The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
2005 Formal Opinions
Page 1 of 3
-
Honorable J. Robert Galvin, M.D., M.P.H., 2005-023 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
Your department has requested our opinion as to the authority of a local health department to conduct warrantless inspections and its authority to issue "hold" orders on food items.
-
I write to advise you that you can and should release all information concerning provider rate reimbursement. You have the authority to disclose such provider rate reimbursement information that has been produced to you by Medicaid Managed Care Organizations (“MCOs”). You should reject assertions by the MCOs that the information must be kept confidential under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and the terms of their contracts with the Department of Social Services (“DSS”).
-
In my opinion, there is no legal distinction between a PSA and a POS, even though the Office of Policy and Management (“OPM”) may choose to establish certain administrative procedures treating these types of agreements differently; they are both valid vehicles for entering into binding State contracts.
-
This will acknowledge and reply to your request on behalf of the State Apprenticeship Council (SAC) for a formal opinion concerning the propriety of the issuance of apprenticeship registrations by an agency other than the Department of Labor (DOL), in particular the State Apprenticeship Council (SAC) or the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP).
-
You have requested our advice on whether you have the authority to place offenders serving sentences of two years or less into halfway houses pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-100c prior to completion of one-half of their sentences. You also seek our advice on whether you are prevented, by statute, from transferring offenders serving sentences greater than two years to a halfway house prior to completion of one-half of the sentence imposed.
-
You have asked for a formal opinion on whether you have the authority to continue a long standing practice of allowing "local law enforcement agencies and certain state agencies to use Department of Correction (DOC) firing ranges in order to maintain appropriate certifications for their officers." These ranges are located on the grounds of the Cheshire and Enfield Correctional Institutions." In the past, these agreements were informal, but you indicate that you believe formal written agreements are necessary if the practice is to continue.
-
In your letter dated June 7, 2005, you have asked for advice concerning the length of time for which accessory apartments must be deed-restricted for affordable housing to allow such apartments to be considered in determining whether a town has sufficient existing affordable housing to qualify for a temporary moratorium pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-30g(l). According to your letter, the Town of Trumbull has submitted an application for a moratorium which includes 106 ten year deed restricted accessory apartments.
-
You have requested our advice regarding the scope of the State Building Inspector's authority over local building officials.
-
This is to respond to your request for advice of December 15, 2004 which asks if a participating board of education may charge an administrative fee in addition to the insurance premium charged for coverage selected by a retired teacher. This retiree receives a pension from the State Teachers' Retirement System, but is also covered by health insurance through the retiree's last employing board of education.
-
This is in response to the request for an opinion from your agency on the legality of devices known as "three button slot machines," and whether these devices fall within the definition of "video facsimile" as used in the agreements between the State of Connecticut and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe and Mohegan Tribe. The agreements require the tribes to contribute twenty-five percent of their gross operating revenues from the operation of video facsimile machines at the tribal casinos, provided no other person within the state may lawfully operate "video facsimile games or other commercial casino games."
-
Representative Robert M. Ward, 2005-025, Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have requested a formal legal opinion concerning the protections afforded to members of the General Assembly by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 2-3a, which prohibits discrimination in the workplace against those who hold the office of state senator or representative.
-
You have requested our advice regarding the State Marshal Commission's course of action regarding auditing the records of a deceased marshal. You advised us in your letter that the daughter of a deceased marshal inquired of your office as to whether or not she could "continue to collect on wage executions," which collection had apparently been commenced by her deceased father but had not been completed at the time of his death.
-
Through your General Counsel, Catherine E. LaMarr, you requested an opinion of this Office on a matter concerning the Second Injury Fund and its assessment audit program. At issue is the meaning of the statutory language "from the date the sum should have been paid" with respect to the statutory interest penalty in Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-354(a). You indicate that the Fund has been applying the statutory interest penalty from the beginning of the audit period on any unpaid amounts resulting from accounting errors, reporting errors, or otherwise.
-
This letter responds to your request for a formal opinion on two questions that have arisen in connection with Substitute Senate Bill No. 963, "An Act Concerning Civil Unions" (File No. 24), passed by the Senate on April 6, 2005, and soon to be considered by the House of Representatives.
-
This is in response to your request for an Attorney General's Opinion on whether the disclosure by the Department of Social Services ("DSS") to the Offices of the Connecticut Attorney General and the Connecticut Child Advocate of information concerning Medicaid medical assistance recipients, to be used in an investigation into the liability of insurance companies for the cost of services paid for by Medicaid, is provided for purposes directly connected with the administration of the Medicaid program, and is fully permitted by federal law.