THE PRINCIPLES set forth by the Supreme Court about church, state, and education are broad and to some degree contradictory. However, the Cochran and Everson cases did leave the states free to provide to pupils of all schools (public and non-public) some non-religious services. Much of the debate in Connecticut about proposals for auxiliary services turned on the meaning of provisions in Connecticut's Constitution and statutes. There was some debate about whether auxiliary services were in violation of the state Constitution. There was more debate about whether such services were authorized by Connecticut's statutes. Questions about the application of state law to auxiliary services were rejected by the office of the Attorney General. The questions were redirected to town counsels to be decided locally. School boards had little guidance from state authority on how the statutes or the state Constitution affected auxiliary services for parochial school pupils.