The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 34 of 42
-
In your letter of April 24, 1996, you seek our opinion as to whether the Connecticut General Statutes require that a local referendum be conducted whenever a new off-track betting facility is proposed to be operated by the Autotote Corporation in a municipality.
-
John F. Merchant, Esq., 1996-007 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
I have reviewed the relevant statutes applicable to your appointment as Consumer Counsel and the term of your office.
-
John Meeker, Chairman, Board of Parole, 1996-015 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
This letter responds to your request for advice concerning whether parole officers have authority to enforce conditions of parole with respect to parolees, Indians and nonIndians, on federal reservations.
-
Judge Aaron Ment, Supreme Court Building, 1996-011 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
Your office has posited several questions regarding the retroactive versus prospective application of Public Acts 96-63 and 96-79, which amend Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-142a, commonly referred to as the Connecticut Erasure Statute. The primary effects of the amendments are to remove the category of transcripts of criminal trials from the types of records that are subject to erasure, and to delay the actual physical destruction of erased records.
-
The Board of Pardons asked this office the following questions with regard to the possibility of future executions in the State of Connecticut: When is the first execution likely to be scheduled? When will a hearing be required in anticipation of an execution date? On the date of execution? Just before the execution? After all other appeals have been exhausted? Is it necessary for the Board to convene a commutation hearing in all cases whether requested or not? Who could request the convening of this special session: the defendant, his attorney, the Governor, a family member, etc.?
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion inquiring whether the Commissioner of Economic and Community Development ("Commissioner") has the authority to amend the assistance agreement (the "Agreement") between the former Department of Economic Development, now the Department of Economic and Community Development ("DECD"), and the Dun & Bradstreet Company ("Dun & Bradstreet"), and whether such amendment, if permissible, must be submitted to this office for approval.
-
You have requested the opinion and advice of the Attorney General regarding the status of the above-entitled case, and the alternatives that are available for the disbursement of funds that will be received by the state following its resolution.
-
You have inquired as to the proper interpretation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §2-3a, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees who are members of the general assembly. Specifically, you ask what is included in the term "duties of such office" as used in the statute, whether the "time off" provision contained in the statute applies to campaigning, and who determines the scope of a legislator's duties.
-
Your agency forwarded the findings of the U. S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division audit investigation of Connecticut's employment and compensation of special deputy sheriffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),1 seeking our advice.
-
You recently wrote to this office explaining your desire to establish a global combined investment fund to replace nine combined investment funds currently in use. The proposed combined investment fund would include retirement funds as well as seven non-retirement trust funds (hereinafter the "seven funds").
-
This is in response to your letter of November 27, 1996, in which you requested the opinion of this office as to whether the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (hereinafter "CHRO") retains jurisdiction pursuant to Public Act 96-241 Section 1, to process discriminatory practice complaints filed on or before January 1, 1996 when CHRO has issued a finding of reasonable cause or no reasonable cause not later than January 1, 1997, and one of the following circumstances applies: The Complainant has requested reconsideration and the reconsideration request is pending action by the Commission on January 1, 1997. The Complainant has requested reconsideration, the Commission has reconsidered the complaint, and the Commission's investigator is conducting additional investigation pursuant to the Commission's reconsideration. The Complainant has appealed the Commission's determination (merit assessment review or no reasonable cause) to court, the appeal is pending on January 1, 1997 and the court subsequently remands the case to the Commission for further investigation. The Complainant has appealed the Commission's determination of no reasonable cause to court and the court already has remanded the case to the Commission. The Attorney General or Commission Counsel have withdrawn or withdraw after January 1, 1997, the certification of the complaint to public hearing for further investigation.
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion of the Attorney General on your authority to review an application under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-132 concerning the acquisition of The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company and The Standard Fire Insurance Company by The Travelers Insurance Group (hereinafter referred to as "the Travelers application") following a decision by Insurance Commissioner George M. Reider, Jr., to recuse himself.
-
We are responding to your request for advice as to how a December 8, 1994 informal opinion to former Commissioner Nicholas Cioffi regarding the Department of Public Safety Division of Fire, Emergency, and Building Services' civil regulatory jurisdiction over certain activities on the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation ("Reservation") would "impact the services" your agency provides with respect to boxing on the Reservation.
-
n your letter of November 7, 1995, you asked several questions concerning the relationship between the University of Connecticut and the University of Connecticut Foundation. You have asked three specific questions. First: May University employees work under the direction of the Foundation, with the Foundation reimbursing the University for the salary and fringe benefits of these employees? Second: May the Foundation utilize money received from the University for fund-raising services to repay its obligations (including salaries) to the University? Third: May the University provide services, such as computer support services, to the Foundation at no cost?
-
Hon. John G. Rowland, Executive Chambers, 1995-008 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
We have received your letters of February 8, 1995, soliciting our opinion on issues concerning temporary gubernatorial appointments arising from the application of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-7(b)(2). Specifically, you both ask whether a "designate" under § 4-7(b)(2) must be sworn in pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-1 before exercising the powers and duties of the office.