The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
2001 Formal Opinions
Page 2 of 2
-
By letter of June 14, 2000, the Department of Revenue Services ("DRS") requested an opinion from my office as to whether a telephone recording system ("the system"), which the Collections and Enforcement Division ("C&E") of the DRS intends to implement, is in compliance with Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d(a). Your agency also asked several other questions relating to implementation of the system.
-
You have forwarded questions from members of your staff related to operation "Stand Down." Specifically, you inquire whether the agency is authorized to fund Stand Down when it is possible that individuals may attend who are not "veterans," as defined in state statute. You also inquire about the potential liability of your Department in the event of misconduct by a Stand Down program participant in the form of an assault on another Stand Down participant.
-
You have asked the extent of the responsibility and potential liability of the Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter "DEP"), regarding the marking, through signage (beacons) and/or barrier floats, of potentially hazardous state-owned dams. The issue involved affects 15 to 20 sites statewide. This opinion is limited to water retention dams only.
-
You have requested our advice regarding your obligations under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-61dd, known as the "whistleblower" statute. You have explained that, in the course of reviewing a whistleblower complaint, you have obtained access to client records from the Office of Protection and Advocacy.
-
In your June 26, 2001 letter you request our opinion as to whether P.A. 01-141, §4 authorizes the Board of Trustees for the Connecticut State University System (CSUS) to establish, subject to authorization by the Board of Governors of Higher Education, a pilot education doctoral program to be conducted at one of its institutions only or whether such a doctoral program may be conducted at more than one of its institutions.
-
You have asked whether the expenditure of state funds to pay for costs related to the nursing home strike, including the cost of mobilizing the National Guard and the expedited payment to nursing home operators of the cost of replacement workers, would violate any state or federal labor laws.
-
This letter is in response to your request for a formal opinion concerning the effect of the federal Extradition Act, 18 U.S.C. §3182 et. seq., and the Interstate Transportation of Dangerous Criminals Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-560, 114 Stat. 2784 (2000), on the Department of Public Safety’s ability to enforce the provisions of Chapter 534 of the Connecticut General Statutes. Chapter 534 governs the licensing of private security companies that provide private prisoner transportation services for the State of Connecticut and requires a special permit if the individuals providing such services carry firearms in the course of duty.
-
You have inquired whether the provisions of Special Act No. 01-7 (S.A. 01-7), and in particular Section 5 of the Special Act, empower the Hartford School Building Committee, created by the Special Act, to hire a school construction or program manager of its choosing, without having to comply with the strictures and mandates of the Hartford City Charter and various municipal ordinances or regulations addressing the purchase of goods and professional services by the city.
-
In your letter dated October 9, 2001 you requested an opinion of this office as to whether the State Marshal Commission has the authority to institute a policy and procedure for the service of restraining orders by state marshals.
-
You have asked whether the Division of Criminal Justice or the Office of Attorney General should represent the State's interests in matters concerning Youth in Crisis ("YIC"), brought under Public Act 00-177.
-
You have asked whether annual legislative approval would be required for legislation allocating unappropriated surplus funds under article third, §18(c) of the Connecticut Constitution.
-
I am writing in response to your request for a formal opinion regarding the effect of E-Sign (Public Law 106-229; Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act) on Connecticut’s electronic records and signatures laws.
-
This is in response to your letter dated December 4, 2000, in which you request our opinion on whether judicial marshals who transport prisoners in motor vehicles between various facilities within the State of Connecticut are required to have a special operator's license.