The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
1990 Formal Opinions
Page 1 of 3
-
You have requested our advice on a question concerning the use of real property in Granby which was received by the University of Connecticut (hereinafter: "the University") in l976 as a gift from Laura and Tudor Holcomb. Specifically, you ask whether use of the property as recommended by a consultant would be consistent with the terms of the deed to the University from the grantors.
-
This is in reply to your letter asking whether the awarding of the Mid-Connecticut Project contract by the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) to Combustion Engineering, Inc., complied with statutory requirements.
-
In his letter to us, Lt. Col. John A. Mulligan requested our advice concerning the use of certain closed circuit video monitoring equipment to monitor the area to the rear of certain motor vehicles. His specific question to us is "whether installation and use of such equipment violates Section 14-105 of the General Statutes or any other provision of our law."
-
In a letter to us, Lieutenant Colonel John A. Mulligan requested our advice regarding the propriety of state police and local constables entering upon private property for the purpose of enforcing an ordinance of the town of Woodbury regarding the removal of junked cars from private property.
-
In your letter of October 12, 1990, you posed several questions regarding the property tax relief program in Conn. Gen. Stat. e 12-62d. From discussions with your staff, we have been informed that the only question which we need answer concerns the proper interpretation of l989 Conn. Pub. Acts 89-251, e 192(h)(2), codified as Conn. Gen. Stat. e 12-62d(h)(2).
-
In your letter of July 12, 1989, you requested our opinion regarding the meaning of certain provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. e 14-253a, which mandates that parking spaces be established and reserved for handicapped persons.
-
In your letter of August 9, 1990, you call our attention to the provisions of P.A. 90-261, Sec. 5 and ask our advice with regard to the following two questions: 1. Does Section 5 of the Act apply retroactively, i.e., are all persons incarcerated "as of" October 1, 1990 who meet all other specified criteria, eligible to be considered for parole under the Act. 2. Does the Act permit the Board to consider for parole persons who are already serving their sentences in either Community Release or Community Residence (SHR) programs.
-
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.
-
In your letter of June 19, 1990, you refer us to 1990 Conn Pub. Acts, 90-120 e2 and seek our interpretation of the meaning of the phrase "police officers who have managerial duties."
-
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.
-
This is in reply to your letter of March 13, 1990. You ask whether the following provision included in Conn. Gen. Stat. e 19a-460(a) (Rev. to 1989), amended by P.A. 89-325, e 21, is an unconstitutional infringement upon the executive branch: The department of mental retardation shall be under the supervision of a commissioner of mental retardation, who shall be appointed by the governor in accordance with the provisions of sections 4-5 to 4-8, inclusive, on recommendation of the council on mental retardation. The question is directed to the last phrase of this sentence, "on recommendation of the council on mental retardation."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.