COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-CI-389 DIVISION II STATE REPRESENTATIVE MARY LOU MARZIAN

Transcription

1 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-CI-389 DIVISION II STATE REPRESENTATIVE JIM WAYNE STATE REPRESENTATIVE DARRYL OWENS STATE REPRESENTATIVE MARY LOU MARZIAN PLAINTIFFS v. INTERVENING VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATION OF RIGHTS AND A PERMANENT INJUNCTION BY STATE REPRESENTATIVES JIM WAYNE, DARRYL OWENS, AND MARY LOU MARZIAN COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ex rel. MATTHEW G. BEVIN, in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky SERVE: Office of the Attorney General The Capitol 700 Capitol Avenue Frankfort, Kentucky and COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION CABINET ex rel. WILLIAM M. LANDRUM, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Kentucky Finance and Administration Cabinet SERVE: Office of the Attorney General The Capitol 700 Capitol Avenue Frankfort, Kentucky and COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, OFFICE OF STATE BUDGET DIRECTOR 1

2 ex rel. JOHN CHILTON, in his official capacity as State Budget Director of the Commonwealth of Kentucky SERVE: Office of the Attorney General The Capitol 700 Capitol Avenue Frankfort, Kentucky and COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY ex rel. ALLISON BALL, in her official capacity as Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Kentucky DEFENDANTS SERVE: Office of the Attorney General The Capitol 700 Capitol Avenue Frankfort, Kentucky * * * * * * Come now the Intervening Plaintiffs, Kentucky State Representatives Jim Wayne, Darryl Owens, and Mary Lou Marzian, (herein Plaintiffs ) by and through counsel, and for this Intervening Complaint against the Defendants, Matthew G. Bevin, Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky (hereafter Governor ), William M. Landrum, Secretary of the Finance and Administration Cabinet (hereafter Finance Secretary ), John Chilton, State Budget Director (hereafter Budget Director ), and Allison Ball, Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Kentucky (hereafter Treasurer ), all in their official capacities, state and allege as follows: INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs and other similarly situated members of the State Legislature instituted various budget allocations in accordance with the express powers of the legislative branch, including appropriations to nine public colleges and universities in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. See: 2

3 House Bill 235 (2014 Ordinary Session), 2014 Ky. Acts, Chapter 117, (herein Executive Branch Budget Law ), attached as Exhibit 1 to the Attorney General s Complaint. Governor Bevin has illegally executed a unilateral directive overruling the legislatively enacted Budget and making a 4.5 percent reduction to the fiscal year general funds which were duly appropriated by the General Assembly to Kentucky s public colleges and university systems. This attempted usurpation of the exclusive role of the legislature is facially violative of the Kentucky Constitution and statutory law, and further constitutes a breach of the doctrine of separation of powers. Governor Bevin has been apprised that his actions are in violation of law but refuses to remove his illegal directive. Plaintiffs request that this Court take immediate action to prevent erosion of the separation of powers and other essential principles of state and federal law. It is specifically requested that this Honorable Court rule as follows: A. Declare the directive of the Governor and the subsequent withholding of duly appropriated funds by the Governor, the Finance Secretary, the State Budget Director, and the Treasurer in violation of law; B. Permanently enjoin the Governor, the Finance Secretary, the Budget Director, and the Treasurer from reducing or withholding appropriations to the universities or to any other state agency, where such request is in violation of law; and C. Order the Governor, the Finance Secretary, the Budget Director, and the Treasurer to provide the agreed upon appropriation to the universities as requested by the General Assembly, in accordance with law. 3

4 NATURE OF ACTION 1. This Verified Complaint for a Declaration of Rights and Permanent Injunction is governed by the Kentucky Declaratory Judgment Act, KRS , et seq., CR 57, and CR KRS provides this court with authority to make a binding declaration of rights when a justiciable controversy exists. 3. An actual and justiciable controversy regarding violations of the Kentucky Constitution and relevant statutes is detailed herein; 4. CR 65 permits this court, in a final judgment, to issue a permanent injunction to protect certain rights under law. 5. Plaintiffs would show that the justiciable controversy is capable of repetition but evading review, as a Governor may attempt to take such unilateral action in the future and thereby erode the powers and duties of the General Assembly unless this Court enforces the separation of powers doctrine as required by law. The General Assembly made numerous other binding appropriations in the 2014 Budget, as outlined in the Attorney General s Complaint at para. 15, and same could be unlawfully altered or amended by the Governor in the absence of action by this Honorable Court to preserve our time-honored system of government. This Court should make clear to all parties the manner in which such Legislative Branch appropriations may be affected by the Executive Branch. 6. Expedited review is necessary as the complained of action has already been taken, and the insult to the Constitution and laws of Kentucky requires prompt 4

5 redress. Damages from the unlawful action are immediate and continuing, and adversely impact the rights of Plaintiffs herein. THE PARTIES 7. The Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, with the following addresses: Representative Jim Wayne (D-35 th ), 1280 Royal Avenue, Louisville Kentucky; Representative Darryl Owens (D-43rd), 1300 Broadway, Louisville Kentucky, Representative Mary Lou Marzian (D-34 th ), 2007 Tyler Lane, Louisville Kentucky. 8. The Defendant, Governor Matthew G. Bevin is a duly elected constitutional officer of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, vested with such powers as are afforded him by the Kentucky Constitution and related state laws. 9. Defendant Secretary of the Finance and Administration Cabinet Landrum is a duly appointed Secretary of a Program Cabinet of the Executive Branch of state government, vested with such powers as are afforded him by the Kentucky Revised Statutes. The Finance Secretary is the official of the Executive Branch of state government charged by KRS Chapters 41 and 44 with issuing warrants to the Treasurer for the payment of lawful claims upon the State Treasury. The Finance Secretary also has certain statutory requirements in administering the budget and finances of the Commonwealth under KRS Chapter Defendant, State Budget Director Chilton, is the duly appointed Director of an agency within the Office of the Secretary to the Governor's Executive Cabinet, a Program Cabinet of the Executive Branch of state government, who serves as staff to the 5

6 Governor and is vested with such powers as are afforded him by the Kentucky Revised Statutes. The State Budget Director is the official of the Executive Branch of state government charged by KRS and KRS with functions relative to the preparation, administration, and evaluation of the executive budget as provided in KRS Chapters 42 and 48 and in other laws. 11. Defendant Treasurer Ball is a duly elected constitutional officer of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, vested with such powers as are afforded her by the Kentucky Constitution and related state laws. The Treasurer is the constitutional officer of the Commonwealth charged by KRS Chapters 41 and 44 with paying all claims upon the State Treasury authorized by law. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. An actual, justiciable controversy exists and this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to KRS , KRS 23A.010, and Rules of Civil Procedure 57 and Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to KRS , as the primary offices of the Parties Defendant are located in the City of Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky, and the subject matter relates to interpretation and enforcement of various provisions of state law as enacted in statute and the Kentucky Constitution. Pursuant to KRS , et seq., this Court may properly exercise in personam jurisdiction over the Defendants. 6

7 FACTUAL ISSUES The Governor s Illegal Taking of University Appropriations 14. On March 31, 2016, Governor Bevin, unilaterally acted to direct Defendants to withhold from nine public colleges and universities (hereafter collectively referred to as the universities ) 4.5% of the state general fund appropriation, which was duly appropriated to them by the General Assembly. (See Letter from Governor Bevin to Secretary Landrum and Budget Director Chilton, March 31, 2016, Attached as Exhibit 2 to the Attorney General s Complaint.) This letter purportedly has the effect of reducing the legislatively set appropriations for the universities, although it fails to adhere to the required form and content of an appropriate Executive Order, and is otherwise invalid and violative of law. 15. Defendants Finance Secretary and Budget Director took immediate action to improperly withhold funds properly designated by Plaintiffs for the exclusive use of the universities. (See Fiscal Year 2016 Allocation Modification, attached to the March 31, 2016 letter from Governor Bevin, attached as Exhibit 2 to the Attorney General s Complaint). 16. Defendant Treasurer has failed to ratify or formally deny the withholding, thereby failing to perform relevant duties imposed on her by KRS Chapter In 2014 the General Assembly exercised its constitutional authority to enact a Budget appropriating funds to various entities in the executive branch for the biennium. (See: Exhibit 1 to the Attorney General s Complaint). That bill became law upon the signature of the Governor. The Executive Branch Budget Law enacted the 7

8 following general fund appropriations to the universities for state Fiscal Year 2016 (July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016) (Attorney General s Exhibit 1, p. 98 to 102) 1 : College or University FY2016 Appropriation Eastern Kentucky University $363,671,300 Kentucky State University $62,236,100 Morehead State University $255,530,200 Murray State University $189,284,900 Northern Kentucky University $236,415,800 University of Kentucky $3,355,808,700 University of Louisville $1,221,311,500 Western Kentucky University $393,205,800 Kentucky Community and Technical College System $879,557, By enacting appropriations, the General Assembly exercised its constitutional authority to appropriate state funds pursuant to Kentucky Constitution Section 230 and KRS Specific guidelines govern when a Governor may reduce appropriations. This reduction may occur only in the event of an actual or projected revenue shortfall in General Fund revenue receipts. (Exhibit 1 to the Attorney General s Complaint, at p. 247.) Even where there is an actual or projected revenue shortfall, a Governor must follow the procedures mandated by the General Fund Budget Reduction Plan found in Part VI of the Executive Branch Budget Law. (See: Exhibit 1 to the Attorney General s Complaint; KRS (4); KRS (1).) Action by the General Assembly is required if there is a revenue shortfall of greater than 5%. KRS (3). 1 The General Assembly also appropriated funds to the universities for FY15. Those funds were provided to the universities as required by law and are not at issue in this litigation. 8

9 19. No shortfall or other authorized reason exists in the present case which would permit the actions of the Defendants. The unilateral budget reductions are expressly prohibited by law. KRS (6) states No budget reduction action shall be taken by any branch head in excess of the actual or projected [revenue] deficit. KRS (2) states: No budget revision action shall be taken by any branch head in excess of the actual or projected revenue shortfall. Part VI of the Executive Branch Budget Law states: No budget revision action shall be taken by a branch head in excess of the actual or projected revenue shortfall. (Exhibit 1 to the Attorney General s Complaint.) 20. The Governor s directive is not properly made pursuant to KRS (1). The Budget Director sets the allotment schedule near the beginning of the fiscal year, pursuant to KRS (2), which provides that [a]llotments shall conform with the appropriations in the enacted branch budget bills or other appropriations. The universities original allotment schedules conformed to this law. (See for example, FY 2016 Allotment Schedule for Kentucky State University, Northern Kentucky University, and the University of Kentucky, letters from Kathy Marshall, Budget Analyst at the Office of the State Budget Director, May 22, 2016, collectively attached as Exhibit 3 to the Attorney General s Complaint). 21. The March 31, 2016 directive was not entered as a formal allocation reduction, as required by law. Instead, the letter is an inappropriate usurpation of legislative authority. The letter has the purported effect of an executive order decreasing appropriations yet fails to comply with any of the mandatory steps for such a reduction, as required by law. The law does not provide any justification for such an unlawful 9

10 reduction of allocation based on the mere opinion or unilateral determination of one branch of government. 22. KRS and KRS 164A.560 specifically delegate to the universities control and power over the disbursements of their funds. This includes control over state appropriations provided under the lawfully enacted budget created by the General Assembly. KRS Defendants Finance Secretary and the Treasurer are required to comply with the law in disbursing those funds to the universities. See: KRS , directing that the Secretary of the Finance and Administration Cabinet shall issue warrants authorizing the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Kentucky to pay to the treasurer of each institution any amounts due by virtue of the state appropriations for that institution... KRS Failure to disburse the funds as required constitutes an immediate and continuing violation of state law. 24. The Governor s letter withholds 4.5 percent of the university appropriations, and unlawfully reduces the required appropriation. The Governor s directive decreases each university s FY16 appropriation as follows: 10

11 College or University Gov. Bevin s Illegal Budget Eastern Kentucky University -$3,0601,500 Kentucky State University -$1,054,300 Morehead State University -$1,950,300 Murray State University -$2,161,100 Northern Kentucky University -$2,184,200 University of Kentucky -$12,582,500 University of Louisville -$6,258,500 Western Kentucky University -$3,359,200 Ky Community and Technical -$8,557,300 Total -$41,168, The violations of state law have an immediate negative effect on the abilities of the universities to provide key services to students, employees, the community and other affected taxpayers. The violations of state law erode the doctrine of separation of powers and adversely impact the citizens who voted for members of the General Assembly and in whose name the legislative actions are taken. 26. Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated taxpayers, members of the public, citizens and members of the General Assembly rely on enforcement of state law and the Kentucky Constitution to protect their rights. This Honorable Court should enforce those laws and prevent Defendants from unlawfully violating the rights of the Plaintiffs and the public to have tax dollars distributed expressly as directed by the branch of government authorized to do so. This Court should affirm that no branch of government, or individually elected official, may unilaterally impact the rights and duties of another branch in the absence of specific legal authorization. 11

12 actions. 27. Defendants actions as outlined herein are not authorized by law. 28. Plaintiffs and others have suffered immediate harm as a result of these 29. This Court must protect against such harm by issuing a declaration of rights and immediate permanent injunction barring such action in the future. Count I Violations of KY CONST Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege each of these allegations previously made as if fully recited in full herein. 31. KY CONST 81 is titled Governor to enforce the laws and states: He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. 32. The Governor s actions have violated the express provisions of state statute the Kentucky Constitution and the Executive Branch Budget Law. 33. These violations have been the proximate cause of immediate and continuing harm to the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals; 34. Defendants should be immediately prohibited from breaching the law and the Kentucky Constitution. Count II Violations of the Executive Branch Budget Law 35. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege each of these allegations previously made as if fully recited in full herein. 36. The Executive Branch Budget Law states in Part III: 27. Budget Implementation: The General Assembly directs that the Executive Branch shall carry out all appropriations and budgetary language provisions as contained in the State/Executive 12

13 Budget. (See: Exhibit 1 to the Attorney General s Complaint.) This clear and unambiguous language mandates that the Executive Branch carry out all appropriations. By taking improper action to unilaterally withhold and reducing the designated appropriations to the universities, the Governor has violated this law. By carrying out this directive, the Finance Secretary and Budget Director have violated this law. By not paying monies due to the universities, the Treasurer has violated this law. 37. Part IV of the General Fund Budget Reduction Plan only permits the Governor to decrease appropriations when there is a projected or actual budget shortfall. It unequivocally states No budget revision action shall be taken by a branch head in excess of the actual or projected revenue shortfall. (Exhibit 1 to the Attorney General s Complaint.) By unilaterally withholding and reducing the appropriations to the universities when there is no revenue shortfall, the Governor has by violated this law. By carrying out this directive the Finance Secretary and Budget Director have violated this law. By not paying monies due to the universities, the Treasurer has violated this law. 38. These actions have harmed Plaintiff and others. 39. The Executive Branch Budget Law appropriates a fixed amount to the universities and to other state agencies as detailed previously herein. By unilaterally withholding and reducing the appropriations to the universities, Defendants have breached the mandates of law. 40. Defendants must be prohibited from inflicting such harm. Count III Violations of KRS Chapter 48 13

14 41. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege each of these allegations previously made as if fully recited in full herein. 42. KRS (6) states No budget reduction action shall be taken by any branch head in excess of the actual or projected [revenue] deficit. By unilaterally withholding and reducing the appropriations to the universities, the Governor has violated this law. By carrying out this directive the Finance Secretary and Budget Director have violated this law. By not paying monies due to the universities, the Treasurer has violated this law. 43. KRS (2) states: No budget revision action shall be taken by any branch head in excess of the actual or projected revenue shortfall. By unilaterally withholding and reducing the appropriations to the universities, the Governor has violated this law. By carrying out this directive the Finance Secretary and Budget Director have violated this law. By not paying monies due to the universities, the Treasurer has violated this law. 44. KRS states in part: Allotments shall conform with the appropriations in the enacted branch budget bills or other appropriations. By unilaterally amending the allotment schedule which withholds and reduces the appropriations to the universities, the Governor violated this law. By carrying out this directive the Finance Secretary and Budget Director have violated this law. By not paying monies due to the universities, the Treasurer has violated this law. 45. Plaintiffs and others have suffered harm as a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned breaches of law. 14

15 46. This Court must take immediate action to enjoin any further violations of law by Defendants. Count IV Violations of KRS Chapters 164 and 164A 47. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege each of these allegations previously made as if fully recited in full herein. 48. KRS Chapter 164A prescribes the manner in which universities manage their finances, including funds appropriated from the General Assembly. 49. KRS 164A.555 unequivocally directs that the Secretary of the Finance and Administration Cabinet shall issue warrants authorizing the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Kentucky to pay to the treasurer of each institution any amounts due by virtue of the state appropriations for that institution... By unilaterally withholding and reducing the appropriations to the universities when there is no revenue shortfall, the Governor has violated this law. By carrying out this directive the Finance Secretary and Budget Director have violated this law. By not paying monies due to the universities, the Treasurer has violated this law. 50. KRS and KRS 164A.560 specifically delegate to the universities control and power over the disbursement of their funds. This includes the state appropriations given to them in the enacted budget by the General Assembly. The Governor, Finance Secretary, and Budget Director are usurping and abrogating this statutory power by withholding the appropriation. They are causing the Treasurer to do the same by withholding the funds. 15

16 51. Under KRS all appropriations, grants, gifts, bequests and donations to a university or college for a specified use shall be applied to such use and no other. The universities have set out budgets which include specifications for the funds appropriated to them. The Defendants have deprived the universities of their ability to comply with KRS and the appropriations as a matter of law are not being used for the purposes specified. By unilaterally withholding and reducing the appropriations to the universities when there is no revenue shortfall, the Governor violated this law. By carrying out this directive the Finance Secretary and Budget Director have violated this law. By not paying monies due to the universities, the Treasurer has violated this law. 52. Plaintiffs and others have suffered harm proximately and directly caused by these violations of law. 53. This Court must prevent such harm through a declaratory judgment and entry of a permanent injunction. Count V Violations of Separation of Powers KY CONST 27, 28, Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege each of these allegations previously made as if fully recited in full herein. 55. KY CONST 230 requires that [n]o money shall be drawn from the State Treasury, except in pursuance of appropriations made by law.... The budget, which provides the revenue for the Commonwealth and which determines how that revenue shall be spent, is fundamentally a legislative matter. 56. KY CONST 27 states: 16

17 The powers of the government of the Commonwealth of Kentucky shall be divided into three distinct departments, and each of them be confined to a separate body of magistracy, to wit: Those which are legislative, to one; those which are executive, to another; and those which are judicial, to another. 57. KY CONST 28 states: No person or collection of persons being of one of those departments, shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except in the instances hereinafter expressly directed or permitted. 58. By unilaterally withholding and reducing the appropriations to the universities, the Governor has violated this law. By carrying out this directive the Finance Secretary and Budget Director have violated these constitutional Sections 27, 28, and 230 of the Constitution by invading the province of the General Assembly s authority. By not paying monies due to the universities, the Treasurer has violated these provisions. 59. Plaintiffs and others have suffered immediate harm as a result of the unlawful actions of Defendants. 60. Defendants must be enjoined from breaching the law. Count VI Injunctive Relief Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege each of these allegations previously made as if fully recited in full herein 57. CR authorizes Courts to issue an injunction to restrict or mandatorily direct the doing of an act. Plaintiffs demand that this Court enter an immediate permanent injunction to prevent the actions of Defendants with regard to any withholding of lawfully appropriated funds from the universities or any other state agency. 61. CR provides: 17

18 62. A temporary injunction may be granted during the pendency of an action on motion if it is clearly shown by verified complaint, affidavit, or other evidence that the movant's rights are being or will be violated by an adverse party and the movant will suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage pending a final judgment in the action, or the acts of the adverse party will tend to render such final judgment ineffectual. 63. Defendants unlawful actions have violated numerous provisions of the Kentucky Constitution, the Kentucky Revised Statutes, and the Acts of the Kentucky General Assembly. 64. Plaintiffs and all other members of the public are adversely impacted by the actions of the Defendants. This immediate harm can only be remedied by a declaration of rights and a permanent injunction. 65. Unless the Court issues an immediate permanent injunction, the continuing illegal acts of the Defendants will obviate any remedy which could be enforced later. The cessation of appropriate funding creates immediate and permanent harm that cannot be redressed at a later date. The Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law other than issuance of the requested injunctive relief. 66. The Defendants actions violate numerous provisions of the Kentucky Constitution, the Kentucky Revised Statutes, and the Acts of the Kentucky General Assembly. There is a high likelihood that the Plaintiff will prevail in full trial on the merits of this action. 67. No Court of this Commonwealth has refused the requested relief and no injunction bond should be required by the Plaintiff as this is a matter of public interest and is properly brought before the Court by an affected member of the public. 18

19 * * * * * PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand the following relief: 68. For an expedited review of this action pursuant to KRS and CR 57; 69. For a judgment declaring the Governor s directive to withhold appropriated funds to the universities in his letter of March 31, 2016 a violation of Kentucky law, including all, one, or a combination of the following constitutional and statutory provisions: a. Kentucky Constitution 27, 28, 81, 230; b. The Executive Branch Budget Law, 2014 Leg. Act, Chapter 114, Parts I (fixed appropriation to universities), Part III (requirement to implement the budget), and Part IV (Budget Reduction Plan); c. KRS ; KRS ; KRS ; KRS 164A.555; KRS 164A.350, KRS , KRS For a judgment declaring the actions by the Governor, the Finance Secretary, the Budget Director, and the Treasurer of withholding the appropriated funds from the universities a violation of the aforementioned constitutional and statutory provisions; 71. For a permanent injunction compelling the Governor, the Finance Secretary, the Budget Director, and the Treasurer to release the withheld appropriations to each university; 19

20 72. For a permanent injunction prohibiting the Governor, the Finance Secretary, the Budget Director, and the Treasurer from withholding any and all appropriations, through the allotment process or otherwise, to the universities or to any other state agency; 73. For their reasonable costs including any applicable attorney fees; 74. For a determination that the Defendants have violated the doctrine of separation of powers. 75. For any and all further relief to which Plaintiff may appear entitled. Respectfully submitted, PIERCE WHITES Speaker s Office Senior Counsel Capitol Annex Rm 303 Frankfort KY (502) Pierce.whites@lrc.ky.gov 20

21 VERIFICATION In my official capacity as a duly elected Representative of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, I hereby verify that I have reviewed the foregoing Verified Complaint for Declaration of Rights and a Permanent Injection and the allegations contained therein are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. Jim Wayne Commonwealth of Kentucky County of Frankfort On this 12th day of April, 2016, Jim Wayne, Affiant herein, did appear before me and signed this Verified Complaint for Declaration of Rights and a Permanant Injunction, stating that such was true and correct to the best of his information and belief. My commission expires: Notary Public, State at Large, Kentucky 21

22 NOTICE OF HEARING Please take notice that this motion will be brought on for hearing before the Franklin Circuit Court at its regular motion hour on April 21, 2016, at the hour of 10:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was this day of April, 2016, sent via United States Post Office First Class mail to: Mitchel T. Denham Assistant Deputy Attorney General LaTasha Buckner, Director Office of Civil and Environmental Law Office of the Attorney General 700 Capitol Avenue Capitol Building, Suite 118 Frankfort, Kentucky Matthew T. Bevin Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite Capitol Avenue Frankfort, Kentucky William M. Landrum III, Secretary Kentucky Finance and Administration Cabinet Room 383, Capitol Annex 702 Capitol Avenue Frankfort, Kentucky John Chilton Office of the State Budget Director Room 284, Capitol Annex 702 Capitol Avenue Frankfort, Kentucky

23 Allison Ball Kentucky State Treasurer 1050 U.S. Highway 127 South, Suite 100 Frankfort, Kentucky Pierce Whites Attorney for Movant 23