2004 Formal Opinions
Page 1 of 2
Diane Goss Farrell & Kenneth M. McKeever, Esq. , Town of Westport & Town of Lyme , 2004-006 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
I write in response to your letters, which request my interpretation of Connecticut's General Statutes as they pertain to the legality of same sex marriages in our state. Specifically, you wish to know whether local officials may issue marriage licenses to, or perform marriage ceremonies for, same sex couples.
Gerald D. Farrell, Jr., Chairman , State Marshal Commission , 2004-005 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
In separate letters to us you requested our advice on two questions concerning indemnification of state marshals. Your first question seeks our opinion on whether state marshals serving capias warrants on behalf of Support Enforcement Services are entitled to indemnification by the State of Connecticut. Your second question asks whether state marshals who train new appointees would be indemnified under Connecticut General Statutes § 4-165.
Hon. Joan V. Hartley, Co-Chair, Higher Education and Employment Committee, Hon. Nancy E. Kerensky, Co-Chair, Higher Education and Employment Committee, 2004-013 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have asked for an advisory opinion concerning the appointment of members to the Connecticut Employment and Training Commission ("CETC"). The CETC has been designated Connecticut's state workforce investment board (board) pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-3h(b)(5), which implements the federal Workforce Investment Act of 1998, P.L. 105-200 ("WIA") Sec. 111(b)(1)(C). You have asked whether restrictions on appointments to the board contained in § 31-3i(b) conflict with appointment provisions of WIA, and if so, whether the state statutory provisions are preempted by the federal law.
Honorable Darlene Dunbar, MSW, Department of Children and Families, 2004-014 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have asked for an opinion interpreting Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-101i(a) regarding the Department's obligation to notify and provide records to an employing superintendent of schools when it has substantiated abuse of a child by certain school employees. Specifically, you are requesting a determination as to whether the applicable notification requirements apply to abuse of any child or only to abuse of a child who is a student in the employing school or school system.
Honorable Marc Ryan, Secretary, Office of Policy and Management, 2004-016 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
This letter responds to your August 3, 2004 amended request for a formal opinion as to whether Dr. D. Ray Sirry, the Juan F. Court Monitor, would be entitled to indemnification from the State in connection with services he has agreed to provide to the State to assist it in implementing reforms at the Connecticut Juvenile Training School (CJTS).
J. Robert Galvin, M.D., M.P.H., Commissioner, Department of Public Health, Robert M. Murphy, N.D., Chairman, Connecticut State Board of Natureopathic Examiners, 2004-015 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
In response to then Commissioner Joxel Garcia's and Chairman Murphy's requests, this is a formal opinion responding to the following questions: 1) Does "phototherapy" as used in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-34, incorporate the use of "laser therapy equipment"?; 2) Does the State Board of Natureopathic Examiners have the authority to expand its scope of practice either with or without the consent of the Commissioner?; 3) Does the Department of Health's use of the 1997 Connecticut Medical Examining Board's "declaratory ruling on use of hair removal" to prohibit a licensed natureopathic physician from employing laser hair removal constitute an unfair restriction of trade?
John Suchy, Director - Liquor Control Division, Department of Consumer Protection, 2004-022 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
This is in response to your request for an opinion on the lawfulness of a proposed entertainment program at liquor permit premises involving the playing of poker for prizes. The proposal comes in the wake of recent announcements outlawing the betting on poker tournaments due to criminal laws against gambling.
Robert S. Rudewicz, State Marshal Commission, 2004-017 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
A recent inquiry from the City of Waterbury has brought to our attention that some marshals are charging a fee of fifteen per cent of the amount of taxes collected for the service of alias tax warrants under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-261 as amended by Public Act No.03-224.
Susan G. Townsley, Division of Special Revenue, 2004-001 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
This is in response to your request for a reconsideration of a previous informal opinion, and request for a formal opinion, on whether you can give permission to Autotote Enterprises, Inc. (AEI) to install Color Tiny TIMs (CTTs) and Hand Held Personal Account Terminals (PATs) at the Mohegan Sun Race Book under the terms of the Mohegan Tribe – State of Connecticut Gaming Compact.
Susan G. Townsley, Division of Special Revenue, 2004-007 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
This is in response to your request for an opinion on whether your agency, consistent with the law, can approve a proposal by the Connecticut Lottery Corporation ("CLC") to launch a new lottery game with a "Treasure Island" theme featuring a novel second chance drawing feature.
The Honorable Jodi Rell, Office of the Governor, 2004-010 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have asked me to determine whether the Ethics Commission adhered to applicable state statutes and regulations when it informed Alan Plofsky, the Commission's Executive Director, of the Commission's desire to suspend him without pay for two weeks as a result of remarks he made on June 3, 2004, to the League of Women voters concerning former Governor Rowland.
The Honorable Kevin B. Sullivan, Connecticut General Assembly, 2004-003 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have asked for a formal legal opinion regarding the recommendation by the Judicial Selection Commission of Joseph Mengacci for nomination as a judge. You ask specifically what actions constitute "consideration" of a candidate's application by the Judicial Selection Commission (hereinafter "Commission"). As you set forth in your letter, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-44a(l) prohibits a former Commission member from being "considered for recommendation to the governor for nomination as a judge" for two years after termination of his tenure on the Commission.
The Honorable Linda Schwartz, Department of Veterans' Affairs, 2004-021 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have raised several questions concerning the statutes governing the establishment and activities of the Soldiers', Sailors' and Marines' Fund (&quo;Fund"), as well as the current operation of the Fund. In particular, you have inquired whether: i) these statutes' apparent delegation of public functions to a private agency, in this instance the American Legion, violates constitutional principles; ii) whether current law restricts expending Fund assets for administrative expenses; and iii) whether the law would permit the Department of Veterans' Affairs ("DVA") to conduct the intake and processing of veterans' applications for benefits from the Fund.
The Honorable Marc S. Ryan, Office of Policy and Management, 2004-004 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
In June 2000, the Office of Policy and Management retained Spaulding & Slye ("S&S") as a consultant to assist in the development and marketing of the Norwich State Hospital property. The 2000 contract also gave S&S the right to offer to purchase the property. The contract with Spaulding & Slye terminated in December 2003 and in March 2004 OPM issued a Request for Proposals ("RFP") for the purchase and development of the hospital property. In a letter dated March 3, 2004 you have asked whether Spaulding & Slye may submit a proposal in response to the RFP and what the state's legal exposure would be from other bidders if S&S is allowed to submit a proposal or from S&S if a bid from them is precluded. Subsequently on March 5, 2004, you also asked whether the state may place a restriction on the property prohibiting it from being annexed by an Indian Tribe.
The Honorable Marc S. Ryan, Office of Policy and Management, 2004-009 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
As you have described in prior communications, including your recent letter to me dated April 28, 2004, the Office of Policy and Management ("OPM") and the Department of Public Works ("DPW") have been attempting to make an appropriate and beneficial disposition of certain surplus State property, namely the property and facilities known as the Norwich State Hospital (the "Hospital"). You previously requested and received from me a formal opinion (dated April 12, 2004) treating certain questions regarding the legal ramifications of allowing a consultant to the State, named Spaulding & Slye, to submit a competitive proposal for its own purchase and development of the Hospital after it had worked for many months, under contract to the State, studying the possible development and sale of the Hospital, and helping to solicit and evaluate proposals for the property from other parties.