Formal Opinions
Page 23 of 42
-
You seek our advice concerning the proposal of the Connecticut Lottery Corporation to introduce a Bingo type game as a new lottery product and inquire whether such a proposal is a permissible lottery game.
-
The Honorable Nancy Wyman, Comptroller, 1997-017 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
We have reviewed your request for guidance concerning questions you have raised regarding Social Security (FICA) payments for Special Deputy Sheriffs.
-
This letter is written in response to your request, on behalf of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station1 ("the Station"), for an opinion concerning several legal questions arising out of a recent report by the Auditors of Public Accounts. The report questioned the propriety of how the Board of the Station ("the Board") had managed four private charitable trusts.
-
You have asked this Office for an opinion regarding the right of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe ("Tribe") to establish its own workers' compensation code and Commission. You state that the Tribe has enacted the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Workers' Compensation Code ("Tribal Code"), effective July 1, 1997, which provides that any accident or personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment with the Tribe, which has a date of injury after the effective date, will be governed solely by the Tribal Code.
-
You have asked us whether the Comptroller has authority to remit funds, which have been offset from amounts payable to state vendors who have defaulted on their federal student loans, to the Connecticut Student Loan Foundation (CSLF).
-
We are replying to your letter of January 16, 1997 in which you ask a number of questions concerning the legality and propriety of Mr. John B. Meskill's January 15, 1997 resignation as executive director of the Division of Special Revenue (the "Division") to become the executive director of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Gaming Commission (the "Tribal Commission"). In particular, you would like to know (1) whether the specific revolving door limitation contained in General Statutes
-
You have asked for our opinion about whether you have correctly interpreted two aspects of Conn. Gen. Stat.
-
This letter responds to your request for an opinion dated January 31, 1997. Briefly stated, your letter relates that since 1993 the Division's regulations have provided: "A prize to which a purchaser may become entitled shall not be assignable." Conn. Stat. Regs.
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion regarding the settlement of an employment dispute with Marc Schillinger, a former state employee. Specifically, you inquire "whether the Governor, upon the recommendation of the Attorney General, has the authority under Section 3-7(c) [of the General Statutes] to compromise a claim in a manner which is not in accordance with Section 5-162 and 5-155a of the General Statutes."
-
You have asked whether the University of Connecticut possesses the legal authority to pay directly vendors of UConn 2000 projects. You noted that if the bond proceeds had as their source a State bond issue, the University could not make such direct payments.
-
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.
-
In your capacity as Chairman of the Waterbury Financial Planning and Assistance Board (the "Board"), you have asked for an advisory opinion concerning the membership of the Board. Specifically, you have asked whether Board member Mr. Jack Cronan, an appointee of the Governor who is the chief executive officer of the Waterbury Teacher's Association, may continue to serve as a Board member following his planned retirement from employment with the City of Waterbury (the "City") on July 1, 2004 and end of his tenure as chief executive officer of the Waterbury Teacher's Association.
-
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.
-
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.
-
You have asked for my opinion whether the contract entered into by the Department of Social Services (DSS) with the Community Health Network of Connecticut, Inc.(CHN) to provide medical services to eligible clients under the State-Administered General Assistance program (SAGA) is a personal service agreement which must comply with the competitive bidding or competitive negotiations provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-212 et seq.