Formal Opinions
Page 16 of 42
-
You have asked whether the University of Connecticut possesses the legal authority to pay directly vendors of UConn 2000 projects. You noted that if the bond proceeds had as their source a State bond issue, the University could not make such direct payments.
-
2017-03 Formal Opinion, Attorney General, State of Connecticut
Honorable Senator Bob Duff has asked whether certain potential changes to Connecticut's Education Cost Sharing ("ECS") formula would violate our state constitution. Specifically, you ask whether our constitution requires that the ECS formula measure a town's ability to raise property tax revenue "using a ratio of ninety percent property wealth and ten percent income wealth."
-
2017-05 Formal Opinion, Attorney General, State of Connecticut
Formal opinion on whether, for purposes of administering the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-28(b), a resident of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation (MPTN) reservation is a bona fide permanent resident of the Town of Ledyard such that local authorities are empowered to issue a temporary state permit to such individuals, and based thereon, the Commissioner of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (Commissioner) is authorized to issue a state permit to carry pistols and revolvers.
-
2017-07 Formal Opinion, Attorney General, State of Connecticut
An opinion about certain legal questions pertaining to a proposed police training facility in the Town of Griswold. Specifically, you ask (1) whether the requirements under Chapter 297a of the General Statutes relating to priority funding areas apply to the proposed training facility; (2) whether the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) has satisfied the requirement of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16a-35e that state agencies cooperate with municipalities to ensure programs and activities in rural areas sustain village character; and (3) whether the proposed training facility requires the approval of the State Properties Review Board as part of the State Facility Plan.
-
The Connecticut Real Estate Commission has requested the Attorney General's Office to render a formal legal opinion regarding the interpretation of C.G.S. § 20-317(a) as it relates to the following question: Does a non-resident real estate broker or real estate salesperson who is currently licensed in Connecticut under a bona fide Reciprocal Agreement need to qualify with course and experience and take a written exam to establish competency when such licensee becomes a resident of the State of Connecticut?
-
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.
-
You have requested a formal opinion as to whether employees of state-aided institutions, as defined in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 5-175, are authorized to participate in the Early Retirement Incentive Program (ERIP) created in 2003 by Conn. Pub. Act No. 03-02. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, you have also inquired as to whether such employees are bound by the reemployment provisions contained in the State Employees Retirement Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 5-152 to 5-192x (hereinafter SERA or the Retirement Act).
-
This is in response to your request for advice dated November 16, 1989 in which you ask "whether the unclassified employees of a board of trustees of any constituent unit of the state system of higher education who are members of ARP are actually subject to the dictates of this arbitration award, [on state employees retirement benefits] specifically Issue 17 ... which mandated that the members of the Alternate Retirement Program (ARP) be provided with Social Security coverage effective July 1, 1989."
-
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.
-
This office has been asked to respond to two questions concerning life insurance coverage for retirees. Specifically, you have asked (1) whether the letter sent by the Comptroller's Office to retirees provides adequate notice to such retirees of the reduction in life insurance coverage that occurs upon retirement and (2) what benefit amount would a retiree receive who dies prior to receipt of the aforementioned letter from the Comptroller's Office.
-
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 September 26, 1989, you requested our opinion concerning Conn. Gen. Stat. e21a-8(9). Section 21a-8(9) permits the Department of Consumer Protection ("DCP") to contract with third parties to administer licensing examinations on behalf of various state boards and commissions, including the State Electrical Work Examining Board (the "Board"). You asked what the extent of the Board's authority was in the selection process of the third party.
-
This is in response to your recent request for an opinion of the Attorney General concerning fee charges for the registration of brands of alcoholic liquors under the Liquor Control Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. e 30-63(a).
-
The Honorable Nancy Wyman, Comptroller, 2003-004 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have asked for a formal opinion as to whether the State is obligated to provide recently laid off state employees with certain severance benefits, including payment of the State's share of health insurance premiums for a period of six months after their termination from state service, pursuant to certain collective bargaining agreements and during administrative proceedings and/or additional negotiations with the unions on this issue.
-
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.