The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 36 of 42
-
You have asked for a formal opinion on whether you have the authority to continue a long standing practice of allowing "local law enforcement agencies and certain state agencies to use Department of Correction (DOC) firing ranges in order to maintain appropriate certifications for their officers." These ranges are located on the grounds of the Cheshire and Enfield Correctional Institutions." In the past, these agreements were informal, but you indicate that you believe formal written agreements are necessary if the practice is to continue.
-
You have requested our advice on whether you have the authority to place offenders serving sentences of two years or less into halfway houses pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-100c prior to completion of one-half of their sentences. You also seek our advice on whether you are prevented, by statute, from transferring offenders serving sentences greater than two years to a halfway house prior to completion of one-half of the sentence imposed.
-
This will acknowledge and reply to your request on behalf of the State Apprenticeship Council (SAC) for a formal opinion concerning the propriety of the issuance of apprenticeship registrations by an agency other than the Department of Labor (DOL), in particular the State Apprenticeship Council (SAC) or the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP).
-
You have asked for an opinion whether non-profit employers’ mutual insurance associations under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 31-328 to 31-339 (“Mutual Association Statutes”) are “insurance companies” within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. §12-201(4) and are therefore subject to the Connecticut insurance premium tax, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§12-201 to 12-212a (“Connecticut Premium Tax”).
-
You have requested an opinion as to whether the provisions of Public Act No. 05-107, An Act Protecting Consumers in the Making of Income Tax Refund Anticipation Loans (Act), and in particular the provision limiting the interest rate on income tax refund anticipation loans, are enforceable (a) against national banks doing business in Connecticut or (b) against "facilitators" of such loans by national banks.
-
You have requested a formal opinion whether the Department of Revenue Services (DRS) is required to release certain tax documents and information to the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee (Committee) in connection with the Committee’s study of Connecticut’s tax system. In addition, you ask, if we conclude that DRS is required to provide the Committee such documents and information, may the Committee permit access to an outside consultant with which the Committee may contract to conduct a compilation and analysis of the tax data.
-
This is in response to your recent request for an opinion on whether the Division of Special Revenue must conduct a hearing, under the provisions of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), prior to revoking a lottery agent's license1 for failure to meet pre-established minimum sales levels for on-line and instant lottery ticket sales.2 Specifically, you inquire as to whether a lottery license is a "license" as that term is contemplated by the UAPA. We also understand that a question is raised as to the practical need for a hearing inasmuch as evidence of sales levels is documented and, presumably, incontestable.
-
By memo dated January 27, 1992 you requested an opinion from this office on whether state law can be construed to allow the Governor the option to not implement ("trigger off") an otherwise operable extended unemployment compensation benefit program (EB) should unemployment continue to rise to a certain level in this state. The purpose of this option is to allow the state's unemployed to be subject solely to a federally-funded emergency unemployment compensation (EUC) program. You also ask, assuming such a construction is allowable, whether the Governor may delegate the authority to "trigger off" state EB, as well as the authority to make all necessary contractual arrangements with the U.S. Department of Labor for administration of the EUC program, to the Administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act pursuant to Conn.Gen.Stat. Section 31-250.
-
In a memorandum dated October 5, 1998, your agency asked for our opinion regarding two questions that have arisen since the issuance of our September 28, 1998 opinion regarding Public Act 98-111. The first question asks the following: 1) A review of the opinion would seem to indicate that an individual convicted of, for example, C.G.S. Sec. 53a-71(a)(1), and sentenced to a term of probation commencing September 28, 1998 would not have to be registered under either Public Act 97-183 or Public Act. 98-111. Your second question is as follows: 2) Section 3(b) of the Act provides that any individual who has been subject to the registration requirements of Public Act 97-183 must register under Public Act 98-111 in the manner required for sexually violent offenders.
-
You have asked whether the Southeastern Connecticut Regional Resource Recovery Authority (SCRRRA) is subject to your auditing authority as set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat.
-
You have requested our opinion on whether Conn. Gen. Stat. 7-374b(b) and 7-403a authorize municipalities to issue general obligation bonds to fund their unfunded actuarial accrued pension liabilities. We understand that this request for opinion is prompted by the proposed issuance of general obligation bonds by the Town of Stratford for the foregoing purpose, and that the Town's bond counsel, Squire Sanders & Dempsey, has opined that the issuance is authorized under state law.
-
You have asked for general advice regarding correspondence the Department of Consumer Protection (the "Department") received from the Mohegan Tribe and Mashantucket Pequot Tribe concerning the proposed sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages at particular sites on the Tribes' federal reservations.
-
This is a formal opinion regarding whether abortion must be included in the coverage provided under the Husky Plan, Part B ("Husky B"), a program designed to ensure health care coverage to all children in Connecticut.
-
You have asked for my opinion with regard to a question raised by the state auditors on the propriety of an expenditure made by the Criminal Justice Commission. It is my understanding that your request was prompted by a recommendation made by the auditors, who concluded that it appeared that the Division's June 1996 reimbursement of legal fees to a State's Attorney in connection with his reappointment to that position in 1988 may have circumvented the intentions of the General Assembly with respect to the total monies approved for payment to the State's Attorney by the Claims Commissioner.
-
I am in receipt of your letter dated September 21, 1995, in which you emphasize your concern that the establishment of a third casino in this state not jeopardize the level of revenues currently being received by the State under the Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) between the State and the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan Tribes. In response to this concern, you issued an RFP that required each casino proposal to provide a guarantee that the State will receive, over a three-year period, up to $610 million to make up for any cessation in the Tribes' payments under the MOUs.