The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Search Results
Page 180 of 214
-
This is in response to your letter of July 22, 1991, in which you seek our opinion on whether the Department of Transportation ("DOT") has the authority to cancel the unexpended balance of purchase orders that the DOT has issued to Hartford Paving Inc. ("Hartford Paving") for bridge painting services under Contract Award No. 89--A-13-1054-C. You further ask whether the DOT can avoid contracting with Hartford Paving on future painting projects and instead use other companies listed in the contract award.
-
By your letter of May 4, 1992, you requested our opinion on several questions about the exclusion of irrevocable funeral accounts from consideration as assets in determining eligibility for your Department's programs. Essentially, you asked whether the monetary limit Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-207 places on such accounts is a requirement for their validity. If it is, you asked whether the limit may be exceeded either by creating an account outside the state and then transferring it to the state or by creating multiple irrevocable accounts whose total amount exceed the limit.
-
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.
-
You have raised several questions concerning the statutes governing the establishment and activities of the Soldiers', Sailors' and Marines' Fund (&quo;Fund"), as well as the current operation of the Fund. In particular, you have inquired whether: i) these statutes' apparent delegation of public functions to a private agency, in this instance the American Legion, violates constitutional principles; ii) whether current law restricts expending Fund assets for administrative expenses; and iii) whether the law would permit the Department of Veterans' Affairs ("DVA") to conduct the intake and processing of veterans' applications for benefits from the Fund.
-
By letter dated July 23, 2004, you advised us that on June 23, 2004, Richard L. Judd, the former President of Central Connecticut State University (the "University"), signed a document entitled "University Manual Food Services Agreement," to which the University and the Chartwells Division of Compass Group USA, Inc. ("Chartwells") are the designated parties. The purported "Agreement" contemplates the payment to Chartwells of some forty million dollars over a term of ten years, commencing July 1, 2004.
-
You have asked whether the Board of Education and Services for the Blind ("BESB") has the authority under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-303 to seek to provide all the food services that Central Connecticut State University ("CCSU") determines are desirable at the University if BESB decides it wants to pursue that location for the placement of blind vendor operated food service facilities.
-
You have asked several questions about the propriety of a possible transaction between the Department of Public Works ("DPW") and the Eastern Connecticut State University Foundation, Inc. ("Foundation") whereby the DPW would agree via a lease/purchase agreement to purchase the "Foster building" in Willimantic, Connecticut, which was donated by the Foster family to the Foundation on or about December 15, 2000.
-
You have asked for a formal opinion regarding the possible consequences of enacting Substitute House Bill 6438, An Act Extending Husky Plan, Part A Benefits for Parents and Needy Caretaker Relatives. The proposed Bill would temporarily continue the Medicaid eligibility of individuals whose eligibility for Medicaid under the Transitional Medical Assistance ("TMA") coverage group will end between March 31, 2005 and May 31, 2005. Eligibility for this group of individuals would be extended through June 30, 2005 under the proposed Bill. You inquire whether or not this proposed temporary extension of benefits may "ultimately allow these adults to qualify for any additional extension under federal law?"
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.