The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 37 of 42
-
We are replying to your letter of January 16, 1997 in which you ask a number of questions concerning the legality and propriety of Mr. John B. Meskill's January 15, 1997 resignation as executive director of the Division of Special Revenue (the "Division") to become the executive director of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Gaming Commission (the "Tribal Commission"). In particular, you would like to know (1) whether the specific revolving door limitation contained in General Statutes
-
You have asked us whether the Comptroller has authority to remit funds, which have been offset from amounts payable to state vendors who have defaulted on their federal student loans, to the Connecticut Student Loan Foundation (CSLF).
-
You have asked for our opinion about whether you have correctly interpreted two aspects of Conn. Gen. Stat.
-
This letter responds to your request for an opinion dated January 31, 1997. Briefly stated, your letter relates that since 1993 the Division's regulations have provided: "A prize to which a purchaser may become entitled shall not be assignable." Conn. Stat. Regs.
-
Alan S. Plofsky, State Ethics Commission, 1997-010 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
This letter is in response to your February 6, 1997 inquiry regarding the Legislative Regulations Review Committee's rejection without prejudice of your agency's proposed regulations implementing amendments to the lobbyist registration laws set forth in Public Act 96-11.
-
You have asked whether the University of Connecticut possesses the legal authority to pay directly vendors of UConn 2000 projects. You noted that if the bond proceeds had as their source a State bond issue, the University could not make such direct payments.
-
The Honorable Nancy Wyman, Comptroller, 1997-017 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
We have reviewed your request for guidance concerning questions you have raised regarding Social Security (FICA) payments for Special Deputy Sheriffs.
-
This is in response to your letter dated January 27, 1997, in which you asked our opinion with respect to the following two questions concerning an application of Conn. Gen. Stat.
-
You have asked whether alternative sanctions contractors have authority to access medical and psychiatric records held by a juvenile detention center for juvenile delinquents assigned to the contractor's program without violating the confidentiality requirements contained in Chapters 899 and 368X of the Connecticut General Statutes.
-
You seek our advice concerning the proposal of the Connecticut Lottery Corporation to introduce a Bingo type game as a new lottery product and inquire whether such a proposal is a permissible lottery game.
-
You ask whether payment of reimbursement expenses incurred by state employees is subject to wage garnishment under Conn. Gen. Stat.
-
You have asked for an opinion with regard to the implementation of Public Act No. 94-83, An Act Implementing the Recommendations of the Telecommunications Task Force.
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion regarding the settlement of an employment dispute with Marc Schillinger, a former state employee. Specifically, you inquire "whether the Governor, upon the recommendation of the Attorney General, has the authority under Section 3-7(c) [of the General Statutes] to compromise a claim in a manner which is not in accordance with Section 5-162 and 5-155a of the General Statutes."
-
This letter is written in response to your request, on behalf of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station1 ("the Station"), for an opinion concerning several legal questions arising out of a recent report by the Auditors of Public Accounts. The report questioned the propriety of how the Board of the Station ("the Board") had managed four private charitable trusts.
-
You have asked for an opinion regarding whether the payments for educational and other services which the Board of Education and Services for the Blind ("BESB") makes for the benefit of blind or visually impaired students and blind or visually impaired students with additional disabilities, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-295(a) and (b), respectively, are discretionary expenditures or in the nature of mandatory entitlements.