1993 Formal Opinions
Page 3 of 3
-
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has asked for an opinion analyzing the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (the Act) 42 U.S.C. § 5101 and regulations issued under that Act in relation to state law, particularly Conn. Gen. Stat. § l9a-570 et seq. Specifically, HHS questions whether Connecticut law meets the requirement imposed by the federal statutory mandates regarding critically-ill children.
-
You have asked whether or not foster parents are entitled to representation and indemnification from the State of Connecticut. The corollary question is whether they are independent contractors and therefore not entitled to representation or indemnification.
-
We are replying to your letters of January 14, 1993 and January 22, 1993 in which you ask whether the Governor has the constitutional and statutory authority to execute without legislative approval a Memorandum of Understanding between the State and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe regarding the installation and operation of video slot machines (i.e., video facsimile games as defined in that Memorandum and the Federal Procedures to which it refers) at Foxwoods Casino at Ledyard, and whether the Secretary of the Interior has to approve the agreement or take any action relating to it
-
In your letter of August 12, 1993, you relate that by a Resolve of May, 1824, a Borough of Newtown was created. Subsequently the General Assembly passed 1931 Special Act No. 290 and 1953 Special Act No. 106 also relating to the formation of this borough. You ask three questions relating to this borough. First you ask whether the borough may be dissolved. Secondly you ask the procedure in accomplishing this dissolution. Thirdly you ask what legal requirements are imposed upon the officials of the borough to assist residents in bringing about dissolution.
-
This is in response to your letter dated April 20, 1993, in which you request a formal opinion of the Attorney General concerning an issue arising under 1992 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 92-184 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). You state as follows: The issue involves the room occupancy tax, a portion of which funded the visitors and convention districts and coliseum authorities under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 7-136a to 7-136c, inclusive (repealed by e 18 of the Act), and will now fund tourism districts and coliseum authorities under § 15 of the Act.
-
This will respond to your request for advice regarding how the Second Injury Fund should proceed on the administration of Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 31-284b, 31-349(e) and (f) in light of the United States Supreme Court's recent ruling in District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Board of Trade, _U.S._, 113 S. Ct. 580 (1992) (hereinafter referred to as Board of Trade).
-
Conn.Gen.Stat. § 4b-3 establishes the state properties review board and provides criteria for membership. That statute provides, inter alia, that "[n]o person shall serve on this board who holds another state or municipal governmental position...." Conn.Gen.Stat. § 4b-3(b). By letter dated March 23, 1993 you have asked two questions concerning the above quoted portion of Conn.Gen.Stat. § 4b-3(b). 1. You initially ask whether "there is a definition of 'state or municipal government position' which applies to [§ 4b-3(b) ]?" 2. Your second question is whether an individual who serves without compensation on a municipal board is ineligible for membership on the state properties review board.