a public agency subject to the public records and meeting requirements of the FOIA.
-
Honorable John G. Rowland, State Capitol, 1995-028 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
This advisory opinion responds to your letter of September 25, 1995. That letter asks whether you may "nominate a sitting associate justice of the [Supreme] Court to succeed Chief Justice Peters if the associate justice in question's name is not on the list of eligible candidates for the position provided ... by the Judicial Selection Commission?"
-
On February 17, 1995, you requested an opinion of this office on whether or not seven individuals appointed by former Governor Weicker are qualified to serve as members of the Employees' Review Board, and the terms they can serve if they are qualified.
-
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 have written to this office seeking an opinion on the eligibility of a trustee to vote at a school district meeting. In your letter you relate that the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-6 apply to this voters' meeting, which is a type of referendum as defined in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-1(n)(2). Section 7-6 permits "any citizen" to vote who is 18 or older and who is "liable" to the town or district on property assessed at one thousand dollars or more.
-
You have asked for our opinion on whether the provisions of Special Act 95-12 preclude you from entering into a contract with Corporate Express, a private corporation, for a statewide direct delivery service for office supplies.
-
Recently, it has come to the attention of this office that certain retail firearms dealers have advertised that customers may purchase handguns until October 1, 1995 without a permit to carry such weapons, and without an eligibility certificate. This "policy" is apparently prompted by their interpretation of the interplay between Connecticut General Statutes §§ 29-33 and 29-36j. The purpose of this letter is to (1) clarify the relationship between these two statutes, and (2) afford the Department of Public Safety appropriate guidance concerning the proper implementation of the statutes' provisions.
-
Hon. John G. Rowland, Executive Chambers, 1995-008 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
We have received your letters of February 8, 1995, soliciting our opinion on issues concerning temporary gubernatorial appointments arising from the application of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-7(b)(2). Specifically, you both ask whether a "designate" under § 4-7(b)(2) must be sworn in pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-1 before exercising the powers and duties of the office.
-
You have requested our opinion regarding the jurisdiction of the Connecticut Siting Council (the "Council") in connection with the proposal of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak") to complete the electrification of the Northeast Corridor rail line from New Haven, Connecticut to Boston, Massachusetts (the "Project"). Specifically, you have asked whether the Federal Railroad Administration (the "FRA") has preempted the Council by its oversight and involvement in the Project, including in particular its preparation and issuance of an environmental impact statement.
-
Hon. John G. Rowland, State of Connecticut, 1995-011 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have asked this office whether, upon passage of Senate Bill No. 158, authorizing the creation of a "commission on the future of gaming in Connecticut," the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe and the Mohegan Tribe (if they commence casino operations) would continue to be obligated to the terms of the Memorandums of Understanding ("MOUs") related to the operation of video facsimile machines at tribal casinos. You have also asked about the State's ability to enforce its agreement with the Tribes, and its ability to prevent any loss of revenue from the monthly contributions made by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe under the agreement.
-
We are responding to your request for advice as to how a December 8, 1994 informal opinion to former Commissioner Nicholas Cioffi regarding the Department of Public Safety Division of Fire, Emergency, and Building Services' civil regulatory jurisdiction over certain activities on the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation ("Reservation") would "impact the services" your agency provides with respect to boxing on the Reservation.
-
You have requested our opinion regarding the scope of the Connecticut Siting Council's (the "Council") jurisdiction over the placement of an FM radio station antenna on an existing community antenna television tower.
-
n your letter of November 7, 1995, you asked several questions concerning the relationship between the University of Connecticut and the University of Connecticut Foundation. You have asked three specific questions. First: May University employees work under the direction of the Foundation, with the Foundation reimbursing the University for the salary and fringe benefits of these employees? Second: May the Foundation utilize money received from the University for fund-raising services to repay its obligations (including salaries) to the University? Third: May the University provide services, such as computer support services, to the Foundation at no cost?
-
In your letter of December 7, 1994 you seek our advice with regard to two questions related to the provisions of P.A. 93-219. 1. Is an inmate who is subject to Section 10 of the Act and who under your letter of November 23 must serve the full term imposed by the court unreduced by any good time credits and who is in the custody of the Commissioner of Correction on the date he or she historically would have been discharged entitled to be mandatorily paroled by the Parole Board and then subject to its supervision for the remainder of the full term imposed by the sentencing court? 2. For those persons who are serving sentences for which there is no parole eligibility, but who may be eligible for community release under the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-100c, are they entitled to be mandatorily transferred to community supervision on the date they historically would have been discharged?
-
You have requested our opinion regarding the legal status of a tower to be used by WHUS, the radio station funded by student activity fees at the University of Connecticut at Storrs (the "University"). Specifically, you have asked whether the tower, on which the Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police (the "State Police") intends to place telecommunications equipment, is "owned or operated by the state" within the meaning of the Public Utility Environmental Standards Act ("PUESA"), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-50i(a)(6).