1991 Formal Opinions
Page 1 of 3
-
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).
-
This is in response to your letter of January 28, 1991 in which you ask whether or not a "judge who has been called in to active duty in the Armed Services of the country ... should be continued on the payroll of the Judicial Department for the period of time the judge concurrently retains the office of judge and serves in the Armed Forces of the United Stated." A superior court judge who is in the reserve component of the Armed Forces of the United States has been called to active duty after August 7, 1990 in connection with Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, necessitating an answer to your question.
-
By letter of December 19, 1990, CPI and its subsidiaries proposed a payment plan for all unpaid sales and use taxes owed through October 31, 1991. The Department of Revenue Services ("the Department") responded by letter of December 27, 1990 accepting a payment plan on the terms stated in the Department's letter and on the specific condition that current taxes must be filed and paid timely and that the agreement would be subject to review every six months. At some time after the payment plan was initiated, the Department reported CPI's delinquency to the Comptroller pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-39g.
-
By letter dated November 27, 1990 you have asked two questions raised as a result of a request of a member of the State Teachers' Retirement System who has not received any retirement benefit payments since his retirement in 1986. The first question concerns whether retirement benefits can be paid to the member retroactively to 1986 pursuant to a payment plan which he selected in June, 1990, which differs from a payment plan which he previously had on file with the Board in 1986. The second question is whether the Board may pay interest at a reasonable rate from the time each payment was due until the date payment is made.
-
By letter dated March 14, 1991, you request our advice on the accuracy of certain guidelines issued by the Department of Public Safety concerning the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes §§ 29-37a, 29-37b and 29-37c. The statutes in question deal generally with the waiting period and paperwork applicable to the purchase of a firearm other than a pistol or revolver, the provision and use of trigger locking devices at the time of purchase of a firearm, and the proper storage of loaded firearms at the home or business of the owner.
-
This letter responds to your request for an opinion dated January 15, 1991. In that request, you asked for a clarification of your authority as a sub registrar of vital statistics to issue a disinterment permit in a case of alleged suspicious death. The request was prompted by a request you received from the parents of a deceased man asking you to issue a disinterment permit for the disinterment of their son for a second autopsy.
-
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.
-
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.
-
We are in receipt of a letter dated June 6, 1990 from your department, wherein you request our opinion on an issue concerning Conn. Gen. Stat. §54-132 et. seq., the Interstate Compact for Parole and Probation Supervision. Specifically you question "whether or not it is necessary to obtain a warrant from a Connecticut court, in addition to that of the sending state, in order to take custody of and confine an out-of-state probationer in a Connecticut correctional facility until he/she can be returned to the sending state."
-
In your letter dated December 5, 1990, you expressed concern over the extent of the financial responsibility to which the State is potentially exposed pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 28-14.
-
You have requested an opinion of the Attorney General regarding an inquiry from Wesleyan University Office of Public Safety.
-
In a letter dated January 15, 1991, your predecessor requested the opinion of this office regarding two questions concerning the implementation of 1990 Conn. Pub. Acts. No., 90-226 (codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-396 et seq.).
-
As Chairman of the Bridgeport Financial Review Board ("the Board"), you requested my opinion on the legal authority of the City of Bridgeport to file for relief under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy code without the approval of the Board.
-
Former Commissioner Heslin requested an opinion from this office on "whether any consumer commodity which is not individually marked with its current selling price is in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-79 and § 21a-79-a of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies."
-
In your letter dated June 25, 1990, you requested our opinion on the following questions regarding the meaning of subsection (g) of Section 7-147b of the Connecticut General Statutes: If the possible creation of a local historic district is being considered by a municipality under Conn. Gen. Stat. §7-147a and 7-147b, and if a municipality owns real property within the proposed local historic district, is the municipality's legislative body entitled to vote, under Conn. Gen. Stat. §7-147b(g), on the proposed establishment of the district? Under the circumstances described in (1) above, would community members, either those in the municipality as a whole or only those within the proposed historic district, be entitled to cast a vote as collective owners of the municipal property in a vote taken under Conn. Gen. Stat. §7-147b(g)?