The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Search Results
Page 144 of 217
-
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion clarifying the Judicial Branch’s duty to disclose juvenile delinquency and youthful offender records
-
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
-
You asked for a legal opinion as to the circumstances under which subsection (b) of section 3 of Public Act 09-214 would require the legislative Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee and the Appropriations Committee (the Committees) to prepare and vote on adjusted appropriations
-
You have asked for our opinion whether the State Employees Retirement Commission may use retirement fund assets for the purpose of paying overtime to employees
-
You have requested an opinion concerning the operation of the Family Support Council (the “Council”). Specifically, you have asked whether the Council’s enabling statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-219c, prohibits you from delegating your voting authority to a member of your staff
-
The Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation (“the Church”) has filed a federal lawsuit against officials of the Office of State Ethics (“OSE”) seeking court orders preventing the OSE from seeking to enforce against the Church certain state laws governing lobbyists
-
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.
-
By your letter of May 4, 1992, you requested our opinion on several questions about the exclusion of irrevocable funeral accounts from consideration as assets in determining eligibility for your Department's programs. Essentially, you asked whether the monetary limit Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-207 places on such accounts is a requirement for their validity. If it is, you asked whether the limit may be exceeded either by creating an account outside the state and then transferring it to the state or by creating multiple irrevocable accounts whose total amount exceed the limit.
-
You have asked for an advisory opinion concerning the appointment of members to the Connecticut Employment and Training Commission ("CETC"). The CETC has been designated Connecticut's state workforce investment board (board) pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-3h(b)(5), which implements the federal Workforce Investment Act of 1998, P.L. 105-200 ("WIA") Sec. 111(b)(1)(C). You have asked whether restrictions on appointments to the board contained in § 31-3i(b) conflict with appointment provisions of WIA, and if so, whether the state statutory provisions are preempted by the federal law.
-
In your capacity as Chairman of the Waterbury Financial Planning and Assistance Board (the "Board"), you have asked for an advisory opinion concerning the membership of the Board. Specifically, you have asked whether Board member Mr. Jack Cronan, an appointee of the Governor who is the chief executive officer of the Waterbury Teacher's Association, may continue to serve as a Board member following his planned retirement from employment with the City of Waterbury (the "City") on July 1, 2004 and end of his tenure as chief executive officer of the Waterbury Teacher's Association.
-
As you have described in prior communications, including your recent letter to me dated April 28, 2004, the Office of Policy and Management ("OPM") and the Department of Public Works ("DPW") have been attempting to make an appropriate and beneficial disposition of certain surplus State property, namely the property and facilities known as the Norwich State Hospital (the "Hospital"). You previously requested and received from me a formal opinion (dated April 12, 2004) treating certain questions regarding the legal ramifications of allowing a consultant to the State, named Spaulding & Slye, to submit a competitive proposal for its own purchase and development of the Hospital after it had worked for many months, under contract to the State, studying the possible development and sale of the Hospital, and helping to solicit and evaluate proposals for the property from other parties.
-
In June 2000, the Office of Policy and Management retained Spaulding & Slye ("S&S") as a consultant to assist in the development and marketing of the Norwich State Hospital property. The 2000 contract also gave S&S the right to offer to purchase the property. The contract with Spaulding & Slye terminated in December 2003 and in March 2004 OPM issued a Request for Proposals ("RFP") for the purchase and development of the hospital property. In a letter dated March 3, 2004 you have asked whether Spaulding & Slye may submit a proposal in response to the RFP and what the state's legal exposure would be from other bidders if S&S is allowed to submit a proposal or from S&S if a bid from them is precluded. Subsequently on March 5, 2004, you also asked whether the state may place a restriction on the property prohibiting it from being annexed by an Indian Tribe.
-
You have asked for my opinion whether the contract entered into by the Department of Social Services (DSS) with the Community Health Network of Connecticut, Inc.(CHN) to provide medical services to eligible clients under the State-Administered General Assistance program (SAGA) is a personal service agreement which must comply with the competitive bidding or competitive negotiations provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-212 et seq.
-
You have raised several questions concerning the statutes governing the establishment and activities of the Soldiers', Sailors' and Marines' Fund (&quo;Fund"), as well as the current operation of the Fund. In particular, you have inquired whether: i) these statutes' apparent delegation of public functions to a private agency, in this instance the American Legion, violates constitutional principles; ii) whether current law restricts expending Fund assets for administrative expenses; and iii) whether the law would permit the Department of Veterans' Affairs ("DVA") to conduct the intake and processing of veterans' applications for benefits from the Fund.