The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
2005 Formal Opinions
Page 1 of 3
-
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion as to whether Executive Order No. 7 (the "Order") establishing a State Contracting Standards Board (the "Board") is unconstitutional, in whole or in part, as a violation of the separation of powers clause of article second of the state Constitution.
-
You have asked several questions about the propriety of a possible transaction between the Department of Public Works ("DPW") and the Eastern Connecticut State University Foundation, Inc. ("Foundation") whereby the DPW would agree via a lease/purchase agreement to purchase the "Foster building" in Willimantic, Connecticut, which was donated by the Foster family to the Foundation on or about December 15, 2000.
-
You have asked whether the Board of Education and Services for the Blind ("BESB") has the authority under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-303 to seek to provide all the food services that Central Connecticut State University ("CCSU") determines are desirable at the University if BESB decides it wants to pursue that location for the placement of blind vendor operated food service facilities.
-
Your department has requested a formal opinion concerning the following questions: “What impact, if any, does the placement of a lis pendens against property (real estate) have upon the bond limit set for a properly licensed and authorized bondsman, when the property in question has been designated as an asset by the bondsman in the calculation of their authorized bond limit?”
-
Commissioner Shaun B. Cashman, 2005-027, Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
Your department has asked for advice on the payment of wages to service workers employed by contractors of the state or vendors supplying services to state contractors. You ask if the standard wage rate provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-57f apply to contracts between the state and management companies and between management companies and their vendors under various scenarios.
-
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion concerning the authority of the Judicial Review Council (the "Council") to initiate investigations into judicial conduct. Specifically, you question whether the Council "may proceed to independently initiate an investigation based on information discovered by the Council." Such information might "include an anonymous complaint or other information which becomes known to the Council, other than through a notarized complaint." If the Council may initiate an investigation based on such information, you question what the applicable procedures are.
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion on whether it would be lawful, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-77(b), for students at Connecticut College to form a brewing club for the purpose of making beer on the college campus in New London, Connecticut, without a liquor permit required by the Liquor Control Act. Consumption would be restricted to persons over the age of twenty-one.
-
As Chairman of the State Marshal Commission you have requested a formal Opinion of the Attorney General as to the following two questions: 1. Are the two ex officio, nonvoting members of the State Marshal Advisory Board, appointed pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6-38b(a), entitled to attend executive sessions of the State Marshal Commission’s meetings? 2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are they entitled to attend all executive sessions, or are there executive sessions they are not entitled to attend? Specifically, are ex officio members entitled to attend executive sessions regarding personnel and disciplinary matters?
-
Honorable J. Robert Galvin, 2005-024 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
This letter is in response to a request from Elizabeth Frugale, Registrar of Vital Records, for a legal opinion as to whether Connecticut courts will recognize out-of-state civil unions, same-sex marriages and same-sex domestic partnerships after Connecticut's Act Concerning Civil Unions, 2005 Conn. Pub. Act No. 05-10 (the "Act" or "P.A. 05-10"), takes effect on October 1, 2005. In particular, Ms. Frugale has asked whether, after October 1st, a couple that has entered into a civil union, same-sex marriage, or domestic partnership out-of-state may legally enter into a civil union in Connecticut with the same partner.1 Because this issue is of statewide interest and importance, we are addressing our response to you in the form of a formal legal opinion.
-
This is in response to the request for an opinion from your agency on the legality of devices known as "three button slot machines," and whether these devices fall within the definition of "video facsimile" as used in the agreements between the State of Connecticut and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe and Mohegan Tribe. The agreements require the tribes to contribute twenty-five percent of their gross operating revenues from the operation of video facsimile machines at the tribal casinos, provided no other person within the state may lawfully operate "video facsimile games or other commercial casino games."
-
Representative Robert M. Ward, 2005-025, Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have requested a formal legal opinion concerning the protections afforded to members of the General Assembly by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 2-3a, which prohibits discrimination in the workplace against those who hold the office of state senator or representative.
-
You have asked for a formal opinion regarding the possible consequences of enacting Substitute House Bill 6438, An Act Extending Husky Plan, Part A Benefits for Parents and Needy Caretaker Relatives. The proposed Bill would temporarily continue the Medicaid eligibility of individuals whose eligibility for Medicaid under the Transitional Medical Assistance ("TMA") coverage group will end between March 31, 2005 and May 31, 2005. Eligibility for this group of individuals would be extended through June 30, 2005 under the proposed Bill. You inquire whether or not this proposed temporary extension of benefits may "ultimately allow these adults to qualify for any additional extension under federal law?"
-
You have requested our advice regarding the State Marshal Commission's course of action regarding auditing the records of a deceased marshal. You advised us in your letter that the daughter of a deceased marshal inquired of your office as to whether or not she could "continue to collect on wage executions," which collection had apparently been commenced by her deceased father but had not been completed at the time of his death.
-
You have asked whether the exclusion under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-860(f)(2)(D)(iii) of the Connecticut Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Association Act ("Act") applies to an excess loss health insurance policy issued by Legion Insurance Company ("Legion"), an insurance carrier that is in liquidation, to ProFlow, Inc. ("ProFlow"), a Connecticut corporation, which procured the policy as part of its health benefits plan for its employees.
-
Through your General Counsel, Catherine E. LaMarr, you requested an opinion of this Office on a matter concerning the Second Injury Fund and its assessment audit program. At issue is the meaning of the statutory language "from the date the sum should have been paid" with respect to the statutory interest penalty in Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-354(a). You indicate that the Fund has been applying the statutory interest penalty from the beginning of the audit period on any unpaid amounts resulting from accounting errors, reporting errors, or otherwise.