The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Search Results
Page 211 of 217
-
This is in response to your request for advice dated November 16, 1989 in which you ask "whether the unclassified employees of a board of trustees of any constituent unit of the state system of higher education who are members of ARP are actually subject to the dictates of this arbitration award, [on state employees retirement benefits] specifically Issue 17 ... which mandated that the members of the Alternate Retirement Program (ARP) be provided with Social Security coverage effective July 1, 1989."
-
Senator Reginald J. Smith, State Capitol, 1990-018 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have requested our opinion as to whether the procedure followed for the election of faculty and student representatives to the foundation board at Western Connecticut State University (WCSU) was consistent with state statutes.
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion from this office regarding the constitutionality of provisions of the proposed interstate banking bill which would set interest rate caps on credit cards as a condition of entry by out-of-state bank holding companies, out-of-state savings and loan holding companies, out-of-state banks, out-of-state savings banks, and out-of-state savings and loan associations.
-
In your letter dated January 24, 1990, you request our advice on the Bureau's implementation of 1989 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 89-259. Public Acts No. 89-259 contains provisions for certification of telecommunicators as well as provisions for automatic certification of telecommunicators who meet special requirements.
-
We are writing in response to your letter dated February 22, 1990, in which you request our advice about the constitutionality of the residency requirements and waiting periods contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. ee 27-103 and 27-122b, two state statutes concerning veterans' benefits. We are also responding to your oral request, based upon your responsibilities under Conn. Gen. Stat. e27- 102l(c)(4),1 for our opinion on the constitutionality of the residency requirement found in Conn. Gen. Stat. e 27-104, which is contained in Part II of Chapter 506.
-
You have requested an opinion on the following questions: l. Does legislation which changes the terms and conditions of loan forgiveness programs apply to borrowers who signed promissory notes prior to the enactment of such legislation? 2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, under what circumstances may the terms of the promissory notes be changed; and 3. Which of the changes made in the l986 legislation would apply to pre-l986 borrowers; and 4. For those provisions which do apply, what is the effective date for applying the changed provisions.
-
In your letter of December 20, l989 you requested our opinion on the validity of actions taken at a meeting of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women [hereinafter Commission] which was held in a location other than that specified in the notice of regular meeting distributed by the Commission Chairperson.
-
By letter dated December 1, 1989 on behalf of the State Employees Retirement Commission, you asked whether the arbitration award between the state and the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition (SEBAC), which was approved by the General Assembly on October 12, 1989, extends the retirement incentive provisions of Public Act No. 89-323 ("Act") to certain categories of employees in hazardous duty job classifications who had twenty years of such service on or before July 1, 1989 and became eligible for retirement as of that date as a result of provisions in the arbitration award which had an effective date of July 1, 1988.
-
We are writing in response to your letter of February 19, 1991 in which you request our advice concerning whether certain physicians and psychologists, who serve as "medical consultants" and "psychological/psychiatric consultants'' to the Division of Rehabilitation Services and who are hired pursuant to personal services agreements, are immune from personal liability pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 4-165.
-
By letter dated February 20, 1990, your predecessor in office, Commissioner Papandrea, requested our opinion on whether the Department of Housing (DOH) is a public housing agency within the purview of the United States Housing Act of 1937.1 The request was prompted by letters from William H. Hernandez, Jr., Manager of the Hartford Office of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD").
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning the terms of office of Commissioners of the Department of Liquor Control. Specifically, you seek an opinion on the applicability of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-2, which states that Commissioners are to be appointed to staggered, six-year terms.
-
Upon a recommendation of the federal government, your agency requested a formal opinion from the Attorney General concerning two grantees which currently receive Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) funding. The opinion concerns whether the grantees are "eligible entities" as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 9902(1).
-
You have requested our advice on the applicability of 1990 Public Acts No. 90-304, now codified in Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-570d, to the Department of Correction. You specifically ask whether an official of the Department of Correction is a criminal law enforcement official for purposes of the exception contained in subsection (b)(1) of Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-570d.
-
This is in response to your predecessor's letter of August 7, 1990, requesting an opinion regarding the proper assessment of attorney's fees to personal injury recoveries which include basic reparations benefits (BRB), under Conn. Gen. Stat/ § 38 -325(b).
-
By letter dated July 19, 1991, you state that a company called Hartford Paving Inc. ("Hartford Paving" ) has been performing bridge painting work for the Department of Transportation ("DOT") pursuant to purchase orders issued to it by the DOT in accordance with Contract Award No. 890-A-13-1054-C. You have asked our opinion as to whether the Department of Consumer Protection has a right to attach or garnish funds.