Formal Opinions
Page 9 of 42
-
By letter dated April 27, 1994, you have asked for the opinion of this Office as to whether the Governor had the authority to bind the State to the Gaming Compact between the State of Connecticut and the Mohegan Tribe of Indians pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) Pub.L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701 or whether the Gaming Compact must also be submitted to the General Assembly for its approval.
-
By letter dated August 17, 1993, you have asked our office as to the appropriateness of compensating a public member of the Commission on Hospitals and Health Care, Gwen B. Weltman, for the period September 4, 1992 to June 3, 1993.
-
In your letter of April 26, 1994, you asked several questions concerning the responsibility of the Southern New England Telephone Company ("SNET") for state-owned telecommunications equipment that was stolen from a SNET truck. You have informed us that the University of Connecticut (the "University"), which owns the equipment, did not pursue a claim against SNET, and you have asked two questions: First: Does SNET have responsibility for State equipment in its custody?; and, Second: If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is there a valid c1aim against SNET? http://www.cslib.org/attygenl/images/rainbow.gif
-
You have asked our opinion on whether the Connecticut Historical Commission may establish gift shops in historic properties that are maintained by the Commission for the purpose of generating revenues to be used to help defray the costs associated with the operation of the properties.
-
This is in response to your letter dated June 30, 1994, in which you requested our opinion regarding whether the proposed Safety and Health Regulations, drafted pursuant to Conn. Pub. Acts No. 93-228
-
James A. Gasecki, Sheriffs' Advisory Board, 1994-016 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
In your letter of March 15, 1994, you indicate that in two lawsuits, Kennedy St. George v. Mak, Case No. 5:92-CV-00587(JAC), United States District Court, District of Connecticut, and Lewis v. Mak, Case No. 5:92-CV-00593(JAC), United States District Court, District of Connecticut, the Attorney General's Office has advised the High Sheriff of Fairfield County and several persons in his department that it would be inappropriate for the Attorney General's Office to continue to represent them in those cases. Consequently, on behalf of the Sheriffs' Advisory Board you have asked for legal advice on the following question: Does the Sheriff's Advisory Board have authority to appropriate funds for the defense of sheriffs, deputy sheriffs and special deputy sheriffs in lawsuits brought against them in their individual capacities after the Attorney General has determined that providing a defense would be inappropriate pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat.
-
We are in receipt of your August 16, 1994 letter, wherein you seek our advice "[i]n anticipation of a possible freedom of information request." The anticipated request, we learned, may seek, inter alia, the addresses of state employees that you have in computer files maintained for state payroll purposes.
-
This letter is in response to your joint request dated August 11, 1993, for a formal opinion concerning interior design. In particular, you have asked three questions: 1. What effect does the requirement of Conn.Gen.Stat.
-
In a letter dated July 21, 1994 you wrote to the Attorney General seeking an opinion concerning the status of the Mobil Oil Corporation pursuant to a cost reimbursement request to the Underground Storage Tank Petroleum Clean-up Fund Review Board ("Review Board").
-
We are in receipt of your letter of June 22, 1994 wherein you call our attention to P.A. 93-219, Sec. 10. In your letter you seek our advice as to what extent, if any, the provisions of this section affect the computation of discharge dates for sentences subject to this statute. Section 10 of this Act provides as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of the general statutes, any person convicted of a crime committed on or after October 1, 1994, shall be subject to supervision by personnel of the department of correction or the board of parole until the expiration of the maximum term or terms for which he was sentenced.
-
You have requested our advice on several questions relating to the liability of the Second Injury Fund for payment of workers' compensation claims when an insurer of such claims has been determined to be insolvent. The Second Injury Fund ("the Fund") and the Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association have asserted differing interpretations of the statutes governing such liability.
-
In your letter of May 20, 1994, you inquired whether the State of Connecticut should continue to require car rental companies to be licensed as sellers of gasoline. You explained that some car rental agencies require their customers to return the vehicles with a particular amount of gasoline. If the vehicles are not returned with the requisite amount of gasoline, the agencies will provide gasoline from their own pumps and will charge the customers for the gasoline.
-
In your letter of June 16, 1994, you ask whether an employee of the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) may, upon election to the General Assembly, continue to hold his employment with CRRA, or be prohibited from holding the CRRA position due to the "dual job ban" set forth in either Conn. Const. Art. III,
-
The following is in response to your request of June 30, 1994, for an opinion concerning the applicability of the gun certification requirements of 1993 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 93-306, An Act Concerning Assault Weapons, to licensed firearms dealers and distributors. Specifically you ask: "Do licensed firearms dealers and distributors need to obtain a certificate of possession for all assault weapons in their possession that were 'in stock' as of October 1, 1993? Is a certificate needed with respect to assault weapons acquired after October 1, 1993?" The Act addresses "licensed gun dealers" and we assume, for the purposes of this opinion, that your questions concern these entities.
-
This is in response to your letter dated January 31, 1994, in which you request a formal opinion of the Attorney General concerning an issue relating to the jurisdiction of the tax review committee (hereinafter "the committee") under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-3a. Please advise me whether the tax review committee has statutory authority to consider and to waive any penalty in excess of one hundred dollars that the Commissioner of Revenue Services has determined not to waive.