Formal Opinions
Page 38 of 42
-
I am writing in response to your request for a formal opinion regarding the effect of E-Sign (Public Law 106-229; Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act) on Connecticut’s electronic records and signatures laws.
-
You have requested our opinion of whether renewal of the certificate of authorization of a private occupational school on the basis of the school's institutional accreditation by an accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education (USDOE) pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §10a-22b(a), in lieu of the Connecticut Department of Higher Education's (DHE's) evaluation, effectively relieves that school of compliance with the requirements of Conn. State Ag. Regs. §10a-22k-5(f) regarding the contents and maintenance of a private occupational school's student attendance records so that the school is subject only to the student attendance record-keeping requirements, if any, of the particular USDOE recognized accrediting agency.
-
Honorable George Jepsen, State Capitol, 2001-006 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have requested an opinion concerning the scope of the Governor’s authority to deploy the National Guard in the context of a nursing home strike at a number of nursing homes across Connecticut. In particular, you ask whether the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") would limit state activity that would "tend to favor, by intent or effect, either side in a labor dispute."
-
This is in response to the request for advice from your department as to the proper interpretation of P.A. 00-139. Section 1(b) of the act provides subject to certain specified exceptions, that "(no) state agency may disclose to the public an individual’s photograph or computerized image in connection with the issuance of an identification card or other document by such state agency, unless such individual has provided his or her express consent for such disclosure."
-
In your memorandum dated November 16, 2000, you have in essence asked us for an update of an informal opinion dated March 18, 1991 regarding the maximum permissible deviation from strict mathematical equality courts have allowed in reapportionment plans. Your inquiry comes in connection with the Commissioner of Education's statutory duty under Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-63q to notify each regional board of education and each chief executive officer of each town within a regional school district whether or not representation on the respective regional boards of education is "consistent with federal constitutional standards."
-
You have forwarded questions from members of your staff related to operation "Stand Down." Specifically, you inquire whether the agency is authorized to fund Stand Down when it is possible that individuals may attend who are not "veterans," as defined in state statute. You also inquire about the potential liability of your Department in the event of misconduct by a Stand Down program participant in the form of an assault on another Stand Down participant.
-
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 requested our advice on whether a creditor of a person licensed as a first mortgage lender can collect on the bond required to be maintained by the licensee pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §36a-492.
-
This is in response to your letter of January 28, 1991 in which you ask whether or not a "judge who has been called in to active duty in the Armed Services of the country ... should be continued on the payroll of the Judicial Department for the period of time the judge concurrently retains the office of judge and serves in the Armed Forces of the United Stated." A superior court judge who is in the reserve component of the Armed Forces of the United States has been called to active duty after August 7, 1990 in connection with Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, necessitating an answer to your question.
-
By letter of December 19, 1990, CPI and its subsidiaries proposed a payment plan for all unpaid sales and use taxes owed through October 31, 1991. The Department of Revenue Services ("the Department") responded by letter of December 27, 1990 accepting a payment plan on the terms stated in the Department's letter and on the specific condition that current taxes must be filed and paid timely and that the agreement would be subject to review every six months. At some time after the payment plan was initiated, the Department reported CPI's delinquency to the Comptroller pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-39g.
-
We are in receipt of a letter dated June 6, 1990 from your department, wherein you request our opinion on an issue concerning Conn. Gen. Stat. §54-132 et. seq., the Interstate Compact for Parole and Probation Supervision. Specifically you question "whether or not it is necessary to obtain a warrant from a Connecticut court, in addition to that of the sending state, in order to take custody of and confine an out-of-state probationer in a Connecticut correctional facility until he/she can be returned to the sending state."
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion on the impact of the repeal of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-42, which directed the refund of liquor permit fees under certain circumstances, on pending requests for such liquor permits rebates.
-
We are writing in response to your letter dated January 9, 1991, in which you request our advice about the constitutionality of the residency requirement contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10a-77(d)(2), a statute concerning tuition waives for eligible veterans.
-
Chief State's Attorney Richard Palmer, 1991-038 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
On August 21 and 24, 1990 then Chief State's Attorney John J. Kelly requested an opinion of this office concerning the calculation of longevity benefits for State's Attorney Robert C. Satti.
-
Former Commissioner Heslin requested an opinion from this office on "whether any consumer commodity which is not individually marked with its current selling price is in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-79 and § 21a-79-a of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies."