Opinion ID: 1761033
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Application of Baker.

Text: Turning to the case now before us, by using Baker as a guidepost, we may properly look to the funds appropriated to the DOC in HB 406 to determine whether the General Assembly intended HB 406 to apply retroactively. It is uncontested that the funds allocated to the DOC were significantly reduced from the budget request submitted by the Governor. [52] Indeed, as the Pulaski Circuit Court noted in its permanent injunction, the final version of HB 406 [that] was ultimately enacted included a $12 million budget cut in fiscal year [2008-09] and a $19 million budget cut in fiscal year [2009-10].... The street credit provisions were in the original budgets of both chambers of the General Assembly, and were not altered in any manner by subsequent amendments or alterations to the proposed budgets of each chamber. ... Upon request of the Senate leadership, the state budget office, assisted by the DOC, submitted a financial analysis showing the anticipated savings resulting from the street credit provision of the proposed budget, including nearly $6 million in fiscal year 2008-09 and nearly $7.5 million in fiscal year 2009-10. It is uncontested that those calculations required retroactive application of the street credit provision to realize the proposed savings. [53] It is abundantly clear from the facts and circumstances surrounding the passage of HB 406, therefore, that the General Assembly wanted the DOC to save as much money as is legally feasible. Also, the numbers presented by the DOC and the state budget office to the General Assembly regarding potential savings from a broad application of the street credit provisions were based upon an expectation that those provisions would be applied retroactively. Unlike the Pulaski Circuit Court, we find it inconsequential that the General Assembly members apparently did not make in-depth inquiries about whether the savings provisions were to apply retroactively or that the projected savings calculations were not provided to each member of the General Assembly. [54] Nor is our decision affected by the lack of floor debate about street credit provisions in both legislative chambers. The General Assembly speaks through the laws it enacts, and the severe budget cuts contained in HB 406 speak loudly the General Assembly's intent that the DOC should strive to save as much as possible. Moreover, the DOC's decision to apply the street credit and related provisions of HB 406 retroactively is not rendered infirm by the fact that the Executive Branch, of which the DOC is a part, could theoretically have saved just as muchif not morescarce resources if the Governor had simply exercised his constitutional pardon and commutation powers. [55] In other words, since the General Assembly appropriated even less money than the DOC projected to save through the retroactive application of the street time credit, [56] then there can be no legitimate contention that more spending was intended. [57]