The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 10 of 42
-
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?
-
In your letter of October 12, 1990, you posed several questions regarding the property tax relief program in Conn. Gen. Stat. e 12-62d. From discussions with your staff, we have been informed that the only question which we need answer concerns the proper interpretation of l989 Conn. Pub. Acts 89-251, e 192(h)(2), codified as Conn. Gen. Stat. e 12-62d(h)(2).
-
In your letter of July 12, 1989, you requested our opinion regarding the meaning of certain provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. e 14-253a, which mandates that parking spaces be established and reserved for handicapped persons.
-
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion concerning an employment issue impacting Representative Bruce Morris. I understand from your letter that Representative Morris is employed as the director of human relations for the Norwalk Board of Education
-
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.
-
In your letter of August 9, 1990, you call our attention to the provisions of P.A. 90-261, Sec. 5 and ask our advice with regard to the following two questions: 1. Does Section 5 of the Act apply retroactively, i.e., are all persons incarcerated "as of" October 1, 1990 who meet all other specified criteria, eligible to be considered for parole under the Act. 2. Does the Act permit the Board to consider for parole persons who are already serving their sentences in either Community Release or Community Residence (SHR) programs.
-
In your letter dated January 24, 1990, you request our advice on the Bureau's implementation of 1989 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 89-259. Public Acts No. 89-259 contains provisions for certification of telecommunicators as well as provisions for automatic certification of telecommunicators who meet special requirements.
-
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.
-
We are writing in response to your letter dated February 22, 1990, in which you request our advice about the constitutionality of the residency requirements and waiting periods contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. ee 27-103 and 27-122b, two state statutes concerning veterans' benefits. We are also responding to your oral request, based upon your responsibilities under Conn. Gen. Stat. e27- 102l(c)(4),1 for our opinion on the constitutionality of the residency requirement found in Conn. Gen. Stat. e 27-104, which is contained in Part II of Chapter 506.
-
In your letter of June 19, 1990, you refer us to 1990 Conn Pub. Acts, 90-120 e2 and seek our interpretation of the meaning of the phrase "police officers who have managerial duties."
-
You have requested an opinion on the following questions: l. Does legislation which changes the terms and conditions of loan forgiveness programs apply to borrowers who signed promissory notes prior to the enactment of such legislation? 2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, under what circumstances may the terms of the promissory notes be changed; and 3. Which of the changes made in the l986 legislation would apply to pre-l986 borrowers; and 4. For those provisions which do apply, what is the effective date for applying the changed provisions.
-
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.