The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
1999 Formal Opinions
Page 1 of 1
-
The Connecticut Real Estate Commission has requested the Attorney General's Office to render a formal legal opinion regarding the interpretation of C.G.S. § 20-317(a) as it relates to the following question: Does a non-resident real estate broker or real estate salesperson who is currently licensed in Connecticut under a bona fide Reciprocal Agreement need to qualify with course and experience and take a written exam to establish competency when such licensee becomes a resident of the State of Connecticut?
-
Section 2-120 of the Connecticut General Statutes establishes a Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission ("Commission") composed of thirteen members. Three of the members are appointed by the governor; two are appointed by the president pro tempore of the senate; one by the majority leader of the senate; two by the minority leader of the senate; two by the speaker of the house; one by the majority leader of the house; and two by the minority leader of the house. The gubernatorial appointees serve for terms of three years from February first of the year of their appointments, and all other appointees serve for terms of two years. You have asked whether commissioners must automatically leave the Commission when their terms expire, even if no one has been appointed to fill their positions, or whether they may continue to serve after their terms have expired until they are either reappointed or replaced as commissioners.
-
Your office recently requested an opinion from this office regarding the following question: Whether a municipality, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-162, may pursue and levy against the assets of delinquent municipal taxpayers held in custody by the State Treasurer in the form of abandoned property under the State's Unclaimed Property Laws?
-
You have requested our opinion on whether the Department of Economic and Community Development ("DECD") may accept discounted repayments of financial assistance from financially distressed funding recipients either without or before complying with the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 3-7.
-
Your department has asked for an opinion of this office on several liquor control issues involving the inspection of permit premises. Your first inquiry concerns the extent to which liquor control agents may search for, and seize, sundry evidentiary items in the course of an investigation. Specifically, you inquire about illegal gambling tickets or records and illegal gambling devices, as well as permittee guest books, invoices and coil cleaning records. Your second inquiry asks whether the department is able to seize "buy" money which is used in undercover investigations by liquor control agents. Your third inquiry concerns the detention of minors, or intoxicated persons, in a casino setting.
-
You recently requested our advice regarding the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision in Velez v Commissioner of Correction, 250 Conn. 536 (1999). Specifically, you have asked us for clarification with respect to this decision's impact on DOC's procedure for determining when inmates become eligible for release to an approved community correction program pursuant to §18-100c.
-
In your letter dated July 7, 1999, you requested the opinion of this Office as to whether the provisions of Public Act 97-148 entitle deputy sheriffs and special deputy sheriffs to receive health care benefits at state expense. Because this Office has also received several other letters inquiring whether various benefits are available to special deputy sheriffs, this opinion will consider special deputy sheriffs' entitlement to health insurance and life insurance, vacation and sick leave, paid holidays, personal leave, longevity pay and participation in the state retirement system.
-
You asked for my advice concerning the payment of an invoice issued by a State agency for the purchase of 500 computers. It is my understanding that you have approved the purchase order issued by the Department of Children and Families ("DCF"), but that upon discovery of additional information, you now ask whether you can pay an invoice submitted for that purchase.
-
Honorable Susan Bysiewicz, State Capitol, 1999-001 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have asked: If an elector files a written request to remove his/her social security number from the records of the registrars of voters (to whom the elector voluntarily gave it on his voter application card under section 9-20 of the General Statutes) may the registrar remove it from his/her records, and may the registrar of voters then refuse to provide such social security number to the Jury Administrator in the format prescribed under Section 51-222a?
-
Your office requested our opinion on whether the Town of Seymour may enter into an agreement with a third party agent to collect current and delinquent sewer use charges pursuant to authority granted in Public Act 96-217, as amended.
-
This opinion responds to your office's request for opinion concerning the proper application of Public Act 95-175 ("the Act") to operations in the Office of Victim Services
-
You ask us whether the Division of Special Revenue (DOSR) may approve a contract between Autotote Enterprises, Inc., the licensee of the Connecticut Off-Track Betting System, and Wyvern International, Ltd., which would provide for simulcasting and common pool wagering on thoroughbred races in Australia pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-571(a).
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning your access, as the Auditors of Public Accounts, to certain documents of the Judicial Selection Commission (the "Commission") in connection with audits of the Commission pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 2-90. In particular, you ask whether, pursuant to subsection (g) of that statute, the Commission is obligated to provide you with documents concerning the evaluation of judicial candidates and incumbents that are considered confidential under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-44a (j).
-
You have asked whether the state, through the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) and the Occupational trade licensing boards within its jurisdiction, is preempted by federal law from imposing its licensing requirements for contract personnel working at a nuclear power plant facility in Connecticut.