2002 Formal Opinions
Page 2 of 3
-
This will acknowledge and reply to your request of November 28, 2001 for an advisory opinion as to whether the State has the authority to consolidate workforce development regions pursuant to the federal Workforce Investment Act and, if so, what criteria must be satisfied before such consolidation is approved. You also ask whether a workforce development board which has demonstrated adequate fiscal capability and achieved satisfactory performance results can be forced to change its current service area or method of operation.
-
Honorable Denise L. Nappier, Treasurer, 2002-004 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have requested an opinion regarding the ownership and management of approximately 2.2 million shares of Anthem, Inc. stock recently distributed to the State of Connecticut, as a result of the demututalization of Anthem Insurance Company ("AIC"). You raise the question of the State's "ownership of, and, therefore, [your] authority to receive and manage these assets" in light of legal challenges to the State's ownership currently pending.
-
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.
-
You have asked for our opinion regarding the State Marshal Commission’s authority to investigate and, if appropriate, withdraw the appointment of a state marshal for improper conduct engaged in prior to December 1, 2000.
-
The Honorable John G. Rowland, The Capitol, 2002-018 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
On October 9, 2002, the Freedom of Information Commission (Commission) ruled that the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) was not required to disclose to the public eight documents in CRRA's possession which were the subject of an April 17, 2002, and an April 23, 2002 Freedom of Information Complaint filed by Paul A. Green and the Journal Inquirer. According to the Commission, the eight documents in question either constitute attorney-client communications or relate to CRRA's possible litigation strategy to recover the $220 million loaned to Enron and are, therefore, exempt from public disclosure pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §§1-210(b)(10) and 1-210(b)(4). By letter dated October 11, 2002, you have asked me to obtain from CRRA the eight documents that have not yet been disclosed and release them to the public.
-
On October 9, 2002, the Freedom of Information Commission (Commission) ruled that the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) was not required to disclose to the public eight documents in CRRA's possession which were the subject of an April 17, 2002, and an April 23, 2002 Freedom of Information Complaint filed by Paul A. Green and the Journal Inquirer. According to the Commission, the eight documents in question either constitute attorney-client communications or relate to CRRA's possible litigation strategy to recover the $220 million loaned to Enron and are, therefore, exempt from public disclosure pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §§1-210(b)(10) and 1-210(b)(4). By letter dated October 11, 2002, you have asked me to obtain from CRRA the eight documents that have not yet been disclosed and release them to the public.
-
This is in response to your request for an expedited opinion on whether the Connecticut Lottery Corporation (CLC) may legally sell lottery tickets at a booth within the Connecticut building at this year's Eastern States Exposition in West Springfield, Massachusetts, from September 13-29, 2002.
-
You requested an opinion of this Office as to whether former State Treasurer Paul Silvester had the authority to exempt the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the "Tribe") from the Second Injury Fund ("the Fund") assessment, required of all state employers pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-354, and to bind the Fund to an apparent agreement for this purpose.
-
You requested our opinion "concerning the determination of how much of an individual’s disposable income may be taken to satisfy a tax warrant when the individual also is subject to a dependent support order."
-
Honorable George Jepsen, State Capitol, 2002-011 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have requested our opinion regarding the responsibility for providing police services at the University of Connecticut Stadium at Rentschler Field in East Hartford and at the Adriaen’s Landing Project in Hartford.
-
Honorable John G. Rowland, State Capitol, 2002-014 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
I write to supplement my opinion dated April 17, 2002, regarding the constitutionality of House Bill No. 5346, and to notify you of a United States Supreme Court decision providing powerful and decisive support for my conclusion that the measure is constitutional.
-
This letter is in response to your request, on behalf of the Waterbury Financial Planning and Assistance Board ("WFPAB"), for a formal legal opinion on three questions concerning the appointment of a 2002 Charter Revision Commission for the City of Waterbury.
-
John G. Rowland, State Capitol, 2002-012 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have asked for my opinion regarding the constitutionality of House Bill No. 5346, which would impose a one year moratorium on the construction of any electric power line or gas pipeline across Long Island Sound.
-
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.