The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
1993 Formal Opinions
Page 1 of 3
-
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.
-
This letter responds to the March 25, 1993, inquiry of Assistant Treasurer Lawrence A. Wilson wherein he asked whether the Connecticut Bar Foundation, Inc. may invest Interest On Lawyers' Trust Account ("IOLTA") funds in the State's Short-Term Investment Fund ("STIF").
-
You have asked what liability, if any, a state agency would have "with respect to any incidents arising at, during or after" an off-site holiday party attended by agency employees during working hours.
-
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").
-
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. 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 have requested our opinion regarding the temporary rules and regulations of the Department of Revenue Services under Conn. Pub. Act 91-3, ee 51 to 93, of the June 1991 Special Session, as amended (the "Public Act"). The Public Act is entitled "An Act Making Appropriations for the Expenses of the State for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992, Providing Funds for Such Expenses and Concerning Fiscal Reform." Sections 51 to 93 of the Public Act relate to the state income tax.
-
This is in reply to a request for advice asking if the person you appoint as an Executive Director of the Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC), pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-2(f), to fill a vacancy in that position receives an appointment for four years or rather serves the balance of the prior Executive Director's unexpired term.
-
This is in response to your letter dated July 23, 1993, wherein you asked our opinion concerning the application of Public Act 93-288 (the Act) to cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for certain injured employees and their dependants.
-
You have asked whether or not foster parents are entitled to representation and indemnification from the State of Connecticut. The corollary question is whether they are independent contractors and therefore not entitled to representation or indemnification.
-
We are replying to your letters of January 14, 1993 and January 22, 1993 in which you ask whether the Governor has the constitutional and statutory authority to execute without legislative approval a Memorandum of Understanding between the State and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe regarding the installation and operation of video slot machines (i.e., video facsimile games as defined in that Memorandum and the Federal Procedures to which it refers) at Foxwoods Casino at Ledyard, and whether the Secretary of the Interior has to approve the agreement or take any action relating to it
-
In your letter of August 12, 1993, you relate that by a Resolve of May, 1824, a Borough of Newtown was created. Subsequently the General Assembly passed 1931 Special Act No. 290 and 1953 Special Act No. 106 also relating to the formation of this borough. You ask three questions relating to this borough. First you ask whether the borough may be dissolved. Secondly you ask the procedure in accomplishing this dissolution. Thirdly you ask what legal requirements are imposed upon the officials of the borough to assist residents in bringing about dissolution.
-
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.