The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
1996 Formal Opinions
Page 1 of 2
-
You have asked whether Commissioners of the Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC) may accept post-State service employment by a subsidiary of a public service company or of a company certified to provide intrastate telecommunications services if the subsidiary is not itself a public service company or is not a company certified to provide telecommunications services within Connecticut.
-
This is in response to your letter dated March 7, 1996, wherein you requested a legal opinion from this office concerning the computation of cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for injured workers pursuant to the provisions of the Connecticut Workers' Compensation Act as it may be affected by recent decisions of the Workers' Compensation Review Board (CRB).
-
As Chairman of the Department of Public Utility Control ("Department"), you request our advice regarding the application of Section 251(d)(3) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 1996 Pub. L. 104-104 ("Telecommunications Act"). The Telecommunications Act requires state commissions to set wholesale rates for any telecommunication service offered by the local exchange company, in this case the Southern New England Telephone Company ("SNET'), on the basis of retail rates, less avoided costs such as marketing and billing costs. These wholesale services will be purchased by rival telecommunication companies competing against SNET in the local exchange markets.
-
You have requested our advice on several issues involving the tourism districts created under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 32-302(a). Your first question is whether the tourism districts are exempt from state sales tax under § 12-412(l) as "political subdivisions" of the state or "agencies' of the state or any political subdivision thereof. You have also inquired whether the Single Audit Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-230 et seq. and/or the Municipal Auditing Act, Conn. Gen. Stat § 7-391 et seq. apply to the tourism districts. Your final question is whether the Department of Revenue Services has any responsibility under either the Single Audit Act or Municipal Auditing Act with regard to funds disbursed to the tourism districts.
-
Deputy Commissioner Gilligan requested our opinion as to whether the H.E.L.P. Program, as currently constituted, is insurance. The H.E.L.P. Program is a plan marketed as a contractual appendix to service agreements sold by fuel oil dealers to fuel oil customers. Two versions of the plan are marketed: one version provides for the clean up of the accidental release of oil on a customer's property caused by a leaking fuel oil tank: the other provides for the clean up and replacement of a defective tank.
-
In your letter dated June 20. 1996, you requested our opinion as to whether the Commissioner of Higher Education must obtain authorization of the Governor under Conn. Gen. Stat. §3-7 prior to forgiving under Conn. Gen. Stat. §10a-163(f)(4) an uncollectible loan made pursuant to the Teacher Incentive Loan Program.
-
You have asked for our advice in interpreting Public Act 95-237, "An Act Concerning Special Education Due Process, The Cost of Special Education And A School Construction Project." The principle questions you pose relate to the special education of children placed by the Department Of Children and Families.
-
In a letter to our office you ask us whether state law permits a local board of education of a town which does not maintain a high school to pay partially the tuition for a local student to attend a state approved high school other than the high school designated under Conn. Gen. Stat. ?-33.
-
In your letter of April 24, 1996, you seek our opinion as to whether the Connecticut General Statutes require that a local referendum be conducted whenever a new off-track betting facility is proposed to be operated by the Autotote Corporation in a municipality.
-
John F. Merchant, Esq., 1996-007 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
I have reviewed the relevant statutes applicable to your appointment as Consumer Counsel and the term of your office.
-
John Meeker, Chairman, Board of Parole, 1996-015 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
This letter responds to your request for advice concerning whether parole officers have authority to enforce conditions of parole with respect to parolees, Indians and nonIndians, on federal reservations.
-
Judge Aaron Ment, Supreme Court Building, 1996-011 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
Your office has posited several questions regarding the retroactive versus prospective application of Public Acts 96-63 and 96-79, which amend Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-142a, commonly referred to as the Connecticut Erasure Statute. The primary effects of the amendments are to remove the category of transcripts of criminal trials from the types of records that are subject to erasure, and to delay the actual physical destruction of erased records.
-
The Board of Pardons asked this office the following questions with regard to the possibility of future executions in the State of Connecticut: When is the first execution likely to be scheduled? When will a hearing be required in anticipation of an execution date? On the date of execution? Just before the execution? After all other appeals have been exhausted? Is it necessary for the Board to convene a commutation hearing in all cases whether requested or not? Who could request the convening of this special session: the defendant, his attorney, the Governor, a family member, etc.?
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion inquiring whether the Commissioner of Economic and Community Development ("Commissioner") has the authority to amend the assistance agreement (the "Agreement") between the former Department of Economic Development, now the Department of Economic and Community Development ("DECD"), and the Dun & Bradstreet Company ("Dun & Bradstreet"), and whether such amendment, if permissible, must be submitted to this office for approval.
-
You have requested the opinion and advice of the Attorney General regarding the status of the above-entitled case, and the alternatives that are available for the disbursement of funds that will be received by the state following its resolution.