Formal Opinions
Page 35 of 42
-
In your letter of June 17, 2002, you requested that I issue an opinion regarding whether the $12,000.00 annual cap on compensation for members of the Connecticut Siting Council (Council) contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-50j (f) is a limit on total compensation or only compensation for attending hearings.
-
Senator Sullivan and Jepsen, State Capitol, 2002-021 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have asked for an opinion regarding the provision of § 17b-8(a) of the General Statutes, under which the Commissioner of the Department of Social Services ("Commissioner") is required to submit applications for waivers of federal assistance program requirements to the Joint Committee on Appropriations and the Joint Committee on Human Services ("Joint Committees").
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion on whether a certain bill, proposed in last year’s legislative session, and which is expected to be proposed again, would conflict with the Tribal/State agreements or Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan Tribes concerning the operations of the two casinos in Connecticut. The bill would allow businesses to conduct games of chance under certain circumstances.
-
This is in response to your question as to whether the Compact between the Mohegan Tribe and the State of Connecticut allows off-track betting and viewing of races from hotel rooms at the Mohegan Sun Casino utilizing hotel telephones and television sets.
-
Your office has asked whether the recent injunction regarding Connecticut's Sexual Offender Registration Act (SORA) issued by the United States District Court of Connecticut, and upheld by the Second Circuit, impedes in any way the implementation of Public Act 01-211, concerning victim notification. That Act requires victim notification of applications for exemption from the Sex Offender Registry or its notification requirements.
-
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion as to whether your office is "authorized to issue or accept primary petitions of candidates for state and district offices?"1 It is our understanding you are questioning whether you are required to place the name of a candidate for state or district office2 on the Democratic or Republican Party primary ballot based solely on the fact that the candidate has obtained the signatures of a certain percentage of the political party's registered voters within the candidate's district.
-
You have requested my opinion on whether municipalities may, by town ordinance, dictate the terms under which they will pay for State Marshal work
-
This letter responds to your request for a formal legal opinion as to whether the state-owned High Meadows health care facility in Hamden
-
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."
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion from this office regarding the constitutionality of provisions of the proposed interstate banking bill which would set interest rate caps on credit cards as a condition of entry by out-of-state bank holding companies, out-of-state savings and loan holding companies, out-of-state banks, out-of-state savings banks, and out-of-state savings and loan associations.
-
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 letter is in response to your request for advice concerning the State Insurance Purchasing Board's authority to obtain surety bonds for members of the board of directors of the Connecticut Convention Center Authority.
-
You have requested an opinion on the following questions: l. Does legislation which changes the terms and conditions of loan forgiveness programs apply to borrowers who signed promissory notes prior to the enactment of such legislation? 2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, under what circumstances may the terms of the promissory notes be changed; and 3. Which of the changes made in the l986 legislation would apply to pre-l986 borrowers; and 4. For those provisions which do apply, what is the effective date for applying the changed provisions.
-
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.
-
We are in receipt of a letter dated August 28, 1989, from Major John M. Watson wherein our opinion is sought concerning numerous compensation issues relating to highway constriction projects.