Formal Opinions
Page 42 of 42
-
As you have described in prior communications, including your recent letter to me dated April 28, 2004, the Office of Policy and Management ("OPM") and the Department of Public Works ("DPW") have been attempting to make an appropriate and beneficial disposition of certain surplus State property, namely the property and facilities known as the Norwich State Hospital (the "Hospital"). You previously requested and received from me a formal opinion (dated April 12, 2004) treating certain questions regarding the legal ramifications of allowing a consultant to the State, named Spaulding & Slye, to submit a competitive proposal for its own purchase and development of the Hospital after it had worked for many months, under contract to the State, studying the possible development and sale of the Hospital, and helping to solicit and evaluate proposals for the property from other parties.
-
In June 2000, the Office of Policy and Management retained Spaulding & Slye ("S&S") as a consultant to assist in the development and marketing of the Norwich State Hospital property. The 2000 contract also gave S&S the right to offer to purchase the property. The contract with Spaulding & Slye terminated in December 2003 and in March 2004 OPM issued a Request for Proposals ("RFP") for the purchase and development of the hospital property. In a letter dated March 3, 2004 you have asked whether Spaulding & Slye may submit a proposal in response to the RFP and what the state's legal exposure would be from other bidders if S&S is allowed to submit a proposal or from S&S if a bid from them is precluded. Subsequently on March 5, 2004, you also asked whether the state may place a restriction on the property prohibiting it from being annexed by an Indian Tribe.
-
You have asked the extent of the responsibility and potential liability of the Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter "DEP"), regarding the marking, through signage (beacons) and/or barrier floats, of potentially hazardous state-owned dams. The issue involved affects 15 to 20 sites statewide. This opinion is limited to water retention dams only.
-
You have asked for our opinion whether federal and state law permits a municipality to operate a Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Section 8 housing program outside of its geographical area.
-
You have raised several questions concerning the statutes governing the establishment and activities of the Soldiers', Sailors' and Marines' Fund (&quo;Fund"), as well as the current operation of the Fund. In particular, you have inquired whether: i) these statutes' apparent delegation of public functions to a private agency, in this instance the American Legion, violates constitutional principles; ii) whether current law restricts expending Fund assets for administrative expenses; and iii) whether the law would permit the Department of Veterans' Affairs ("DVA") to conduct the intake and processing of veterans' applications for benefits from the Fund.
-
You have asked whether the expenditure of state funds to pay for costs related to the nursing home strike, including the cost of mobilizing the National Guard and the expedited payment to nursing home operators of the cost of replacement workers, would violate any state or federal labor laws.
-
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.
-
This letter responds to your request for a formal legal opinion concerning the Office of the Child Advocate’s (“Child Advocate”) right to obtain records from entities covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”)
-
Your agency has requested our legal advice concerning the impact of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-38aa et. seq., on eligibility for certain programs of the Department of Social Services.
-
You have asked for an opinion as to the possible overcollection of sales tax on certain food items by supermarket vendors and the receipt of such overcollected taxes by the Department of Revenue Services ("DRS"). Specifically, you have asked for an opinion as to two questions: (1) Is DRS obligated to inform the retailer of its miscollection of taxes? and (2) Is the State obligated to disgorge the overtaxation received and is the retailer obligated to disgorge to consumers the taxation collected?
-
You have asked me to determine whether the Ethics Commission adhered to applicable state statutes and regulations when it informed Alan Plofsky, the Commission's Executive Director, of the Commission's desire to suspend him without pay for two weeks as a result of remarks he made on June 3, 2004, to the League of Women voters concerning former Governor Rowland.
-
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.
-
Jeanne Milstein, Child Advocate, Formal Opinion 2007-013, State of Connecticut Attorney General
This letter responds to your request for a formal opinion as to whether the Office of the Child Advocate (OCA) is authorized, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13m, to obtain records in the possession of the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services
-
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion as to whether the Judicial Branch has a legal duty to disclose to the public the master list of prospective jurors compiled pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-222a.