The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 18 of 42
-
You requested an opinion from this office regarding a complaint that was made under the whistleblower statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-61dd. The Division of Special Revenue ("the Division") received a copy of a letter that was filed with the Auditors of Public Accounts under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-61dd. The Division has initiated its own internal investigation into the allegations set forth in the letter. One of the Division's employees, who believes that she has been accused of possible wrongdoing in the letter, has requested a copy of "any documents, notes, or materials, which are the basis for [the Division's] investigation."
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion on whether a greyhound racing association licensee can block the simulcasting of similar racing events during days and times when it is not conducting its own racing events pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §12-571a(c)(1).
-
This is in response to your request for an expedited opinion on whether the Connecticut Lottery Corporation (CLC) may legally sell lottery tickets at a booth within the Connecticut building at this year's Eastern States Exposition in West Springfield, Massachusetts, from September 13-29, 2002.
-
On October 9, 2002, the Freedom of Information Commission (Commission) ruled that the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) was not required to disclose to the public eight documents in CRRA's possession which were the subject of an April 17, 2002, and an April 23, 2002 Freedom of Information Complaint filed by Paul A. Green and the Journal Inquirer. According to the Commission, the eight documents in question either constitute attorney-client communications or relate to CRRA's possible litigation strategy to recover the $220 million loaned to Enron and are, therefore, exempt from public disclosure pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §§1-210(b)(10) and 1-210(b)(4). By letter dated October 11, 2002, you have asked me to obtain from CRRA the eight documents that have not yet been disclosed and release them to the public.
-
The Honorable John G. Rowland, The Capitol, 2002-018 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
On October 9, 2002, the Freedom of Information Commission (Commission) ruled that the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) was not required to disclose to the public eight documents in CRRA's possession which were the subject of an April 17, 2002, and an April 23, 2002 Freedom of Information Complaint filed by Paul A. Green and the Journal Inquirer. According to the Commission, the eight documents in question either constitute attorney-client communications or relate to CRRA's possible litigation strategy to recover the $220 million loaned to Enron and are, therefore, exempt from public disclosure pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §§1-210(b)(10) and 1-210(b)(4). By letter dated October 11, 2002, you have asked me to obtain from CRRA the eight documents that have not yet been disclosed and release them to the public.
-
I am writing in response to your request for a formal opinion as to whether the Department of Banking ("Department") has the authority to reimburse an electronic service provider for reasonable costs associated with complying with an administrative subpoena, in light of the requirements imposed by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 2706 ("ECPA") and section 36b-26(b) of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act ("Act").
-
This is in response to your recent request for an opinion on whether the Division of Special Revenue (DOSR) must review and approve the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Commission's Cashless Wagering System (CWS) for slot machines proposed for use at Mohegan Sun Casino in Uncasville, Connecticut, in advance of implementation.
-
Honorable John G. Rowland, State Capitol, 2002-014 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
I write to supplement my opinion dated April 17, 2002, regarding the constitutionality of House Bill No. 5346, and to notify you of a United States Supreme Court decision providing powerful and decisive support for my conclusion that the measure is constitutional.
-
You have requested our opinion as to whether Section 27-76 of the Connecticut General Statutes permits honor guards from bona fide Connecticut State Veteran’s Organizations to accept pay at a rate of less than the fifty dollars per day as set forth in that statute.
-
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)
-
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
-
In your August 28, 2007 memorandum, you sought this Office’s advice regarding the interpretation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-417i(n) of the New Home Construction Contractors Act, and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-432(o) of the Home Improvement Act
-
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.”