The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 4 of 42
-
In your letter dated January 24, 1990, you request our advice on the Bureau's implementation of 1989 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 89-259. Public Acts No. 89-259 contains provisions for certification of telecommunicators as well as provisions for automatic certification of telecommunicators who meet special requirements.
-
This is in reply to your letter of March 17, 1989, requesting our advice concerning the eligibility of a state retiree, now serving in the General Assembly, for group life insurance. Specifically, you ask whether the individual is eligible to participate in group life insurance coverage as a member of the legislature as provided in Conn. Gen. Stat. e 5-257(a) while also maintaining paid-up group life insurance provided for retired State employees in e 5-257(d).
-
You have requested our advice concerning the meaning of a provision within Conn. Gen. Stat. e 7-402, which relates to the deposit of public money and trust funds by municipalities and school districts.
-
In your letter dated June 1, 1990, you requested the opinion of this office as to whether any person designated by you as a serving officer to collect money owed the Unemployment Compensation Fund would be entitled to a statutory right of indemnification. Specifically you inquire as to whether there is a right to indemnification from financial loss and expense from the state for any negligence or civil rights violations arising from such a person's actions while functioning as a serving officer.
-
This is in response to your request for opinion dated January 10, 1990, regarding whether vacant parcels qualify for inclusion under the Private College and General Hospital Grant Program, Conn. Gen. Stat. e 12-20a, which provides municipalities with a grant in lieu of property taxes for certain educational and medical facilities located in such municipalities which provide regional and statewide benefits.
-
This is in response to your recent request for an opinion on the self-defense rights of liquor control agents. Specifically, you ask whether self-defense rights are greater if exercised in the "workplace", and you ask us for a definition of the workplace for agents.
-
Department of Income Maintenance , 1990-030 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You recently requested the opinion of the Attorney General on several questions relating to the impact of the federal Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (MCCA), Pub.L. 100-360, on your department's determinations of eligibility for assistance under the Title XIX medical assistance program ("Medicaid").
-
You have asked us whether l989 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 89-322, "An Act Concerning Liability of Corporate Directors" (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), applies to banking institutions and credit unions organized under Title 36 of the General Statutes, "The Banking Law of Connecticut."
-
In a letter to our office from your predecessor, our advice is requested on the authority of the codes and standards committee to review the actions of the state building inspector taken pursuant to General Statutes e 29-200.
-
In his letter to us, Lt. Col. John A. Mulligan requested our advice concerning the use of certain closed circuit video monitoring equipment to monitor the area to the rear of certain motor vehicles. His specific question to us is "whether installation and use of such equipment violates Section 14-105 of the General Statutes or any other provision of our law."
-
You have requested the opinion of the Attorney General as to whether the Department of Income Maintenance is authorized to enter into contractual arrangements with insurance companies in connection with a demonstration program to be jointly administered by the Department of Income Maintenance and the Insurance Department. Specifically, under the proposed contract, Income Maintenance would advise insurance companies whether payments to insured persons under insurance policies qualify for "asset exclusions" under the program. Income Maintenance would receive a contractual payment from the insurance companies for providing the contracted service.
-
In your letter of August 9, 1990, you call our attention to the provisions of P.A. 90-261, Sec. 5 and ask our advice with regard to the following two questions: 1. Does Section 5 of the Act apply retroactively, i.e., are all persons incarcerated "as of" October 1, 1990 who meet all other specified criteria, eligible to be considered for parole under the Act. 2. Does the Act permit the Board to consider for parole persons who are already serving their sentences in either Community Release or Community Residence (SHR) programs.
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion on the question of whether a police commissioner1 can be licensed to hold a liquor permit as a permittee or backer under Conn. Gen. Stat. e 30-45.
-
John R. Shears, Teachers' Retirement Board, 1990-037 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
This is in response to your request for advice dated September 13, 1990, in which you request the opinion of this office as to the meaning of the phrase "last employing board of education" as it is used in Conn. Gen. Stat. e 10-183t as amended by 1989 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 89-342 (hereinafter P.A. 89-342). In addition, you request our opinion on whether the Teachers' Retirement Board may make subsidy payments for health insurance pursuant to Sec. 4(c) of P.A. 89-342 to a board of education other than the "last employing board of education."
-
Hon. Francisco L. Borges, State Treasurer, 1990-015 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have requested our advice with reference to an investment of twenty-five million dollars from five State retirement funds1 which you made in entities which acquired assets comprising the Firearms Division of Colt Industries, Inc. You question whether, due to the size of the investment and the participants, a notice filing with the Federal Trade Commission must be made under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Anti-Trust Improvement Act of l976, codified at l5 U.S.C. e l8a(a). Specifically, you ask whether this transaction falls under the exemption for a state, l5 U.S.C. e l8a(c)(4).