The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 11 of 42
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
2017-02 Formal Opinion, Attorney General, State of Connecticut
Governor Malloy has requested an opinion, in light of the enactment of Special Act 15-7 and the subsequent developments pursuant to it, of the risks associated with moving forward with the process for authorizing a casino gaming facility operated by an entity jointly owned by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation (MPTN) and the Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut (Mohegan) (collectively, Tribes).
-
Consumer Counsel Healey, Formal Opinion 2011-007,State of Connecticut Attorney General
Opinion regarding Department of Energy and Environmental Protection request that Public Utilities Regulatory Authority suspend proceedings in pending contested proceeding
-
Thank you for your letter requesting my opinion on two questions: (1) whether the Judicial Review Council (“the Council”) has jurisdiction over misconduct committed by acting workers’ compensation commissioners appointed on a per diem basis pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-280(a)
-
You asked for a formal opinion concerning the Superior Court’s scope of review in an appeal of a municipal commission's decision on an affordable housing application under the Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Procedure set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. §8-30g.
-
You have asked for a formal opinion whether the State of Connecticut satisfies the requirements of § 413 of the Justice for All Act of 2004 (the Act).
-
You have asked for our opinion whether federal and state law permits a municipality to operate a Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Section 8 housing program outside of its geographical area.
-
I appreciated your September 25, 2007 letter raising additional questions about the Department's responsibilities under the federal Low Income House Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
-
Your agency has requested our legal advice concerning the impact of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-38aa et. seq., on eligibility for certain programs of the Department of Social Services.
-
In response to questions raised by the Auditors of Public Accounts related to a whistleblower complaint, you have asked my opinion on two related questions concerning the Department of Social Services’ (the Department or DSS) administration of the federal Low Income House Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) in Connecticut, by and through Community Action Agencies
-
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion as to whether, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 5-259, municipalities may purchase risk-pooled, self-funded health insurance through the Municipal Employees Health Insurance Plan
-
You have asked for advice on whether inmates working within a correctional institution other than as part of an enterprise program combining State Use Industries with Private Sector Prison Industries may be considered employees of the Connecticut Department of Correction
-
This letter responds to your request for a formal opinion on “whether or not the Board of Pardons has the authority to commute a non-parole eligible offense, as defined by CGS § 54-125a(b)(1), to make it a parole eligible offense.”