Defendants base the bulk of Motion to Dismiss on their characterization of Complaint as being speculative and conclusory, making light of Plaintiff’s use of the term “illegal spending” while attempting to confuse it with state spending whose legality is properly established. Plaintiff is a taxpaying citizen whose right to challenge the legality of officials’ actions is well established. See Russman v. Luckett 391 S.W.2d 694 (Ky. 1965), which explains “public officials … are bound to perform their duties exactly as the Constitution and the statutory laws of this Commonwealth require when the command is clear.” Defendants deny Plaintiff’s characterization of improper attempts to spend state funds but, despite including for the record the entire Executive Branch Budget, fail to adequately address the main issues in the Complaint namely, “illegal spending” and “prior and proper legislative approval,” both of which were included in Complaint. Indeed, while Defendants complain in Section 1 of their Motion that “the pleading fails to provide any details about these allegedly illegal transactions, such as the amount, date or recipient of any such expenditure,” Defendants noticeably neglect to mention even once any of the three Executive Orders seeking to legally make available Restricted Funds in question. The General Assembly explicitly sought to ensure constitutional and statutory limitations on Defendants’ power were maintained while making available requested funds should the aims of Defendants be met with necessary legislative approval. Those aims, namely Defendants’ desire to move Restricted Funds and, one presumes, taxing authority from “Division of Kentucky Access within the Department of Insurance” when its statutory purpose was accomplished to the General Fund and then on to “Division of Kentucky Access within the Office of Health Benefit and Health Information Exchange” in violation of the clear Executive Branch Budget denial of any General Fund resources on any expenditure directly or indirectly associated with the Health Benefit Exchange. Failure of Defendants to recede from their prior plans once they clearly became prohibited brought about this action.
Posted on: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 16:03:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015