►
From YouTube: House Appropriations Meeting, March 17, 2021-Noon Recess
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
C
D
There
was
a
standing
committee
amendment
to
that
that
changes
the
amounts
indicated
in
the
bill
itself,
and
I
can
go
through
those
individually
if
you
wish,
but
in
the
interest
of
time
what
it
did
was
took
the
existing
fees
and
increased
all
of
the
existing
fees
by
50
and
some
of
those
fees,
mr
chairman,
have
not
been
increased
since
1993.,
so
it
was
to
bring
fees
up
to
current
standards
with
overweight
and
oversized
vehicles
and
that's
the
bill
in
a
in
a
nutshell.
I
can
go
into
detail
if
you
would,
like.
C
D
B
B
B
A
D
Mr
chairman,
with
your
permission,
go
ahead.
What
you
have
in
front
of
you,
members
of
the
committee,
is
the
proposed
amendment.
That
was
mostly
conceptual
the
last
time
you
considered
this
bill
and
looked
at
it
and
I
walked
through
the
amendment.
I
think
you
remember,
the
bill
is
to
fund
the
y
dot
computer
system.
D
In
the
amendment
there
were
two
two
past
amendments
generated
by
the
committee
page
10
line
3
and
page
10
lines
10
through
16.
They
were
amended
by
the
committee
and
passed
by
the
committee.
The
rest
was
a
conceptual
amendment
on
how
the
replacement
the
computer
system
should
be
undertaken,
and
I
walk
through
the
amendment.
I'm
on
page
1
line,
18
section
4
is
an
entirely
new
section.
D
Mr
chairman,
do
people
need
copies
of
it?
I
laid
a
copy
on
each
desk,
okay,
and
it
requires
a
collaborative
effort
between
the
agency,
the
university
and
ets
on
this
project,
so
that
you
have
an
efficient
information
exchange
among
all
parties
that,
hopefully
we'll
get
the
best
possible
price
and
that
the
system
complies
with
national
standards
in
this
area
and
standards
for
cyber
security,
and
that's
right
at
the
top
of
page
two
lines,
one
through
fourteen
and
that
it's
also
hosted
in
the
most
efficient
manner
is
continually
evolved.
D
Also
to
include
public
and
private
partners
who
access
the
system
for
their
input
and
again
include
our
legal
minds
so
that
we
do
in
effect
the
right
and
legal
thing,
and
there
was
a
committee
established,
I'm
on
line
29
page
two
to
provide
input
oversight.
That
sort
of
thing
on
on
this
change
in
the
computer
system
includes
two
members
from
ets.
Two
members
from
the
joint
transportation
committee,
two
members
from
the
joint
appropriations
committee,
two
members
from
the.
D
Exchange
data
with
the
information
system
and
that
and
is
also
to
receive
product
demonstrations
from
vendors
and
that
line
12
page
three
not
later
than
july.
First
of
this
year,
there'll
be
a
timeline
for
this
project,
anticipate
full
configuration,
migration,
implementation
and
closeout
of
the
project
no
later
than
july,
1
2027
and
that's
at
the
direction
of
the
committee
on
that
timeline.
The
committee
I
had
originally
five
years,
a
committee
added
a.
G
B
And
so
committee,
remember
that
this
is
a
computer
system
that
is
estimated
currently
to
be
an
80
million
dollar
computer
system.
It
will
cost
anywhere
between
one
and
a
half
to
two
million
dollars
at
a
minimum
to
operate
over
its
lifespan,
yeah
annually,
and
so
with
those
type
of
figures
and
with
the
incredibly
changing
world
of
computer
technology.
B
This
this
committee,
basically
and
it's
similar
by
the
way
that
the
the
judiciary
did
this
supreme
court
when
they
were
doing
their
system,
and
I
I
just
think
that
to
have
ets
and
uw
having
their
best
and
the
brightest
on
their
computer
folks
work
through
with
what
y
dot
and
ensure
the
interrupt
inter
operability
between
that
agency
and
other
agencies
and
to
ensure
state
of
the
art
work
for
that
type
of
a
price
tag
that
this
is
a
wise
way
to
go.
It's
kind
of
like
having
legislators
on
capital
construction
projects.
A
B
And
so
I'm
not
sure
that
the
director
has
seen
the
amendment
ryan.
So
could
you
just
make
sure
that
this
the
copy
of
this
amendment
gets
to
his
office
asap
and
and
if
they
do
have
comments
on
it,
that
they
can
make
him
available
to
us
and
to
dawn
as
quick
as
possible?
So
we
could
do
floor
amendments
if
necessary.
A
D
B
H
B
I
J
J
So
it
would
be
two
members
of
the
senate,
three
members
of
the
of
the
house
committee
jointly
to
look
at
those
communities
that
are
most
impacted
by
coal
closures
by
downturns
in
our
extractive
industries
and
how
we
can
best
help
those,
and
so
the
appropriation
requested
is
to
you
know,
cover
per
diem
for
those
folks
that
are
serving
on
those
committees,
because
the
idea
is
to
get
those
committees
into
those
communities
to
visit
with
stakeholders
in
each
of
those
really
severely
impacted
communities.
So
that's
where
the
appropriation
comes
in
so.
C
Mr
chairman,
go
ahead
and
representative
banks,
we
we
scrambled
down
we're
short
on
staff
and
we
we
grabbed
the
bills.
We
did
not
have
the
amendment,
and
so
I
just
mr
chairman,
if
I
can,
I
just
want
to
make
sure,
because
the
original
bill
creates
a
task
force
that
you're
going
to
fund
to
do
these
things
coming
through
the
minerals
committee.
That
was
changed
and
it
becomes
a
subcommittee
under
the
direction
of
the
chairman
of
minerals.
With
the
with
the
on
the
senate
and
house
side.
C
J
Yes,
that's
correct,
so
essentially
the
president
of
the
senate
will
appoint
two
members
from
the
existing
minerals
committee.
Speaker.
The
house
will
appoint
three
members
from
the
existing
minerals
committee.
It
also
deletes
the
section
where
the
with
the
governor
appointment.
So
it's
it's
just
the
members
of
this
of
the
house,
standing
committee
and
senate
standing
committee
correct.
J
B
A
A
B
F
B
A
B
C
So
the
money
we
have
right
now:
the
1.25
in
the
governor's
offices
for
cold
port
litigation
on
the
lawsuit
we
have
with
montana,
against
being
able
to
transport
interstate
coal.
This,
as
I
look
at
it,
is
for
export
wyoming
coal
or
the
continued
operation
of
coal-fired
electric
generation
facilities.
G
G
B
So
what
I
suggest
we
do
is
number
one:
the
attorney
general's
office
can
do
this
and
the
idea
that
we
need
to
spend
1.2
million
on
lawyers
when
we're
already
spending
them
on
with
the
current
litigation.
The
because
we're
tag
teaming
with
montana
and
one
other
state
it
was.
It
was
just
kind
of
a
joint
determination
to
use
independent
counsel,
but
we're
not
spending
near
as
much
as
as
in
there
that
we've
assigned
to
it
and
it
makes
it
for
this
type
of
litigation.
B
I
think
the
ag
can
do
it
professionally
and
responsible,
so
I
would
suggest
that
we
do
is
simply
reduce
the
amount
to
a
number
that
we're
much
more
comfortable
with,
and
then
that
means
we'll
have
to
get
up
on
the
floor
and
argue
our
number
and
we'll
have
this
discussion
on
the
floor
and
we
may
win.
We
maybe
lose.
E
E
Mr
chairman,
can
we
comment
on
this
bill
while
we're
waiting
for
representative
walters?
Yes,
I'm
rather
amazed
by
the
language.
This
is
a
much
broader
concept
than
what
we're
dealing
with
with
the
the
the
money
that
was
in
the
governor's
budget.
I
mean
this
is
basically
saying
that
states
we're
going
to
sue
states
that
are
promoting
the
use
of
renewable
energy
that
to
me,
I
can't
support
the
bill
at
all
and
I
think
the
lawsuits
would
be
for
lack
of
a
better
word
species.
D
If,
if
I
might
add
something
to
the
discussion,
please
do
so.
Mr
chairman,
I
did
not
come
prepared
to
talk
on
on
this
particular
bill
and
I
really
don't
know
where
representative
haroldson
is,
but
the
gist
of
this
bill
was
to
fund
litigation
against
states
who
say
they
don't
want
wyoming
energy,
that's
produced
by
coal.
It
was
kind
of
an
interstate
issue
of
that
more
than
the
cold
port
issue,
and,
like
I
said
I.
H
D
H
B
B
I
think
I
I
think
north
dakota
won
a
summary
judgment
on
it
in
federal
court,
but
then
that's
has
been
appealed
up
to
the
court
of
appeals.
I
think
it's
pending
right
now,
so
the
issue
is:
do
we?
The
real
issue
is:
do
we
go
to
outside
counsel
or
not
for
such
litigation,
and
so
what,
when
this
is
explained
to
the
floor,
I'll
bet
you'll
pick
up
some
support
with
the
concept.
B
B
E
E
B
A
H
L
L
And
if
additional
funding
is
needed
for
outside
counsel
or
expenses,
you
can
go
from
there.
But
the
problem
that
you're
having
in
your
discussion
is
exactly
the
one
that
that
we
believe
is
the
problem
with
the
bill
and
that
you
don't
know
what
the
budget's
going
to
be,
because
you
don't
know
what
the
case
is.
You
don't
know
how
long
it's
going
to
take
and
how
much
it
will
cost
we're
also
concerned
about
the
transparency
on
spending
and
the
checks
and
balances.
L
We
know
from
previous
litigation
that
the
state
has
done.
It's
really
easy
to
run
a
billable
hours
and
legal
expenses
without
any
paid
back
to
the
state.
So
what's
the
return
on
the
1.2
million
dollars
and
what
happens
when
the
funds
go
dry
will
whatever
litigation.
We
have
started
end.
We
understand
that
there
are
report
reports
due
from
the
bill,
but
it
will
be
hard
to
correct
course.
L
If
litigation
is
initiated
again,
we
ask
that
you
vote
against
the
bill,
or
at
least
the
appropriation
and
encourage
the
governor's
office
and
the
attorney
general's
office
to
come
back
when
a
case
is
ready.
So
we
can
plan
that
out
the
right
way,
instead
of
just
giving
them
1.2
million
dollars
to
see
what
happens.
So.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
also
I'm
familiar
with
the
the
minnesota
north
dakota
litigation
and
happy
to
answer
any
questions
on
that
there
was
an
eighth
circuit
decision.
L
It
was
a
split
panel,
various
different
concurrencies
on
there
again
it's
an
emerging
topic
of
the
law.
It's
an
interesting
one,
but
we
don't
know
if
we
have
a
case.
We
don't
know
how
much
it
would
cost
and
we
just
really
encourage
you
to
urge
caution
overall
on
the
bill
and
with
that
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
C
Miss
anderson,
but
in
fair
in
fairness,
and
let's
just
take
away
what
the
what
the
action
is
or
what
the
intent
of
the
bill
is,
but
just
in
the
point
that
you
brought
up
we're
in
a
we're,
an
appropriating
process
that
that
happens
every
12
months,
and
so,
if
you,
it
seems
reasonable
to
me,
regardless
what
the
topic
was,
whether
it's
one
you
loved
or
whether
it's
one.
You
hate
that
if
you
were
anticipating
some
sort
of
legal
action
that
you
would
want
to
have
resources
there.
C
L
Yeah
and
mr
chairman,
that
is
exactly
right,
and
I
would
argue
that
that
funding
is
already
there
through
our
existing
attorneys
at
the
attorney
general's
office.
It's
also
there
through
things
like
the
federal
natural
resource
policy,
account
and
other
you
know,
funding,
pots
and
money
that
you
all
have
allocated
to
our
attorney
general's
office
and
our
governor
to
defend
the
state
and
litigation
that
money
is
used
every
year,
so
it
already
exists.
This
is
different.
L
B
E
E
Mr
chairman,
go
ahead,
I
I
agree.
I
think
that's
more
than
enough,
but
there's
a
this.
Is
coal
and
we've
seen
the
passion
on
the
floor.
I
don't
think
that
250
is
emotionally
enough
to
move
the
bill
and
get
past
this
amendment.
I
I
think
that
may
take
500,
even
though
you're
suggesting
it's
too
much
for
what's
really
what's
needed,
just
simply
to
stay
away
from
the
default
of
1.2.
B
A
C
I
I
B
So,
just
to
walk
through
the
amendment,
it's
actually
pretty
simple.
If
you
go
to
page
two,
it
deletes
all
of
the
stricken
language
and
the
new
language.
So
we
go.
But
what
that
does.
Is
we
go
back
to
seven
members
on
the
ifc
and
not
six,
so
that
way
right
we're
basically
and
it's
six
appointed
members
plus
the
state
treasurer
the
state
treasurer,
and
so
then
you
go
down
and
we
add
that
on
line
five,
we
add
that
term
five
to
six.
B
M
M
M
B
B
M
F
F
You
know,
six
of
them
are
coming
from
industry
and
the
treasure
would
typically
have
some
experience
as
well,
whereas
the
legislators
could
be
any
of
us
who
wouldn't
be
as
highly
qualified
to
and
we
don't
know
what
the
qualifications
of
the
a
governor's
he
might
be
and
so
having
them
vote
on.
The
benchmark
may
not
be
the
greatest
idea,
because
the
whole
point
is
to
use
highly
qualified
folks
in
establishing
that
that
benchmark.
F
E
B
C
M
Yes,
and
just
a
clarification,
the
reason
why
the
ex-official
members
had
to
vote
in
the
first
place
was
because
there
were
so
many
conflicts
on
the
isc
that
had
to
recuse
themselves
on
the
benchmarks
I
had
to
recuse
myself
as
state
treasurer,
because
I
had
employees
both
the
cios
had
to
recuse
themselves,
so
just
to
get
people
to
vote
that
weren't
in
conflict,
we
brought
in
the
ex
officios,
so
this
all
of
this
bill
does
sort
this
out.
This
amendment,
I
think,
in
that
regard,
is,
is
good.
M
The
the
one
thing
that
I
wanted
to
try
to
get
done,
while
this
bill
was
in
front
of
us
is,
is
to
kind
of
look
back
at
some
of
the
problems
that
we
might
be
able
to
solve.
While
this
is
well,
this,
this
instrument
is
here,
and
one
of
the
problems
that
we've
had
is
that
we,
we
really
haven't
done
any
significant
upgrade
of
our
our
accounting
software
since
1996.,
and
I
I
wanted
to
try
to
get
some
some
expertise
in
accounting
and
technology
on
the
ifc.
M
M
You
know
at
least
a
ran,
a
ran,
a
investment
firm
had
that
operational
or
accounting
experience,
so
that
doesn't
get
necessarily
lost
and
and
lost
in
the
weeds,
and
I
had
originally
thought
that
one
way
to
do
it
was
to
was
to
say
that
sixth
member
would
have
that
experience.
So
the
next
one
that
we
on
board
would
have
that
type
of
experience.
So
we
got.
We
have
that
that
in
the
in
the
conversation,
somebody
that
actually
has
that
that
background
and
experience
we
we
can
do
it
one
or
two
ways.
M
We
can
put
it
in
the
definition
of
the
requirements
to
be
an
ifc
member,
or
we
can
require
that
that
one
person
to
have
that
that-
and
so
I
would
just
you
know-
let
you
guys
roll
that
around
a
little
bit,
and
I
look
at
it
that,
knowing
that
that
had
the
ifc
been
around
in
96
and
had
we
had
somebody
with
that
expertise
on
on
the
ifc
board
that
we
would
have
made
different
decisions.
You
know
decades
ago
and
would
have
been
a
position.
M
B
I'm
not
sure
that
that's
what
would
fit
and
it
would
have
to
be
tailored
language
for
one
individual
that,
in
addition
to
everything
else,
you
had
that
type
of
expertise,
but
typically
those
folks
aren't
really
I.t
guys.
They
just
would
have
experience
with
having
those
systems
operable
under
beneath
them
yeah,
and
I
think
there
are
a
couple
of
ifc
members
that
have
that
experience
right
now,
they're
at
least
their
firms.
B
Do
address
occurred
in
the
in
244.
Is
that
specifically
that
that
this
study
that
will
come
out
of
the
ifc
will
present
will
evaluate
your
computer
system?
Your
needs,
your
your
I.t
needs
and
make
recommendations
on
what
and
who
you
should
hire
and
be
able
to
hire
in
order
to
bring
you
know,
to
bring
in
new
systems
and
to
have
a
staff
capable
of
running
those
systems.
M
Well,
that's
just
something
for
you
guys
as
guys
is
the
thought
process,
I'm
all
right,
I'm
glad
that
we're
getting
to
an
odd
number.
You
know,
so
it's
actually
a
functional
committee
in
in
that
regard-
and
I
I
guess
this
this
is
on
the
floor
at
this
time.
So
I
guess
you
can
vote
on
that.
I
have
a
couple
of
other
proposed
amendments
as
we
go
through
the
bill.
M
So
looking
at
it
from
the
standpoint
of
that
the
the
first
year
after
the
election,
I
believe
that
the
the
the
chairman
should
come
from
the
membership
and
it
shouldn't
be
the
the
treasurer,
because
you
get
a
new
person
elected
that
you
want
to
have
that
continuity
about
what's
going
on.
So
I
think
it's
really
important
to
have
that.
M
That
chairman,
be
somebody
from
the
member
and
then
I
would
say
that
that
every
year
thereafter,
that
it
rotates
back
and
forth
that
the
the
treasurer
would
be
the
chairman
the
next
year
the
year
after
that,
the
treasure
would
not
be
the
chair.
That
would
be
somebody
from
the
membership
and
essentially
the
reason
for
that
is
that
I
think
it's
important
that
the
treasurer
from
time
to
time
drive
the
bus,
but
he
doesn't
have
to
drive
the
bus
all
the
time.
M
M
C
Mr
chairman,
go
ahead
treasure
meyer,
so
I
I
I
hear
what
you're
saying,
and
I
I
guess
my
question
back
to
you
would
be
then,
is
if,
if
the
treasurer
is
a
member
of
the
of
the
investment
committee,
he
would
be
as
eligible
as
any
other
member
to
be
elected
if
they
elected
within
the
quorum.
Who
the
chairman
should
be
well.
M
Mr
chairman,
the
language
that
I
have
is
rotate
to
the
treasurer
annually
and
elected
from
membership,
excluding
treasurer
so
every
other
year.
You
would
exclude
the
treasure
arden,
no
he's
reading
his
proposal.
No!
I'm
reading
my
proposal.
Oh
I'm
sorry
yeah,
I'm
reading
my
proposal
so
so
yeah,
mr
largent
larson
or
representative
larson,
I'm
excluding
the
treasurer
every
other
year,
the
first
year
after
the
election
in
the
third
year
after
after
the
election.
M
M
E
M
M
M
Well,
mr
chairman,
I
think
it's
essential
for
the
treasurer
to
be
the
chairman
on
those
other
two
years,
essentially
because
it's
historically
and
constitutionally
and
he's
always
been
or
he
or
she
that
office
has
always
been.
You
know
related
and
you
know
taking
the
fiduciary
responsibility
investing
now.
You
know
you
guys
can
change
that
at
any
time,
but
I
still
think
it's
important
for
the
treasurer
to
be
in
in
those
roles,
because
you
need
something
somebody
with
with
oversight
of
the
process
and
that's
oversight.
C
So
follow
up,
mr
chairman,
but
the
opportunity
would
be
there's
nothing
that
would
exclude
him
from
being
elected
on
those
years,
those
those
years.
I'm
struggling
a
little
bit
with
that.
But
then
you
said
something
that
caught
my
attention.
So
do
you
feel
that
there's
something
in
in
if,
if
we
went
to
this
process,
that
said
the
ifc
would
elect
a
chairman
in
there?
Are
you
thinking
we're
doing
anything
there?
That's
bumping
up
against
constitution
issues.
M
Well,
mr
chairman,
I
don't
believe
that
that
that
you
are
bumping
up
against
any
constitutional
issues,
except
for
it,
essentially
the
the
historical
role
of
the
treasurer
and
the
and
the
separation
within
within
the
top
five
elected
officials
of
duties,
because
you
necessarily
you
you
try
to
keep
those
those
things
separate
that
the
top
five
elected
officials
have
to
deal
with.
You
don't
want
to
necessarily
put
everything
into
the
executive
branch,
because
if
you
do
that,
then
you
know
it's.
They
they
kind
of.
F
C
But
yet
we
will
still
require
to
be
chairman
of
that
investment
committee,
and
I
think
that
I
I
think
that
that
causes
me
a
little
pause
to
reflect
and
say
we
need
to
protect
this
moving
forward
to
ensure
that
we're
stable
in
that
overall
concept
of
doing
more
investment
local
here
within
the
office,
and
do
that
am
I
making
any
sense
there
or
do?
Does
that
not
ring
right
with
you?
Well.
M
C
M
M
That
I
I
don't
know
exactly
why
the
cla
assessment
said
that
the
treasurer
should
be
chairman
of
that
at
every
every
time.
You
know
I
look
at
it
from
the
standpoint
that
I
know
there's
times
when
and
purposes
for
the
treasurer.
Not
to
be
that,
and
so
I
guess
my
amendment
essentially
guarantees
that
there
will
be
that
that
access
to
the
other
members,
rather
than
the
treasurer,
but
it
also
guarantees
that
the
treasurer
who
who
has
accountability
also
has
has
access
to
the
chairmanship,
and
you
know
so.
M
M
But
we
also
have
the
ability
of
that
person
if,
if
they
are
an
exceptional
person
to
to
make
a
difference,
while
they're
they're
in
in
the
office
and
also
you
have
have
at
least
enough
authority
to
know
that
that
that
there
is
some
accountability
that
essentially
the
office,
isn't
a
a
paper
tiger.
So
to
speak.
M
M
No,
mr
chairman,
I
think
those
were
the
only
two
that
I
had.
I
welcome
the
the
other,
both
both
members
of
the
the
legislature.
I
think
that's
a
good
move,
having
been
on
the
wrs
board
as
a
liaison
for
more
years
than
they
keep
records
on
who's.
The
liaisons
are
it
was.
It
was
a
one
of
the
jobs
that
I
enjoyed
very
much
and
learned
a
heck
of
a
lot,
and,
mr
chairman,
I
know
you
were
liaison.
B
B
So
it's
just
one
more
example
of
de-politicalizing
the
process,
and
then
we
add
a
senate
participant
and
really
the
reason
for
adding
a
senator
is
so
that
we
have
two
liaisons
two
ex-official
members
who
attend.
You
know
there's
at
least
quarterly
meetings,
but
I
think
it's
very
important
to
have
both
bodies
have
at
least
one
person
who
understands
what
is
going
on,
because
these
are
ma.
B
Well,
I
don't
know
if
they
need
to
report.
This
probably
has
a
value,
but
we
can
cap
finn
can
ask
him
to
report
so
so
then,
then,
what
we
do
also,
then
there
are
other
ex-official
members.
We
take
the
chief
investment
officer,
so
that's
patrick
fleming
in
this
case
and
we
take
the
chief
investment
officer
of
the
retirement
currently
they're
voting
members.
B
Isn't
a
member
of
that
committee
and
voting
on
his
own
his
own
actions?
So
it's
just
a
logical,
sequential
separation
of
powers
and
authority
and
it
in
a,
I
think
it
diffuses
to
some
degree
the
the
relationship
so
it
and
it
lines
out
the
relationships
between
the
state
and
this
independent
board.
That
is
reviewing
these
actions.
B
B
B
B
G
B
Has
the
funds
to
do
it
but
in
essence,
they're
there
to
advise
the
treasurer
and
so
to
have
the
treasurer
then
be
voting
or
automatically
a
chairman
all
the
time.
I
think
once
again,
it
kind
of
over
overlaps
the
responsibilities
of
the
treasure
and
his
relationship
with
this
advisory
board.
That's
supposed
to
be
explaining
and
informing
and
educating
the
treasurer
on
how
to
to
do
the
overall
investing
of
the
process
in
reality
to
have
full
separation.
B
It
would
you
know
the
other.
One
of
the
options
we
considered
is
having
the
treasure
an
ex-official
member
and
not
even
a
voting
member,
because
when
you're
voting
on
benchmarks,
the
treasurer
is
not
doesn't
have
the
qualifications
of
these
of
these
individuals,
and
so
it
doesn't
have
the
the
sophisticated
long-term.
You
know
investing
500
million
billions
of
dollars
on
a
regular
basis
and
on
a
continuous
operation.
B
On
the
other
hand,
this
is
state
government
on
the
treasurer
has
been
the
figurehead
of
of
the
investments
funds
since
the
day
when
we
actually
started
doing
that
going
back
in
the
70s.
Basically,
although
up
until
the
90s,
it
was
basically
just
bonds
and
stocks,
no
stocks
at
all,
it
was
just
and
and
that
type
of
thing.
But
but
I
think
that
kurt
has
a
point
that
if.
F
B
B
If
this
committee
wanted
the
treasurer
to
be
chairman
and
they
and
so
the
kurt
would
go
and
say,
I'd
like
to
be
chairman
and
here's
what
I'm
going
to
do-
and
this
is
how
I'm
going
to
operate
it,
and
I
and
I
think
that
I'm
the
best
for
the
job
and
I've
got
more
time
to
spend
on
it
and
they
vote
him
in
then.
Then
he
votes
in.
H
B
B
C
Yeah
and
treasure
meyer,
I
I
appreciated
the
conversation.
I
don't
know
that
I
bought
into
the
rationale
on
that
two
years.
I
think
that
the
treasure
needs
to
be
included
in
that
process
of
being
selected
as
the
chairman.
So
I
just
looking
over
that
hill
and
saying
I
think
and-
and
I
think
that
you
made
some
really
important
comments
for
me
to
to
chew
on
on
on
making
sure
that
he's
included
in
that
process.
But
thank
you
for
that
discussion
because
that
cleared
a
lot
of
things
up
for
me.
B
F
H
B
This
and
have
the
have
it
run
any
the
most
professional
manner
that
we
can
do
it
without
having
so
we
can
maximize
the
rate
of
return.
I
mean
that's,
that's
the
goal
and
we
all
agree
with
that,
and
so
the
so
I
think
the
term
strong
and
weak
is
just
depends
on
what
context
you're
using
it
in,
but
in
terms
of
framework.
B
B
B
N
B
I
I
H
A
B
B
This
says:
no,
no,
let's
step
back
a
little
bit,
let's,
let's
have
a
much
more
broad
and
more
encompassing
study
from
the
ifc
and
directs
them
to
make
any
recommendations
that
they
feel
appropriate
based
upon
their
expertise.
So
that's
that's!
That's
kind
of
the
30
000
foot
picture.
I
think
if
we
can.
B
B
O
Second,
is
to
look
at
the
legal
and
fiduciary
responsibilities
of
the
state.
The
state
owns
some
funds.
The
state
holds
some
funds
as
trustees,
and
the
objective
is
to
identify
what
the
state's
role
proper
role
is
as
an
oversight
of
investment
funds
and
then
three
is
to
develop
a
structure
management
structure
to
best
achieve
the
goals,
taking
into
account
the
duties
of
the
state
and
the
public
duties
of
dealing
with
public
monies
to
ensure
accuracy,
transparency
and
timeliness
and
reporting.
O
In
conducting
the
study,
the
investment
funds
committee
is
directed
to
review
alternatives
and
they're
not
limited
to
but
suggested
alternatives.
Is
the
public
state
corporation
model
that's
been
used
by
other
states,
I
understand
and
which
the
state
did
for
the
prison.
You
established
a
public
corporation
to
build
the
penitentiary,
there's
also
the
chance
for
a
state,
just
an
investment
council.
That
would
be,
I
think,
pretty
close
to
what
we
have
and
then
a
quasi-governmental
entity.
O
My
way
of
thinking
is
that
would
mean
something
like
an
authority
like
you've
done
for
the
infrastructure
authority,
the
energy
now
energy
authority
and
pipeline
authority,
in
which
you
create
it,
but
then
it's
and-
and
you
have
some
control
over,
but
pretty
much
it's
hands-off.
It
has
its
own
separate
board
and,
and
it
reports
to
the
state
and
again
those
are
just
suggested
alternatives.
O
Then
whatever
they
recommend
is
the
alternative.
The
bill
requires
certain
recommendations.
It
would
be.
The
first
thing
is:
what
are
the
duties
of
all
the
state
entities
involved
here?
The
state
loan
investment
board,
the
state
treasurer
whatever
management
organization
is
recommended
and
how
they
would
integrate
and
relate
to
each
other
b
on
page
four
line.
Four
is
appropriate
expense
models.
How
much
are
you
going
to
pay
these
people?
O
What's
it
going
to
cost,
how
are
you
going
to
generate
the
revenue
to
fund
it
c
is
how
do
you
develop
this
in
a
way
that
allows
independent
thought
of
the
investment
managers,
but
yet
still
comply
with
industry
standards
and
fiduciary
duties
and
four
would
be?
How
would
you
look
at
this
organization?
O
O
The
state
treasurer's
office,
as
in
current
law,
would
provide
staffing
for
the
committee
and
then
the
executive
department,
which
are
involved
with
state
investments,
office
of
state
lands
and
the
governor's
office,
would
assist
the
committee
and
the
lso
would
assist
the
committee
to
the
extent
the
committee
request
and
subject
to
the
approval
management
council,
and
that's
it.
Mr
chairman,
any
questions
for
mr.
B
B
B
O
M
B
M
F
M
M
Then
then,
I
think
that
I
think
we
should
recognize
on
page
two
the
the
work
that
the
ifc
committee
has
done
in
the
past
I
mean
these
are
a
great
group
of
individuals
and
that
they
they
continue
and
and
would
continue,
irrespective
of
this
legislation
or
or
any
other
to
to
assess
options
for
improving
the
investment
operations.
That's
that's
their
job,
that's
their
duty.
They
do
it.
You
know,
day
in
and
day
out.
That's
that's
what
we
do.
M
N
M
N
Mr
chairman,
mr
treasurer,
just
so
I
understand
it
on
page
one
so
line
16
the
legislature
finds
there
is
a
consensus
among
the
state
treasurer's
office,
the
governor's
office,
the
investment
funds
committee,
the
legislature
that-
and
it
goes
on
so
just
I
just
want
to
understand
your
comment.
Are
you
saying
you
think
that's
like
factually
not
true
that
there
is
not
a
consensus
about
that,
or
are
you
saying
you
just
don't
like
findings
in
bills.
M
I'm
I'm
saying
they're
superfluous.
You
know
that
they
have
no,
they
have
no
essential.
It's
it's
a
structure
that
has
has
no
effect
in
statutes.
You
can
find
anything,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it's
the
actual
statute.
That
tells
you
what
you
should
do.
You
know.
I
think
that
and-
and
I
think
you
can
within
the
consensus-
I
think
you
can
say
that
there's
a
willingness
to
cooperate.
M
You
know
by
utilizing
the
efforts
of
the
not
necessarily
a
finding,
but
there's
that
that
we
all
want
to
cooperate,
utilizing
the
investment
funds
committee.
You
know
in
in
the
study
in
the
comment
and
recommendation
in
these
areas,
but
it's
not
necessarily
a
finding
finding
kind
of
there.
There
are
some
things
in
here
that
I
would
more
likely
disagree
on
the
governor
may
have
specifics
in
there
that
we
may
or
may
not
disagree
on,
but
I
think
that
we
need
to
recognize.
M
In
any
case,
we
need
to
recognize
the
continued
work
of
the
ifc,
and
essentially,
you
know
saying
that
they
they're
that
this
would
be
a
continuation
of
the
work
that
they
they
do
and
that's
that's
essentially
their
their
work.
They
do
it
every
day.
This
is
more
or
less
kind
of
guiding
them
in
these
areas.
C
M
Well,
mr
chairman,
I
think
the
the
directions
to
the
study
really
start
on
page
two
line.
Six,
you
know
or
slightly
above
that
the
I
think
that's
we're
we're
asking
the
the
ifc
to
do
these
things,
and
I
guess
that's
that's
what
what
what
I
would
comment
on
that
and
you
know,
findings
were
always
one
of
those
things.
I
thought
just
wasted
paper
and
time.
You
know.
M
M
It's
two
o'clock,
so
we
gotta
go
quick,
okay.
Moving
on,
I
would
say
that
including,
but
not
limited
to,
there's
that
all
the
things
that
are
in
here-
and
I
think
I
think
that
representative
nicholas
mr
chairman,
that
you
you
recognize
that
the
the
ifc
necessarily
doesn't
have
a
great
understanding
of
every
one
of
our
funds.
M
What
they're
there
for
the
purpose
for
them
originally
and
they
may
come
up
with
some
answer
that
that
doesn't
necessarily
pertain
to
the
way
that
the
funds
are
statutorily
derived
and
what
we
can
do
and-
and
I
know
that
there
has
been
some
talk-
that
let's
just
do
a
unifund
like
we
used
to
get
the
best
return
that
we
can.
But
that
doesn't
really
take
into
account
the
problems
that
you
might
have,
which
we
got.
F
M
From
of
having
things
that
were
too
too
volatile
in
the
in
a
state
agency
pool-
and
so
you
know,
I
think
that
that
that
the
saying
that
we're
going
to
have
this
by
november
2021
and
get
like
a
good
product
with
the
understanding
of
with.
Without
that
background
understanding,
I
think
it's
going
to
be
problematic,
so
I
think
that
we're
going
to
have
to
have
you
may
have
to
have
more
time.
M
M
Mr
chairman,
I
think
that
maybe
looking
at
this
and
and
maybe
a
subcommittee
implementation
and
breaking
it
down,
we
could
get
more
because
we've
asked
these
guys
and
told
them
about
how
long
do
you
want
your
your
meetings
to
last
and
they
said
we
want
them
short.
We
want
action
items
very
little
information.
We
want.
We
want
the
information
beforehand,
so
we
can
study
it,
and
so
we
can
go
right
through
and
we
can
make
decisions.
Bam
bam,
bam,
bam
bam.
So
so,
let's.
M
M
M
F
Mr
chairman,
go
ahead.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
As
I
read
that
it
says
the
treasurer's
office
will
reports
will
provide
the
report.
The
governor's
office,
osli
and
et
cetera,
will
help
as
the
treasurer
request.
Essentially
if
the
treasurer
needs
help
with
the
report,
but
it's
the
trader's
office,
that's
providing
the
report
is
the
way
I
read
it
just
with
the
help
of
those
other
entities.
M
O
Mr
chairman,
I
think
it
says
the
committee
provides
the
report.
The
governor's
office
and
treasurer's
office
provides
assistance
to
the
committee,
as
the
committee
request
and
undertaking
the
study
and
preparing
the
report.
Okay
and
the
lso2
to
the
extent
request
that
the
management
council
approves
okay.
B
What
we're
going
to
do
is
we'll,
I
don't
think
we'll
adjourn
we'll
take
this
up
again
either
this
evening
or
in
the
morning,
because
I
want
to
get
any
other
further
comments.
We
want
a
clean
version
of
it
if
there's
any
grammatical
changes,
so
we'll
just
wait
until
we
have
that
version,
and
I
also
I've
sent
this
off
to
the
ifc
members
and
the
others
participating.
So
we
might
get
any
comments
back
from
them.
Okay,
we'll
adjourn.