Formal Opinions
Page 17 of 42
-
2017-01 Formal Opinion, Attorney General, State of Connecticut
Senator Fasano's request on the requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. §3-125a, which provides that the General Assembly may reject a settlement agreement by a "three-fifths vote of each house."
-
2017-03 Formal Opinion, Attorney General, State of Connecticut
Honorable Senator Bob Duff has asked whether certain potential changes to Connecticut's Education Cost Sharing ("ECS") formula would violate our state constitution. Specifically, you ask whether our constitution requires that the ECS formula measure a town's ability to raise property tax revenue "using a ratio of ninety percent property wealth and ten percent income wealth."
-
2017-04 Formal Opinion, Attorney General, State of Connecticut
Commissioner Robert Klee asked my office for an opinion identifying the owner of a structure commonly known as the Stonington Harbor Breakwater, which is located in the Stonington Harbor adjacent to Stonington, CT (the "Breakwater").
-
2017-06 Formal Opinion, Attorney General, State of Connecticut
Speaker Aresimowicz and Majority Leader Ritter have requested an opinion about whether the legal principles and cautions set forth in Attorney General Opinion No. 89-11 , 1989 WL 505894 (May 9, 1989) ("Opinion 89-11 ") concerning the constitutionality of legislative enactments altering the provisions of collective bargaining agreements between the State and its employees remain in force today. Although subsequent cases have further developed the law, we conclude that the principles and cautions expressed in Opinion 89-11 continue to apply.
-
2017-08 Formal Opinion, Attorney General, State of Connecticut
An opinion on questions about the Governor's authority to direct the expenditure of funds by executive order in the absence of legislatively enacted appropriations.
-
2017-09 Formal Opinion, Attorney General, State of Connecticut
Formal opinion concerning two matters identified in the State of Connecticut Auditors' Report, Military Department, for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2013 ("Auditors' Report"). First, you have asked whether the requirements under Connecticut General Statutes § 4-37e et seq. pertaining to foundations established for the principal purpose of supporting or improving state agencies or for coordinated emergency recovery purposes apply to the Connecticut National Guard Foundation, Inc. (CNGFI). Second, you have asked whether the authority of the Governor of the State of Connecticut pursuant to the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes §§ 27-9 and 27-10, as delegated to and administered by the Connecticut Miiitary Depmtment (CTMD), is restricted to ordering members of the Connecticut State Guard to active service under the "State Active Duty" (SAD) program only for "emergency situations" as suggested by the Auditors' Report.
-
2017-07 Formal Opinion, Attorney General, State of Connecticut
An opinion about certain legal questions pertaining to a proposed police training facility in the Town of Griswold. Specifically, you ask (1) whether the requirements under Chapter 297a of the General Statutes relating to priority funding areas apply to the proposed training facility; (2) whether the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) has satisfied the requirement of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16a-35e that state agencies cooperate with municipalities to ensure programs and activities in rural areas sustain village character; and (3) whether the proposed training facility requires the approval of the State Properties Review Board as part of the State Facility Plan.
-
You have asked for general advice regarding correspondence the Department of Consumer Protection (the "Department") received from the Mohegan Tribe and Mashantucket Pequot Tribe concerning the proposed sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages at particular sites on the Tribes' federal reservations.
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning the term of office of the Executive Director of the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (Commission). You ask specifically when the term of office of Louis Martin, who was appointed executive director in 1994, expires, and whether he may hold over after the expiration of his term until a successor is appointed.
-
Your department requested our advice on whether individuals or firms providing personal services to the Department of Public Safety, to examine fire damaged electrical systems in order to determine whether such systems caused the fire, must be licensed as private detectives in accordance with Section 29-153 of the Connecticut General Statutes.
-
Your office has inquired about the status of a pending application to extend a permit previously issued to Fedus Associates, LLC to construct an asphalt plant in Colchester, Connecticut. Your inquiry asks about the effect Public Act 98-216 has on the company's application.
-
This is in response to your request for opinion pertaining to reimbursement of regulatory costs under the Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Procedures, 56 Fed. Reg. 24996 (May 31, 1991) (Procedures). You ask whether the Procedures, which allow you to assess the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe (Tribe) for "reasonable and necessary costs" of regulating and investigating operations at Foxwoods, include reimbursement of indirect as well as direct costs.
-
This is in response to your December 2, 1997 request for an opinion regarding the status of state employee home addresses under the state Freedom of Information Act ("FOI Act" or "Act"), Conn. Gen. Stat.
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion on whether the "revolving door" limitation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 12-557d(c) applies to you if you resign as Acting Executive Director of the Division of Special Revenue to accept a position as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Connecticut Lottery Corporation (CLC).
-
You have asked for an opinion regarding the interpretation of certain provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), originally executed April 25, 1994, between the State of Connecticut and the Mohegan Tribe ("Tribe") which permits the Tribe to operate video facsimile games as long as the Tribe contributes to the State a percentage of the revenue generated from those games in accordance with the terms of the MOU. In particular, a dispute has arisen between the Division of Special Revenue ("Division") and the Tribe concerning how to calculate certain payments.