1995 Formal Opinions
Page 2 of 3
-
On February 17, 1995, you requested an opinion of this office on whether or not seven individuals appointed by former Governor Weicker are qualified to serve as members of the Employees' Review Board, and the terms they can serve if they are qualified.
-
You have requested our opinion regarding the jurisdiction of the Connecticut Siting Council (the "Council") in connection with the proposal of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak") to complete the electrification of the Northeast Corridor rail line from New Haven, Connecticut to Boston, Massachusetts (the "Project"). Specifically, you have asked whether the Federal Railroad Administration (the "FRA") has preempted the Council by its oversight and involvement in the Project, including in particular its preparation and issuance of an environmental impact statement.
-
You have requested our opinion regarding the scope of the Connecticut Siting Council's (the "Council") jurisdiction over the placement of an FM radio station antenna on an existing community antenna television tower.
-
Hon. John P. Burke, Department of Banking, 1995-024 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have asked this office for an opinion regarding your authority to approve and to regulate a branch (the "Branch") of a Connecticut bank (the "Bank") to be established in Foxwoods Casino (the "Casino") on the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation (the "Reservation") in Ledyard, Connecticut.
-
Honorable John G. Rowland, State Capitol, 1995-028 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
This advisory opinion responds to your letter of September 25, 1995. That letter asks whether you may "nominate a sitting associate justice of the [Supreme] Court to succeed Chief Justice Peters if the associate justice in question's name is not on the list of eligible candidates for the position provided ... by the Judicial Selection Commission?"
-
In a letter dated August 16, 1994, Representative Krawiecki, then House Minority Leader, requested that this office answer two questions regarding an alleged boundary dispute in the Borough of Newtown. We now reply to your attention. 1. His first question asked: What is the appropriate method for taxpayers who assert that the boundaries of a political subdivision of the state are unknown or inadequately marked to compel that entity to conduct a survey of its boundary? 2. His second question asked: Does an individual member of the General Assembly have the power to compel a political subdivision such as a borough to survey its boundary?
-
You have written to this office seeking an opinion on the eligibility of a trustee to vote at a school district meeting. In your letter you relate that the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-6 apply to this voters' meeting, which is a type of referendum as defined in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-1(n)(2). Section 7-6 permits "any citizen" to vote who is 18 or older and who is "liable" to the town or district on property assessed at one thousand dollars or more.
-
John P. Burke, Department of Banking, 1995-017 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
Your department has sought our opinion on two questions relating to the interplay, if any, between Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 36a-380 and 42-202. The first question asks us: (1) Is a broker-dealer which is a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. or registered under CUSA [Connecticut Uniform Securities Act] a "registered broker-dealer", "authorized by law to act as an escrow agent", within the meaning of Section 42-202 of the Connecticut General Statutes? The second question was posed as follows: (2) Does Section 36-314 apply to a corporation that is appointed to act as escrow agent with regard to the money or securities received from the sale of funeral services contracts? If the answer to this question is in the affirmative: (a) Must such corporation obtain a special act of the Connecticut General Assembly in order to act as an escrow agent under Section 42-202, or is such corporation, by virtue of Section 42-202 or otherwise, "specifically empowered so to act by a general statute of this state" within the meaning of Section 36-314; and (b) Does such corporation come within the jurisdiction of both the Department of Banking and the Department of Public Health and Addiction Services?
-
You have requested an opinion regarding the applicability of the Freedom of Information Act ["FOIA"], Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-7 et seq., to the Connecticut Student Loan Foundation ["CSLF"]. Specifically, the issue you raised is whether the CSLF is a public agency subject to the public records and meeting requirements of the FOIA.
-
This is in response to a request for advice from fromer President Pro Tempore John B. Larson in which he asked if owners of commercial or residential rental properties are required to permit telecommunications providers access to their buildings prior to adoption of implementing regulations by the Department of Public Utility Control.
-
You have requested our advice on whether first selectpersons who exercise criminal law enforcement powers must successfully complete the training requirements established by the Municipal Police Training Council ("MPTC") pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-294d.
-
I am in receipt of your letter dated September 21, 1995, in which you emphasize your concern that the establishment of a third casino in this state not jeopardize the level of revenues currently being received by the State under the Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) between the State and the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan Tribes. In response to this concern, you issued an RFP that required each casino proposal to provide a guarantee that the State will receive, over a three-year period, up to $610 million to make up for any cessation in the Tribes' payments under the MOUs.
-
We are responding to your request for advice as to how a December 8, 1994 informal opinion to former Commissioner Nicholas Cioffi regarding the Department of Public Safety Division of Fire, Emergency, and Building Services' civil regulatory jurisdiction over certain activities on the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation ("Reservation") would "impact the services" your agency provides with respect to boxing on the Reservation.
-
n your letter of November 7, 1995, you asked several questions concerning the relationship between the University of Connecticut and the University of Connecticut Foundation. You have asked three specific questions. First: May University employees work under the direction of the Foundation, with the Foundation reimbursing the University for the salary and fringe benefits of these employees? Second: May the Foundation utilize money received from the University for fund-raising services to repay its obligations (including salaries) to the University? Third: May the University provide services, such as computer support services, to the Foundation at no cost?
-
Hon. John G. Rowland, State of Connecticut, 1995-011 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have asked this office whether, upon passage of Senate Bill No. 158, authorizing the creation of a "commission on the future of gaming in Connecticut," the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe and the Mohegan Tribe (if they commence casino operations) would continue to be obligated to the terms of the Memorandums of Understanding ("MOUs") related to the operation of video facsimile machines at tribal casinos. You have also asked about the State's ability to enforce its agreement with the Tribes, and its ability to prevent any loss of revenue from the monthly contributions made by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe under the agreement.