The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
2002 Formal Opinions
Page 1 of 3
-
The Honorable John G. Rowland, The Capitol, 2002-018 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
On October 9, 2002, the Freedom of Information Commission (Commission) ruled that the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) was not required to disclose to the public eight documents in CRRA's possession which were the subject of an April 17, 2002, and an April 23, 2002 Freedom of Information Complaint filed by Paul A. Green and the Journal Inquirer. According to the Commission, the eight documents in question either constitute attorney-client communications or relate to CRRA's possible litigation strategy to recover the $220 million loaned to Enron and are, therefore, exempt from public disclosure pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §§1-210(b)(10) and 1-210(b)(4). By letter dated October 11, 2002, you have asked me to obtain from CRRA the eight documents that have not yet been disclosed and release them to the public.
-
I am writing in response to your request for a formal opinion as to whether the Department of Banking ("Department") has the authority to reimburse an electronic service provider for reasonable costs associated with complying with an administrative subpoena, in light of the requirements imposed by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 2706 ("ECPA") and section 36b-26(b) of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act ("Act").
-
Your office has asked whether the recent injunction regarding Connecticut's Sexual Offender Registration Act (SORA) issued by the United States District Court of Connecticut, and upheld by the Second Circuit, impedes in any way the implementation of Public Act 01-211, concerning victim notification. That Act requires victim notification of applications for exemption from the Sex Offender Registry or its notification requirements.
-
You have requested an opinion concerning the validity of certain claims of testimonial privilege asserted by officials of the State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) subpoenaed to testify at a hearing of the Joint Committee on Labor and Public Employees ("Joint Committee").
-
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion as to whether your office is "authorized to issue or accept primary petitions of candidates for state and district offices?"1 It is our understanding you are questioning whether you are required to place the name of a candidate for state or district office2 on the Democratic or Republican Party primary ballot based solely on the fact that the candidate has obtained the signatures of a certain percentage of the political party's registered voters within the candidate's district.
-
This is in response to your letter dated August 27, 2001, in which you request our opinion on whether the Department of Economic and Community Development ("DECD") is a "public housing agency" within the purview of the United States Housing Act of 1937 ("Housing Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 1437 et seq., and, therefore, is an entity able to participate as a public housing agency in programs authorized under the Housing Act.
-
You have requested an opinion of this office as to whether a surviving spouse of a Teachers’ Retirement System member can receive the survivor’s benefits provided by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-183h(d) when the member’s sole designated beneficiary is a trust to which she was the sole beneficiary until her death.
-
This is in response to the letter drafted on your behalf by Commission Counsel Murphy dated May 24, 2002, as amended and supplemented by the letter dated June 14, 2002, in which you request our opinion as to the validity of two recent appointments to vacancies on the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (hereinafter CHRO).
-
This will acknowledge and reply to your request of November 28, 2001 for an advisory opinion as to whether the State has the authority to consolidate workforce development regions pursuant to the federal Workforce Investment Act and, if so, what criteria must be satisfied before such consolidation is approved. You also ask whether a workforce development board which has demonstrated adequate fiscal capability and achieved satisfactory performance results can be forced to change its current service area or method of operation.
-
You requested an opinion of this Office as to whether former State Treasurer Paul Silvester had the authority to exempt the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the "Tribe") from the Second Injury Fund ("the Fund") assessment, required of all state employers pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-354, and to bind the Fund to an apparent agreement for this purpose.
-
Honorable Denise L. Nappier, Treasurer, 2002-004 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have requested an opinion regarding the ownership and management of approximately 2.2 million shares of Anthem, Inc. stock recently distributed to the State of Connecticut, as a result of the demututalization of Anthem Insurance Company ("AIC"). You raise the question of the State's "ownership of, and, therefore, [your] authority to receive and manage these assets" in light of legal challenges to the State's ownership currently pending.
-
You requested our opinion "concerning the determination of how much of an individual’s disposable income may be taken to satisfy a tax warrant when the individual also is subject to a dependent support order."
-
Honorable George Jepsen, State Capitol, 2002-011 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have requested our opinion regarding the responsibility for providing police services at the University of Connecticut Stadium at Rentschler Field in East Hartford and at the Adriaen’s Landing Project in Hartford.
-
Honorable John G. Rowland, State Capitol, 2002-014 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
I write to supplement my opinion dated April 17, 2002, regarding the constitutionality of House Bill No. 5346, and to notify you of a United States Supreme Court decision providing powerful and decisive support for my conclusion that the measure is constitutional.
-
You have asked for an evaluation of the constitutionality of the Governor's Executive Order No. 26, issued April 12, 2002 ("Executive Order"), with respect to large-scale gas and electric transmission facilities.