The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 36 of 42
-
This will acknowledge your request of April 18, 1991 for a formal opinion concerning an interpretation of Section 20-334a of the Connecticut General Statues.
-
In a letter to us, Lieutenant Colonel John A. Mulligan requested our advice regarding the propriety of state police and local constables entering upon private property for the purpose of enforcing an ordinance of the town of Woodbury regarding the removal of junked cars from private property.
-
In your letter of October 12, 1990, you posed several questions regarding the property tax relief program in Conn. Gen. Stat. e 12-62d. From discussions with your staff, we have been informed that the only question which we need answer concerns the proper interpretation of l989 Conn. Pub. Acts 89-251, e 192(h)(2), codified as Conn. Gen. Stat. e 12-62d(h)(2).
-
Through you the Bridgeport Financial Review Board (hereinafter the "Board") has asked for our opinion regarding the procedure for setting the property tax rate in the city of Bridgeport (hereinafter the "city"). Specifically, you have inquired whether the City tax rate can be reset after the Board has taken action on the City's proposed annual budget which was predicated on a particular tax rate set by the City's Common Council under the provisions set for the in the City charter.
-
In your letter dated December 5, 1990, you expressed concern over the extent of the financial responsibility to which the State is potentially exposed pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 28-14.
-
You have each asked independently for our opinion on a series of questions regarding the transmission of budgetary and financial information from the Office of Policy and Management (hereinafter referred to as "OPM") to the office of the Comptroller under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 3-112 and 3-115.
-
This is in reply to your September 17, 1991 letter, renewing your earlier request for an opinion on August 9, 1991. In that letter, you asked "whether the Governor may act, through executive order, to appropriate and expend state monies by authorizing the continuation of government operations."
-
This is in response to your request for advice regarding treatment rendered by emergency medical personnel. As we understand it, there have been a number of instances recently where it has come to the attention of the Office of Emergency Medical Services within the Department of Health Services that emergency medical personnel1 have rendered treatment in circumstances not limited to their employment by a licensed ambulance company or as volunteers of a certified ambulance company.
-
In your letter of July 30, 1991, you asked our opinion on the following issue: In those situations where a registered nurse has determined and pronounced the death of a patient pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes, § 20-101a, do the statutes require a licensed physician to view and examine the body when preparing the medical certification potion of the death certificate?
-
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.
-
In your letter, dated February 5, 1991, you requested our opinion concerning whether there are any limitations on a licensed professional engineer's authority to design buildings. You have noted the overlap of practices between architecture and professional engineering2 with regard to design of buildings and have asked us to review this matter.
-
You have asked our opinion concerning the State's authority to continue payment for state services if a State budget is not enacted by June 14, 1991.
-
This is in response to your letter of January 28, 1991 in which you ask whether or not a "judge who has been called in to active duty in the Armed Services of the country ... should be continued on the payroll of the Judicial Department for the period of time the judge concurrently retains the office of judge and serves in the Armed Forces of the United Stated." A superior court judge who is in the reserve component of the Armed Forces of the United States has been called to active duty after August 7, 1990 in connection with Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, necessitating an answer to your question.
-
By letter of December 19, 1990, CPI and its subsidiaries proposed a payment plan for all unpaid sales and use taxes owed through October 31, 1991. The Department of Revenue Services ("the Department") responded by letter of December 27, 1990 accepting a payment plan on the terms stated in the Department's letter and on the specific condition that current taxes must be filed and paid timely and that the agreement would be subject to review every six months. At some time after the payment plan was initiated, the Department reported CPI's delinquency to the Comptroller pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-39g.