Formal Opinions
Page 4 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 for our opinion about whether you have correctly interpreted two aspects of Conn. Gen. Stat.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 requested an opinion of this office as to whether the State Teachers' Retirement Board [hereinafter Board] can pay increased benefits, resulting from an election of recalculated benefits under Conn. Gen. Stat.
-
You have asked the advice of the Office of the Attorney General as to "whether Connecticut General Statute 17a-543 includes the Connecticut Department of Correction and/or whether Connecticut General Statute 17a-540(a) definition of 'facility' includes the Connecticut Department of Correction."
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
The Board of Pardons asked this office the following questions with regard to the possibility of future executions in the State of Connecticut: When is the first execution likely to be scheduled? When will a hearing be required in anticipation of an execution date? On the date of execution? Just before the execution? After all other appeals have been exhausted? Is it necessary for the Board to convene a commutation hearing in all cases whether requested or not? Who could request the convening of this special session: the defendant, his attorney, the Governor, a family member, etc.?
-
You have requested the opinion and advice of the Attorney General regarding the status of the above-entitled case, and the alternatives that are available for the disbursement of funds that will be received by the state following its resolution.