The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 17 of 42
-
This is in response to your request for advice regarding access to nursing home facilities by patient advocates and ombudsmen. You have asked the following questions: 1. Does an Ombudsman/Patient Advocate have access to a facility to visit, observe conditions and operation only in response to a specific complaint? 2. Must an Ombudsman/Patient Advocate notify the administration or staff of the reason for their presence? 3. Can a facility require that a schedule including date and time of visits be posted with the intent of limiting access? 4. May a facility announce the presence of the Ombudsman/Patient Advocate over the PA system? 5. Can the facility require that a staff person accompany the Ombudsman/Patient Advocate? 6. Can the facility refuse to send an Accident and Incident or A500 report to the Ombudsman Office?
-
By letter dated July 19, 1991, you state that a company called Hartford Paving Inc. ("Hartford Paving" ) has been performing bridge painting work for the Department of Transportation ("DOT") pursuant to purchase orders issued to it by the DOT in accordance with Contract Award No. 890-A-13-1054-C. You have asked our opinion as to whether the Department of Consumer Protection has a right to attach or garnish funds.
-
This is in response to your letter of July 22, 1991, in which you seek our opinion on whether the Department of Transportation ("DOT") has the authority to cancel the unexpended balance of purchase orders that the DOT has issued to Hartford Paving Inc. ("Hartford Paving") for bridge painting services under Contract Award No. 89--A-13-1054-C. You further ask whether the DOT can avoid contracting with Hartford Paving on future painting projects and instead use other companies listed in the contract award.
-
We are writing in response to your letter of February 19, 1991 in which you request our advice concerning whether certain physicians and psychologists, who serve as "medical consultants" and "psychological/psychiatric consultants'' to the Division of Rehabilitation Services and who are hired pursuant to personal services agreements, are immune from personal liability pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 4-165.
-
This is in response to a request by former Commissioner Heslin for an opinion of the Attorney General concerning whether a board or commission member who is disqualified from acting and voting on a particular matter because of a conflict of interest, may, for the purposes of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-7(6), be counted in determining if a quorum of such board or commission is present to legally act.
-
By letter dated February 20, 1990, your predecessor in office, Commissioner Papandrea, requested our opinion on whether the Department of Housing (DOH) is a public housing agency within the purview of the United States Housing Act of 1937.1 The request was prompted by letters from William H. Hernandez, Jr., Manager of the Hartford Office of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD").
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning the terms of office of Commissioners of the Department of Liquor Control. Specifically, you seek an opinion on the applicability of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-2, which states that Commissioners are to be appointed to staggered, six-year terms.
-
Upon a recommendation of the federal government, your agency requested a formal opinion from the Attorney General concerning two grantees which currently receive Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) funding. The opinion concerns whether the grantees are "eligible entities" as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 9902(1).
-
You have requested our advice on the applicability of 1990 Public Acts No. 90-304, now codified in Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-570d, to the Department of Correction. You specifically ask whether an official of the Department of Correction is a criminal law enforcement official for purposes of the exception contained in subsection (b)(1) of Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-570d.
-
This is in response to your predecessor's letter of August 7, 1990, requesting an opinion regarding the proper assessment of attorney's fees to personal injury recoveries which include basic reparations benefits (BRB), under Conn. Gen. Stat/ § 38 -325(b).
-
In 1961, the Attorney General's Office issued an opinion to the State Employees' Retirement Commission concerning the interaction between 1961 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 295 and federal Social Security reporting requirements. The opinion concluded that the State must report, for FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) purposes, all fees and salaries, from all sources, paid to sheriffs and chief deputy sheriffs. Former State Comptroller J. Edward Caldwell requested us, by letter dated December 18, 1990, to re-evaluate our 1961 opinion in light of current Social Security laws
-
This is in response to your request for opinion wherein you raise the following issues: In response to a recommendation contained in the most recent report of the Auditors of Public Accounts on the University of Connecticut Health Center, we are examining available options relative to the Health Center's Academic Enhancement Fund.
-
The issue in this request for opinion is whether the Connecticut General Assembly can, by repealing the authorization for charitable Las Vegas Nights in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-186a et seq., eliminate the right of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe (Tribe) to conduct a casino on its reservation in Ledyard.
-
This is in response to your letter of April 11, 1991 in which you relate that the State Teachers' Retirement Board has requested our advice on the eligibility of a member of the Teachers' Retirement System to purchase additional service credits toward retirement for time while under disciplinary suspension.
-
Through you the Bridgeport Financial Review Board (hereinafter the "Board") has asked for our opinion regarding the procedure for setting the property tax rate in the city of Bridgeport (hereinafter the "city"). Specifically, you have inquired whether the City tax rate can be reset after the Board has taken action on the City's proposed annual budget which was predicated on a particular tax rate set by the City's Common Council under the provisions set for the in the City charter.