The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 8 of 42
-
This will respond to your request for advice concerning State funding for the purchase, by the Town of East Haven, of property of the Colony Beach Club. Specifically, you inquire as to whether the use of State funds for such a purchase would make the facility available for use by all Connecticut residents.
-
In a letter dated July 21, 1994 you wrote to the Attorney General seeking an opinion concerning the status of the Mobil Oil Corporation pursuant to a cost reimbursement request to the Underground Storage Tank Petroleum Clean-up Fund Review Board ("Review Board").
-
You have asked for our opinion as to whether section 9 of 1993 Conn.Pub. Acts No. 93-388 applies to the payments in lieu of taxes made under Conn.Gen.Stat. 12-20a for fiscal year 1993-1994 due in September of this year.
-
This letter is in response to your request for our opinion as to whether a pharmacy engages in fee-splitting, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 20-175(7), if physicians who own stock in the pharmacy receive certain benefits from their stock ownership.
-
In your letter of March 16, 1993, you requested our opinion regarding the ability of the Department of Mental Health to obtain information on individuals who are receiving services from grantee agencies of the Department of Mental Health (DMH). Specifically, DMH seeks to require these grantee agencies to supply information regarding patients which is subject to the statutory psychiatric privilege set forth in Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-146d et seq. Disclosure of patient information to DMH without prior patient consent would be a condition of reimbursement or funding of the grantee agency.
-
This is in response to your letter dated April 20, 1993, in which you request a formal opinion of the Attorney General concerning an issue arising under 1992 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 92-184 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). You state as follows: The issue involves the room occupancy tax, a portion of which funded the visitors and convention districts and coliseum authorities under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 7-136a to 7-136c, inclusive (repealed by e 18 of the Act), and will now fund tourism districts and coliseum authorities under § 15 of the Act.
-
Audrey Rowe, Department of Social Services, 1993-032 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
This is in response to your request for a formal opinion as to whether Connecticut's child support-related wage withholding legislation is in compliance with certain federal statutory and regulatory mandates.
-
Conn.Gen.Stat. § 4b-3 establishes the state properties review board and provides criteria for membership. That statute provides, inter alia, that "[n]o person shall serve on this board who holds another state or municipal governmental position...." Conn.Gen.Stat. § 4b-3(b). By letter dated March 23, 1993 you have asked two questions concerning the above quoted portion of Conn.Gen.Stat. § 4b-3(b). 1. You initially ask whether "there is a definition of 'state or municipal government position' which applies to [§ 4b-3(b) ]?" 2. Your second question is whether an individual who serves without compensation on a municipal board is ineligible for membership on the state properties review board.
-
By letter dated January 11, 1993 you ask one question regarding the effect of Art. III, § 18(a), the balanced budget amendment, on deficiency legislation authorized by Conn.Gen.Stat. § 2-36. You also ask four questions on the relationship between the statutory and constitutional spending caps set forth in Public Act 91-3, § 30 and Article III, § 18.
-
You have requested our opinion on two issues raised by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-199 which imposes an athletic tax of five percent of the gross receipts from any boxing exhibition. The first issue is whether the Commissioner of Consumer Protection is responsible for the collection of the tax or whether it is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Revenue Services. The second issue is whether the athletic tax can be waived for United States Amateur Boxing, Inc., due to the fact that it is a non-profit association that is otherwise tax-exempt.
-
This letter is written in response to your May 3, 1993, request for an opinion on Substitute Senate Bill No. 1055, An Act Concerning Medicare Supplement Policies.
-
Hon. John B. Larson, President Pro Tempore, 1993-007 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
By letter dated March 5, 1993, you have asked our office for a formal opinion as to whether Gwen B. Weltman, Esq. of Bethany, who has been nominated by Governor Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. as a public member of the Commission on Hospitals and Health Care ("the Commission") qualifies as such pursuant to Conn.Gen.Stat. § 19a-146. Specifically, you question whether Attorney Weltman's previous employment as a social worker by Yale-New Haven Hospital between April 1980 and July 1983 violates § 19a-146's mandate that a public member "shall not ... have any past professional affiliation with any health care facility or institution...."
-
In your letter of March 26, l993, you requested our opinion concerning perceived conflicts between the requirements of proposed House Bill 7114, "An Act to Assist Connecticut Communities Seeking Economic Stability" (the "Act"), and Article Tenth, Section 1 of the Connecticut Constitution which preserves home rule for Connecticut municipalities.
-
Hon. Joseph M. Suggs, Jr., State Treasurer, 1993-021 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have requested our advice regarding whether Connecticut's laws on protection of public deposits1 are adequate to fully secure such deposits in the event the depository institution in which such funds are deposited fails and is placed in receivership. The security of public deposits is an issue because federal deposit insurance for public deposits is limited to $100,000 per account, 12 U.S.C. § 1821(a)(2)(A), and public deposits often exceed that amount. Specifically, you are concerned about the security of state deposits in the event of a challenge by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in its role as receiver of a failed depository institution, under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1811, et seq.
-
You recently sought our advice as to whether you may discontinue the practice of providing on request lists of outstanding state checks to asset finder organizations ("AFO").