The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 15 of 42
-
This is in response to your recent request for an opinion on whether the Division of Special Revenue must conduct a hearing, under the provisions of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), prior to revoking a lottery agent's license1 for failure to meet pre-established minimum sales levels for on-line and instant lottery ticket sales.2 Specifically, you inquire as to whether a lottery license is a "license" as that term is contemplated by the UAPA. We also understand that a question is raised as to the practical need for a hearing inasmuch as evidence of sales levels is documented and, presumably, incontestable.
-
By memo dated January 27, 1992 you requested an opinion from this office on whether state law can be construed to allow the Governor the option to not implement ("trigger off") an otherwise operable extended unemployment compensation benefit program (EB) should unemployment continue to rise to a certain level in this state. The purpose of this option is to allow the state's unemployed to be subject solely to a federally-funded emergency unemployment compensation (EUC) program. You also ask, assuming such a construction is allowable, whether the Governor may delegate the authority to "trigger off" state EB, as well as the authority to make all necessary contractual arrangements with the U.S. Department of Labor for administration of the EUC program, to the Administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act pursuant to Conn.Gen.Stat. Section 31-250.
-
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.
-
You have requested a formal opinion whether the Department of Revenue Services (DRS) is required to release certain tax documents and information to the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee (Committee) in connection with the Committee’s study of Connecticut’s tax system. In addition, you ask, if we conclude that DRS is required to provide the Committee such documents and information, may the Committee permit access to an outside consultant with which the Committee may contract to conduct a compilation and analysis of the tax data.
-
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.
-
This is in response to your request for an Attorney General's Opinion on whether the disclosure by the Department of Social Services ("DSS") to the Offices of the Connecticut Attorney General and the Connecticut Child Advocate of information concerning Medicaid medical assistance recipients, to be used in an investigation into the liability of insurance companies for the cost of services paid for by Medicaid, is provided for purposes directly connected with the administration of the Medicaid program, and is fully permitted by federal law.
-
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.
-
This letter responds to your request for a formal opinion on two questions that have arisen in connection with Substitute Senate Bill No. 963, "An Act Concerning Civil Unions" (File No. 24), passed by the Senate on April 6, 2005, and soon to be considered by the House of Representatives.
-
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.
-
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.
-
In my opinion, there is no legal distinction between a PSA and a POS, even though the Office of Policy and Management (“OPM”) may choose to establish certain administrative procedures treating these types of agreements differently; they are both valid vehicles for entering into binding State contracts.
-
I write to advise you that you can and should release all information concerning provider rate reimbursement. You have the authority to disclose such provider rate reimbursement information that has been produced to you by Medicaid Managed Care Organizations (“MCOs”). You should reject assertions by the MCOs that the information must be kept confidential under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and the terms of their contracts with the Department of Social Services (“DSS”).