2002 Formal Opinions
Page 3 of 3
-
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 have requested our advice as to the required number of State Marshals in each county pursuant to the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6-38. Specifically, you have requested a formal opinion of the Attorney General as to "whether the Commission has the discretion to determine whether to fill these vacancies or whether the Commission is required [to] fill all vacancies in every county up to the statutory maximum."
-
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion as to whether Peter Ellef, the current chairman of the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority ("CRRA""), is serving in that capacity without having received the necessary legislative approval.
-
Joseph D. D'Alesio, Judicial Branch, 2002-007 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have requested an opinion regarding an amendment to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-215, relating to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund. The purpose of that fund is to provide compensation and services for the victims of crimes.
-
This letter responds to the June 25, 2002 letter from Ann Stravalle-Schmidt, CRRA Director of Legal Services, seeking our opinion on several questions concerning the Separation Agreement between CRRA and former CRRA President Robert E. Wright that was approved by the previous CRRA Board of Directors. In particular, Stravalle-Schmidt asked: (1) whether the previous Board had the authority to enter into the agreement; (2) whether the language of ¶7 of the agreement — the provision concerning indemnification and reimbursement for legal expenses — was legally permissible; and (3) whether ¶7 of the agreement is enforceable against CRRA.