Search Results
Page 179 of 222
-
In your communication of December 27, 1999, you state that the Board of Trustees for the Community-Technical Colleges ("Board of Trustees") had voted earlier in 1999 to change its name and the names of each of its twelve colleges by reducing "regional community-technical college(s)" to "community college" in each title. You state that the Board of Trustees' action was based upon a "yearlong public relations study." On behalf of the Board of Governors for Higher Education ("Board of Governors") you asked whether the approval of the Board of Governors pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §10a-6 and/or of the General Assembly is required to effect legally these name changes.
-
I reviewed the questions that you have presented to me as follows: 1. Must an HMO medical plan, the terms and conditions of which contain a custodial care exception, offer a plan to the public, after receiving Department of Insurance approval, that: (a) meets the requirements of CGS 38a-553(c)(10), (b) complies with CGS 38a-478 et seq., as from time to time amended, and Article XXI of the Connecticut Constitution, and (c) does not use rehabilitation or improvement as criteria in determining whether care for disabled persons or persons suffering from biologically-based mental illnesses or nervous conditions is to be considered custodial? 2. Must the external appeal panel, acting pursuant to CGS 38a-478n, when reviewing appeals certified by the Department of Insurance and which construe or involve the custodial care exception (CGS 38a-553(c)(10)) as applied to disabled persons or persons suffering from biologically-based mental illnesses or nervous conditions (CGS 38a-478 et seq., as from time to time amended): (a) apply said CGS 38a-478 et seq. and Article XXI of the State Constitution, and (b) not use rehabilitation or improvement as tests for custodial care?
-
This is in response to your request for a formal opinion of the Attorney General, submitted in your capacity as Chairman of the Commission For Child Support Guidelines, on the following two questions: (1) Whether the child support guidelines, promulgated on January 1, 1991, are subject to the legislative review provisions of Public Act 91-209; and (2) Whether the January 1, 1991 child support guidelines, and all future guidelines, are subject to the rule-making procedures under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act.
-
In your letter dated September 12, 1991, you asked us whether the conservator of the estate of a disabled child of a deceased member of the State Teachers' Retirement System is eligible for monthly benefits as a legal guardian under Conn.Gen.Stat. § 10-183h(a).
-
This letter is in response to your letter of March 12, 1992, in which you requested our opinion on the following issue: Is there any lawful basis upon which a municipality may refuse to meet the requirements of a state law when compliance with the law will result in costs to the municipality which are not reimbursed or otherwise borne by the state?
-
We are in receipt of a letter dated December 3, 1991, from the Commission's Administrator, John C. Ford, with an attached letter dated October 21, 1991, from Dr. Roger J. Harris. The issue on which you seek our guidance is whether the Commission must conduct an administrative hearing on the individual's application based upon the oral surgeon's letter dated October 21, 1991, which your agency interprets as a request for such a hearing.
-
Joseph D. D'Alesio, Judicial Branch, 2002-007 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have requested an opinion regarding an amendment to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-215, relating to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund. The purpose of that fund is to provide compensation and services for the victims of crimes.
-
This letter responds to the June 25, 2002 letter from Ann Stravalle-Schmidt, CRRA Director of Legal Services, seeking our opinion on several questions concerning the Separation Agreement between CRRA and former CRRA President Robert E. Wright that was approved by the previous CRRA Board of Directors. In particular, Stravalle-Schmidt asked: (1) whether the previous Board had the authority to enter into the agreement; (2) whether the language of ¶7 of the agreement — the provision concerning indemnification and reimbursement for legal expenses — was legally permissible; and (3) whether ¶7 of the agreement is enforceable against CRRA.
-
You have requested our advice regarding whether the Air Exchange Building, which is owned by the State of Connecticut and forms part of Bradley International Airport, and which has been leased and subleased to various persons and organizations, is subject to property taxation under Ch. 266b of the General Statutes.
-
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.
-
Recently you requested an opinion regarding the State Department of Education's obligations in making certain grant awards pursuant to recently enacted legislation. More particularly, you asked: "[c]an the State Department of Education [(the "Department")] legally make a grant award to an organization identified in a fiscal note to the state's budget which is produced by the Office of Fiscal Analysis [("OFA")],)" The Department's Staff Director for Legal and Governmental Affairs subsequently narrowed the inquiry to whether the Department is ""under a legal obligation to make the payments specified in the fiscal notes or whether the fiscal notes are merely directory and authorize (the Department] to make payments in such amount to such persons as are identified in the fiscal notes."
-
We are in receipt of your letter dated October 28, 1992, in which you ask, whether, under Conn. Const. Art. III, § 11 and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 2-5, the so-called "dual job bans," a member-elect of the General Assembly may assume the duties of an appointed position in the legislative branch prior to the completion of his current legislative term.
-
In your March 16, 1992 letter, you have sought this Office's advice as to whether a consumer may access the Home Improvement Guaranty Fund on more than one occasion against the same contractor.
-
You have inquired whether the provisions of Special Act No. 01-7 (S.A. 01-7), and in particular Section 5 of the Special Act, empower the Hartford School Building Committee, created by the Special Act, to hire a school construction or program manager of its choosing, without having to comply with the strictures and mandates of the Hartford City Charter and various municipal ordinances or regulations addressing the purchase of goods and professional services by the city.
-
In your letter dated October 9, 2001 you requested an opinion of this office as to whether the State Marshal Commission has the authority to institute a policy and procedure for the service of restraining orders by state marshals.