The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
2005 Formal Opinions
Page 1 of 3
-
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?
-
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?”
-
You have requested our advice on whether the Department of Correction should continue to follow its procedure of initiating speedy trial paperwork for an arrest warrant that has not been served. You advised us that the Court Operations Division of the Judicial Branch sent you a memorandum in which they indicate that the right to a speedy trial does not apply to an arrest warrant that has not been served
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
You have each separately requested the opinion of the Attorney General concerning the eligibility of Connecticut state employees to receive retirement credit under Connecticut General Statutes §§ 5-192i(j) and 5-192j(d)1 for periods of full-time National Guard service in the armed forces of the United States. Such service may occur both while an individual is employed by the State of Connecticut, during periods of extended military leave, and, if the service occurred in time of war as defined by Connecticut General Statutes § 27-103, or qualifies as national emergency service, as defined by law, during periods of time which may have preceded an individual's state employment.
-
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.
-
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 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?"
-
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."
-
In your letter dated June 7, 2005, you have asked for advice concerning the length of time for which accessory apartments must be deed-restricted for affordable housing to allow such apartments to be considered in determining whether a town has sufficient existing affordable housing to qualify for a temporary moratorium pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-30g(l). According to your letter, the Town of Trumbull has submitted an application for a moratorium which includes 106 ten year deed restricted accessory apartments.
-
This is to respond to your request for advice of December 15, 2004 which asks if a participating board of education may charge an administrative fee in addition to the insurance premium charged for coverage selected by a retired teacher. This retiree receives a pension from the State Teachers' Retirement System, but is also covered by health insurance through the retiree's last employing board of education.
-
You have requested our advice regarding the scope of the State Building Inspector's authority over local building officials.
-
In your letter of November 1, 2004, you have asked our opinion whether Teikyo Post University should continue to be considered eligible to participate in the Connecticut Independent College Student Grant Program given that on or about October 22, 2004 the University was sold to a group of private investors who will, contrary to prior practice, operate the University as a "for profit" entity.