Formal Opinions
Page 16 of 42
-
Honorable Susan Bysiewicz, State Capitol, 1999-001 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have asked: If an elector files a written request to remove his/her social security number from the records of the registrars of voters (to whom the elector voluntarily gave it on his voter application card under section 9-20 of the General Statutes) may the registrar remove it from his/her records, and may the registrar of voters then refuse to provide such social security number to the Jury Administrator in the format prescribed under Section 51-222a?
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning your access, as the Auditors of Public Accounts, to certain documents of the Judicial Selection Commission (the "Commission") in connection with audits of the Commission pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 2-90. In particular, you ask whether, pursuant to subsection (g) of that statute, the Commission is obligated to provide you with documents concerning the evaluation of judicial candidates and incumbents that are considered confidential under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-44a (j).
-
In your letter of January 23, 2003, you have asked this Office for advice regarding the legal authority of the Board of Education for Regional School District No. 8 to create and fund from year to year what is referred to as an accrued liability reserve fund for the stated purpose of paying certain teacher retirement benefits under the terms of the district's collective bargaining agreement with its teachers. You note that the municipalities participating in the district currently pay annual assessments, which are deposited in the reserve fund each year.
-
You have asked whether certain vehicle identification number ("VIN") etching reimbursement products ("the Products") should be regulated as insurance under Title 38a of the Connecticut General Statutes.
-
In a letter to us, Lieutenant Colonel John A. Mulligan requested our advice regarding the propriety of state police and local constables entering upon private property for the purpose of enforcing an ordinance of the town of Woodbury regarding the removal of junked cars from private property.
-
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).
-
This opinion responds to your office's request for opinion concerning the proper application of Public Act 95-175 ("the Act") to operations in the Office of Victim Services
-
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.
-
This is in response to your request for opinion on whether municipalities that have voted to allow bazaars and raffles, but that have no chief of police or first selectman to investigate applications and issue permits as required by the Bazaar and Raffle Act, nevertheless may permit qualifying organizations to conduct bazaars and raffles.
-
Thank you for arranging our meeting with the Connecticut Lottery Corporation to discuss my concerns with the new lottery game entitled "Treasure Tower." Following my viewing of the game, and our helpful round-table discussion, I appreciate the thorough review this game has received from your agency. However, I continue to have grave concerns about the legality of this game and its design characteristics that are very likely to appeal directly to young children. Accordingly, I must and I hereby advise you to withdraw approval for the distribution and implementation of this game, unless and until the legislature passes legislation allowing this type of gaming.
-
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.
-
This is in response to your request for advice on whether Connecticut law would prohibit Autotote Enterprises, Inc. ("AEI") from continuing to purchase the New York Racing Association's ("NYRA's") signal if NYRA were indicted on criminal conspiracy to commit tax fraud charges.
-
We write to clarify our April 14, 2003 opinion concerning whether the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe (the "Tribe") could conduct Casino Night events at Foxwoods Casino ("Foxwoods") to benefit state charities. This issue had arisen in the wake of action by the Connecticut General Assembly earlier this year repealing the Games of Chance Act, which had allowed charities to run Las Vegas Nights events within the state as fundraisers, subject to the provisions of the Act. As a result of this repeal, charitable organizations may no longer legally conduct Las Vegas Night events in this State.
-
Shaun B. Cashman, Commissioner of Labor, 2003-013 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
As you are aware, section 31-57f of the Connecticut General Statutes provides for the payment of a standard wage rate to certain service workers employed by some contractors of the State or its agents. It has come to our attention that there has been uncertainty as to whether this statute requires such employers to raise wages during the life of a contract to match the prevailing standard wage rate as that rate increases, or whether the statute only requires those employers to pay service workers at the rate that was in effect at the time the contract was executed.
-
You have asked whether the state, through the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) and the Occupational trade licensing boards within its jurisdiction, is preempted by federal law from imposing its licensing requirements for contract personnel working at a nuclear power plant facility in Connecticut.