►
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
A
So,
let's
go
so
we're
okay,
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
and
come
back
into
session,
go
ahead
and
are
we
yep
we're
live?
So
let's
go
ahead,
we're
back
in
order
we're
going
to
pick
up
with
our
130
agenda
item
and
start
off.
We've
got
brian.
This
is
your
fault.
I'm
excuse
me.
This
is
your
presentation
anyway.
Brian
we're
glad
to
have
you
we're
glad.
A
Things
went
well
at
home
when
we
missed
you
during
session,
and
although
you
know
we
I
I
know,
you're
still
working
from
home
working
remotely
while
you're,
while
you're
changing
diapers
and
doing
other
things
so
anyway,
I
want
you
to
know
we.
We
appreciate
your
dedication,
you
were
missed,
although
you
didn't
miss
us,
we
missed
you
so
with
that
go
ahead,
go
ahead
and
and
let's
see
what
you
got
for
us.
C
Yup,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Brian
fuller,
lso
I'll
go
over
the
the
the
brief
memo
concerning
the
study.
That's
required
by
senate
file
121.
C
This
is,
it
should
be
the
very
last
item
in
your
binders
for
those
online
it
should
be,
or
it
should
be
item
7-0-1
on
the
on
the
website.
Just
a
couple
of
I
guess
introductory
remarks.
This
presentation
is
just
a
quick
overview
of
what
is
required
in
this
study
and
I'll
include
a
few
thoughts.
You
know
along
those
lines
and
perhaps
in
terms
of
what
that
bill
is
trying
to
get
at
and
then
the
other
thing
too
is
you
know.
C
C
You
know
the
the
items
that
should
be
explored
in
terms
of
the
legal
considerations
that
are
specified
specified
in
this
bill.
So
I'll
jump
right
in
this
is
a
study
that
requires
consideration
of
four
topics
that
are
related
to
allocating
investment,
earnings
and
the
use
of
different
or
alternative
investment
models.
C
A
Brian,
when
we,
when
we
look
at
that,
so
obviously
the
wyoming
constitution,
we
were
obliged
to
follow
that
unless
unless
we
recommend-
and
there
is
a
change
that
would
be
passed
and
so
under
federal
law,
obviously
federal
law
for
the
most
part,
with
very
few
exceptions,
will
preempt
whatever
we
would
do,
but
everything
else,
then
we
would
have
the
opportunity
to
either
either
exempt
what
we
do
from
those
or
strengthen
those
or
carve
out
or
whatever.
We
need
to
do
with
respect
to
the
others.
Correct.
Mr.
C
Chairman,
that's
correct.
I
mean
to
the
extent
that
those
changes
would
not
conflict
with
the
constitution.
Should
there
be
no
constitutional
changes
right.
Okay,
topic.
Two,
then,
is
an
exploration
of
laws
that
govern
the
investment
of
permanent
and
non-permanent
funds,
and-
and
this
topic
includes
consideration
of
limitations
on
investment
in
equities
and
standards
for
the
investment
of
permanent
and
non-permanent
funds.
C
The
study
limitations
on
so
so
consider
any
limitations
on
any
diminution
to
the
principle
of
funds
that
the
state
holds
and
trust
pursuant
to
terms
such
as
in
violet,
as
is
used
in
the
constitution
and
any
obligation
of
the
state
to
make
whole
any
loss
of
principle.
In
light
of
the
constitution,
federal
law
state
statutes
that
govern
investment
limitations
and
common
law,
and
then
the
final
topic
is
to
review
the
ability
of
the
legislature
to
establish
a
fixed
percentage
of
a
fund's
value
or
a
fixed
dollar
amount
to
be
distributed
from
each
permanent
fund.
C
In
light
of
the
findings
from
the
the
first
three
topics
put
more
succinctly,
you
know,
I
think
this
topic
gets
at
the
question
of
whether
the
state
can
establish
some
sort
of
endowment
model
for
for
you
for
utilization
of
an
investment
of
these.
These
permanent
non-permanent
funds
just
to
kind
of
run
through
these.
You
know
again
topic
and
add
a
bit
more
commentary.
C
A
When
we
talk
about
that,
if
we
I
mean,
there's
a
there's,
a
direct
interplay
between
topics,
one
and
four
right
I
mean
at
the
end
of
the
day.
If,
if,
if,
if
the
state
were
to
move
towards
an
endowment
model,
then
earnings
and
and
income
to
some
degree
become
irrelevant
with
respect
to
be
respected,
I
mean
you
all.
You
know
they
allocated
based
upon
how
the
funds
ever
allocate
that,
but
you
would
simply
change
that.
A
You're
not
worried
about
that
anymore,
because
you're,
just
investing
for,
if
you're
doing
an
endowment,
you're
just
investing
for
total
return.
So
the
total
return,
whether
it's
a
capital,
gain
whether
it's
income,
whether
it's
a
dividend
at
all,
just
as
a
total
return,
and
so
you
what
you
do.
Is
you
move
away
from
the
co,
the
whole
concept
of
earnings
with
respect
to
what
you
get
to
spend
in
the
spending
policy?
A
It's
just
you're
allocating
a
certain
amount
based
upon
the
value
of
whatever
your
funds
are,
whether
it's
a
five
year
moving
average
or
whether
it's
three
year
moving
average
or
whatever.
Whatever
you
think
that
basis
is,
and
that's
what
you
get.
That's
all
that
is
all
you
spend.
It
doesn't
matter
whether
the
gains
are
realized
or
unrealized,
whether
your
dividends
or
interests.
You
just
move
in
that
direction.
That
does
two
things.
A
It
does
two
really
big
things
for
us,
one
is,
it
doesn't
dictate
to
it,
doesn't
dictate
to
to
patrick
and
his
crew
and
the
treasurer
and
his
crew
that
they
have
to
invest
in
certain
things,
to
make
sure
that
they've
got
dividends
and
income
they
can.
They
are
free
to
chase
the
best
investments
that
are
out
there
and
it
frees
them
up.
A
The
second
thing,
the
the
other
thing
that
it
so
it
changes
it
changes
that
dramatically,
and
so,
as
as
you
do
this
you
we
end
up
and
and
if
we,
if
we
were
determined
to
go
that
way,
and
I
think
we've
had
enough
discussions
and
I'd
be
interested
in
your
idea.
If
we
were
to
move
to
a
true
endowment
model,
we
would
have
to,
we
would
have
to
change
the
wyoming
constitution.
Did
you
come
to
that
conclusion
as
well.
C
Yeah,
mr
chairman,
just
a
couple
of
remarks.
You
know
first,
I
think
really
all
the
first
three
topics.
You
know
that
are
an
exploration
of
the
really
the
current
legal
landscape.
All
drive
toward
that
fourth
topic.
You
know,
which
is
the
question
of
changing
to
you,
know
an
endowment
or
total
return
model.
C
You
know
in
terms
of
the
constitution,
you
know
I
hesitate
to
make
a
statement,
you
know
without
having
you
know
really
dived
into
you
know
to
those
legal
provisions,
but
you
know,
I
think,
to
some
extent
yeah
there's
going
to
have
to
be
a
change
to
the
constitution.
You
know,
I
think
you
know
you're
used
to
the
term.
You
know
income
and
earnings.
Some
of
those
terms
are
used.
You
know
there
and
so
would
need
change.
Oh
and
then.
A
And
then,
particularly
with
the
comm
school
permanent
land
fund,
which
which
has
additional
constitutional
requirements
that
don't
exist
in
in
the
other
constitutional
fund,
pmtf,
so
yeah
I
mean
it's
and
so
yeah
I
mean
there's
we're
we're
as
close
to
the
constitutional
line.
Now,
as
we
probably
can
be.
C
And,
mr
chairman,
the
only
other
thing
I
would
add
to
that.
I
think
the
inclusion
of
you
know
mentioning
the
you
know.
The
constitutional
additional
requirements
would
be
the
act
of
admission
and
the
role
that
that
document
that
law
plays.
You
know,
particularly
for
those
permanent
land
funds.
You
know
that
from
which,
though
you
know
that's
their
genesis.
Was
that
act
of
admission
and
later
and
you
know
expressly
included
in
the
constitution.
D
C
Western
states
really,
mr
chairman,
representative
harshman,
I
know
that
you
know
idaho
and
utah
have
changed
their
statutes.
I
haven't
looked
specifically
to
see
if
they
also
had
changes
to
their
active
admission,
yeah.
Okay,
thank
you.
C
C
I
guess
just
you
know
in
conclusion,
you
know
for
for
the
committee
to
consider
you
know,
at
least
in
terms
of
the
legal
topics
that
are
specified
in
senate
file.
121,
you
know
the
the
breadth
of
this
required
study
is
is
considerable,
and
I
think
you
know
and
that's
why
I
started
off
by
mentioning
you
know.
Perhaps
then
you
know
the
need
to
see.
You
know
where,
where
the
committee
wants
to
go,
can
help
drive.
C
You
know
the
the
scope
of
the
study
and
perhaps
start
narrowing
things
in
and
focusing
on.
You
know
on
the
principles
that
need
to
be,
you
know,
discussed
and
considered
by
the
committee.
You
know
as
they
pursue
this
study.
You
know,
I
think
another
question
is
file.
121
expressly
included.
Mention
of
you
know,
legislation
during
the
2022
session
and
the
2023
session.
You
know
the
suggestion
of
you
know.
Should
this
be
something
that's
spread
out
over
over
two
years.
C
You
know
this
review
would
include
the
constitution.
You
know
the
act
of
admission,
which
I'm
not
sure
you
know
I've
looked
over
previous
work.
You
know
I
don't
know
how
much
focus
has
actually
been
given
to
that
document.
What
its
status
is.
You
know
the
the
need
to
amend
it
depending
on
what
constitutional
changes
are
made.
You
know
that
would
be
another
piece
of
that.
C
You
know
these
various
uniform
acts
right
now,
there's
only
one,
I
believe
the
prude
investor
act,
where
you
know
the
legislature
has
expressly
stated
that
you
know
it
applies
to
the
state.
You
know
the
others
are
just
silent,
so
that
would
be
another
area
of
consideration
as
well
with
that.
Mr
chairman,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
about
cinephile,
121
or
or
anything
else.
The
other
thing
you
know
my
understanding
is.
There
was
interest
in
hearing
a
kind
of
an
overview
of
the
attorney
general
letter.
C
A
G
A
A
C
The
the
opinion
stated
that
no
distribution
model
could
distribute
funds
that
would
consume
or
diminish
a
portion
of
the
corpus.
The
answer
is
slightly
different
for
non-permanent
funds.
There's
no
similar
restriction
on
that.
But
still
must
you
know
any
model
must
comply
with
other
constitutional
provisions.
C
You
know,
for
example,
you
know
the
you
know
not
being
not
loaning
or
giving
credit
or
donation.
So
article
16,
section
6..
The
one
exception
would
be
the
revolving
investment
fund,
article
16
section
12,
since
the
constitution
states
that
any
earnings
must
be
returned
to
that
fund
for
distribution
is
loan
loans
or
loan
guarantees.
C
So
that's
you
know,
that's
a
very
quick
synopsis.
The
the
letter
goes
over
the
constitutional
background
of
the
various
permanent
funds.
The
analysis
basically
focuses
on
the
idea
that
the
legislature
cannot
consume
the
corpus
of
any
permanent
fund.
It
outlined
utah's
law
in
idaho's
law,
changing
those
models
to
move
more
toward
an
endowment
style
model,
and
then
it
focuses
on
this
difference
in
terms
of
realized,
gain
versus
unrealized
games
and
the
definition
of
income
and
for
unrealized
gains.
C
The
letter
stated
that
that
would
be
any
sort
of
distribution
of
that
or
use
of
that
would
be
constitutionally
impermissible
because
they
are
not
actual
money
coming
into
the
fund,
so
they
would
not
meet
the
definition
of
income
or
earnings,
as
those
terms
are
believed
to
be
used
in
in
the
constitution.
C
There.
There
was
one,
a
single
supreme
court
case
from
1923
that
noted
that
a
permanent
fund
is
consumed
when
a
portion
of
the
non-replenishable
part
of
that
property
is
removed,
and
so
any
sort
of
consumptive
use
of
the
corpus
could
not
be
constitutionally
considered
income
that
could
be
available
for
for
those
spendings.
C
C
A
H
That's
the
money
that
we're
we're
putting
in
there
every
year
that
builds
up,
and
then
you
have
that
differential
in
there,
which
is,
is
the
the
market
value,
not
what
we
actually
invested
so
is
so
I'm
trying
to
find
out,
because
it
sounds
like
we're
getting
two
different
answers
here.
So
one
of
them
says:
well,
you
can't
go
into
the
corpus
and
the
other
one
distinguishes
and
unrealized
capital
gains
that
market
value
side
of
it
is
you
can't
touch
that?
H
C
Mr
chairman,
senator
hicks,
you
know
I
I
think
this
letter
doesn't
really
dive
into
that.
You
know
the
definition
of
what
is
or
is
not
part
of
the
corpus,
and
I
think
that's
something
that
would
need
to
be
addressed
as
part
of
this
study
under
senate
file
121.
You
know
this
letter.
C
Need
to
be
explored
further,
you
know,
in
terms
of
you
know
what
is
or
is
not
the
corpus
what
you
know,
depending
on
the
various
uses
of
these
terms,
in
terms
of
you
know
violent
or
permanent,
you
know
what
does
it
mean
to
keep
a
a
fund
and
violet?
I
think
those
are
questions
that
you
know,
depending
on
where
the
committee
wants
to
go
would
be
further
explored
during
this
interim.
That's
part
of
this
study
right
and
mr
trump.
A
I
think
that's
a
that's
a
great
that's
a
great
point,
and,
and
so
that's
why,
when
you
look
at
capital
gain,
you
know,
what's
the
it's,
the
the
you
know
the
the
excess
over
the
you
know
the
basically
the
cost
basis
right.
Well,
it's
the
cost
basis
right
so
yeah.
So
if
you
had,
if
you
have
a
stock
that
you
bought
for
a
hundred
you
sold
so
for
150,
the
gain
is
50.
The
the
the
basis
is
remains
part
of
the
corpus
and
the
gain,
then,
is
what
is
the
gain?
A
K
So,
mr
chairman
and
brian
kind
of
going
along
that
way,
so
is
there
anything
to
do
that
defines
when
earnings
become
part
of
the
corpus,
and
I
and
I
realized
we
currently,
we
divert
and
we
go
to
these
reserve
accounts
before
it
tips
and
goes
to
the
corpus.
C
K
C
Well,
mr
chairman,
you
know
I
I
am
the
only
one
here
so
yeah,
mr
chairman,
representative
larson,
this
is
that's.
The
approach
idaho
took
in
their
statute
is,
I
think
they
set.
You
know
that
benchmark.
As
of
you
know,
like
2000,
or
you
know
the
fiscal
year
2000.
I
think
something
like
that
and
then
all
subsequent
deposits
to
the
corpus,
but
there
were
some
exclude,
but
I
mean
their
laws-
spelled
that
out
pretty
much
what
you
described.
A
Right
I
mean
so
what
what
we
have
right
now
is
is
is
a
pattern
of
practice
that
we've
kind
of
we've
kept
track
of
what
corpus
is:
we've
never
defined
corpus.
The
constitution
has
said
corpus,
but
we've
never
defined
it.
So
you
know
it
could
be
a
number
of
things.
It
could
be
the
value
of
the
asset
or
the
deposit
when
it
was
contributed.
That's
you
know,
and
you
just
keep
track
of
that
and
you
could.
That
could
be
it.
A
It
could
you
you
could
say:
well,
it's
the
cost
basis
or
or
it
could
be
some
hybrid
of
some
of
those
things.
So
it's
you
know
it's
corpus.
A
Is
you
know,
I
think
so
corpus
is
about
like
saying
the
res,
it's
the
thing,
but
what
what
that
thing
is,
is
we
don't
know,
and
I
so,
if
we're
going
to
go
down
this
road,
quite
frankly,
it
would
be
it's.
It's
probably
important
that
we
look
at
that
and
we
consider
defining
that
in
some
regard.
Because
of
of
that
very
nature
and
and
the
fact
that
you
know
we
we're
you
know
so
far,
we've
always
been
faced
with
generally.
A
A
But
you
know
you
have
to
keep
in
mind
that
there
will
be
those
times
when
we
don't
when
it's
not
going
to
increase
from
year
to
year,
we're
going
to
have
a
market
correction
or
we're
going
to
have
a
recession
or
whatever
and
we're
we'll
see
that
go
down,
and
so
you
know
as
we
as
we
define
and
look
at
the
corpus,
they'll
say
that's
going
to
be
coming
vitally
important,
because,
ultimately,
I
I
think,
as
I've
talked
to
the
governor,
I've
talked
to
the
treasurer.
A
I've
talked
with
a
lot
of
people
about
how
we
go
about
this.
I,
the
the
one
commonality
is:
everybody
wants
to
see
a
corpus
whatever
that
is
going
to
be
held
in
violet.
We
don't
want
we,
you
know,
everybody
is
seems
to
be
very
very
on
the
same
page
about
we
don't
want
to
be
able
to
spend.
We
don't
want
to
be
able
to
use
the
seed
corn
we
always
want
to.
We
always
want
to
hold
the
purpose
and
violet.
E
Thank
you.
I
I
have
a
question
for
brian
that
brian,
have
you
researched
or,
if
not,
do
you
consider
it
within
the
scope
of
our
charge
of
research
for
this
coming
biennium
on
this
committee
to
look
at
the
original
intent
of
the
crafters
of
the
pmtf
and
whether
it
was
their
intent,
as
some
have
maintained
that
we
not
be
able
to
tap
capital
gains
at
all?
E
So
if
you
go
back
to
the
late
60s
early
70s,
those
folks,
you
know
there
was
a
time
in
america
when
people
regarded
corpus
as
something
that
capital
gains
had
to
go
back
to
the
corpus,
and
then
current
beneficiaries
could
get
interest
and
dividends,
but
any
capital
gains
had
to
go
back
to
corpus
for
future
beneficiaries.
C
Mr
chairman,
senator
kensky,
I
I
think
that
that
would
that
question
would
probably
squarely
fit
within
this.
I'm
unaware
of
any
at
least
off
the
top
of
my
head
any
research
into
that
question.
Whether
the
intent
was,
you
know,
capital
gains.
C
You
know,
I
think
it
gets
to
the
earlier
discussion,
whether
that's
part
of
the
corpus
or
or
not.
So
to
me
that
would
seem
to
be
a
question
you
know
for
for
this
study.
E
I
Wanted
to
just
add
this,
this
idea
too,
that
it's
clear
that
each
fund,
if
we
want
to
engage
in
this
analysis,
which
I
think
is
inappropriate
under
the
bill,
the
different
funds
have
different
characteristics.
The
permanent
mineral
trust
fund
is
likely
more
liberally
invested
and
applied
than
some
of
the
others.
I
When
you
talk
about,
you
know
anything
that
comes
from
the
active
mission
which
which,
as
a
genesis
and
land
you
know
clearly
that
has
a
different
analysis
and
one
of
the
questions
asked
earlier
was
about
well,
how
do
you
know
if
it's
income,
or
if
it's
not
one
of
those
things
can
come
from
the
genesis
of
that
income?
I
mean
if
it's
the
sale
of
land
permanent
common
school
fund.
I
mean
that
is
corpus
and
that's
fairly
clear.
I
So
I
think
the
genesis
of
the
of
the
income
also
has
something
to
say
of
it,
and
I
think
you
know
the
nature
of
the
beneficiaries.
The
other
money
that's
available
to
meet
those
beneficiaries
needs
is
important
in
considering
what
the
obligations
are
of
the
state.
So
I
think
each
individual
fund
will
need
to
be
considered
separately.
D
I
can
get
my
you
know
and,
and
that's
key
point
I
think
the
other
there's
a
couple
other
parts
so
which
I
guess
I'm
asking
your
opinion.
There's
two
parts
to
this
too,
though
this
continued
investment
in
the
permanent
mineral
trust
fund.
I
mean
we
talk
about,
you
know
about
future
beneficiaries
and
intergenerational
equity.
D
That's
that's
a
term
a
lot
of
times
for
an
endowment
that
doesn't
have
further
deposits.
I
mean
we're
putting
a
quarter
billion
a
year
into
this
thing.
Still
I
mean
it's
growing
on
top
of
that,
but
so,
if
we're
going
to
take
one
of
these
on,
what
are
you?
Is
there
one?
That's
maybe
a
little
easier
or
one
we
could
start
with
and
maybe
lay
the
groundwork
for.
I
The
next
one,
the
next
year,
maybe
sure,
I
think,
that's
possible.
I
think
those
that
have
a
more
sim,
simple,
like
the
permanent
mental
trust
fund,
may
be
a
more
simple
example,
because
it
doesn't
have
the
history
of
the
act
of
admission.
There
are
maybe
less
complicated
factors
of
who
those
beneficiaries
are
and
the
resulting
trust
obligations
of
the
state,
because
I
do
think
those
increase.
Also,
I
we,
I
think
we
have
some
case
law-
it's
not
well
developed.
I
We
have
to
look
at
it,
but
that
acknowledges
that
if
you
have
other
sources
of
income
for
those
same
beneficiaries,
the
trust
obligations
are
different,
so
something
like
departmental
trust
fund
that
does
have
it's
growing.
It's
not
a
single
fund
that
you
have
to
preserve.
Only
that
corpus
forever.
I
think
those
would
make
a
difference-
and
I
think
you
know,
in
my
estimation,
with
having
not
done
enough
of
the
research
but
dependent
warning
permanent
mineral
trust
fund
may
be
the
easiest
of
the
examples,
and
it's
also
you
know
so
much
more
recent
as
well.
So.
A
There's
another
issue
that
comes
with
that
as
well,
and
that's
the
application
of
the
wyoming
uniform
principle
and
income
back,
which
has
its
own
obligation
and
under
that
act.
If
you
go
in
and
look
at,
there's
an
allocation
of
there's
a
there's,
an
allocation
of
of,
I
believe,
capital
gains
between
principle
and
income
and
it
divides
it.
It
says
absent
absolute
specific
direction
in
the
trust
or
the
the
doc.
A
The
instrument
that
that
this
provides
that
this
provides
the
background
and
also
another
example,
is
royalties,
and
you
know
in
you
know
most
people
consider
royalties
to
be
income
under
the
wyoming
principle
and
income
act.
I
think
it's
37
percent
of
royalties
belong
to
the
remainderman
beneficiaries,
which
I.e
corpus
and
so
you're
able
to.
A
So
the
you
know
so
that
so
it's
not
just
it's
not
just
capital
gains,
there's
other
types
of
income,
but
then
I
think
my
my
recollection
is
when
we
look
at
and
maybe
I'm
wrong
brian.
But
if
you
look
at
the
constitutional
probations
on
the
consequent
permanent
land
fund,
it
talks
about
it,
talks
about
royalties
or
rents
as
income,
and
so
it
you
know
which
creates
a
constitutional
exemption
to
that.
A
So
it's
it's
a
mismatch
and
it's
going
to
depend
and
they're
not
going
to
be
the
same,
but
it
is
another
interesting
case
study
would
be
the
wyoming
miners
fund.
What
the?
What
is
that
the
wyoming
miners
hospital
hospital
fund,
which
initially
was
a
you
know,
was
it
was
a
land-grant
situation.
Ultimately,
it
was
sold
and
now
it's
just
simply
a
a
foundation
that
pays
for
various
medical
expenses
for
minors.
There
is
no.
There
is
no,
my,
you
know,
miners
hospital
anymore.
So
you
know
that's
another
nrc
case
study
about
how
these
things
evolve.
C
Yeah
and
mr
chairman,
I
I
think
you
know
representative
harshman
your
question,
you
know
on
the
continuum
of
you
know,
perhaps
the
level
of
protection
of
those
funds
you
know
on
one
end,
I
think
you
would
have
the
permanent
trust
fund.
You
know
the
single
reference
in
that
constitutional
provision
is
the
word
in
violet
versus
you
know
the
permanent
land
funds,
where
there's
express
language
talking
about
the
need
to
make
whole
any
losses,
and
then
you
have
varying
funds
in
between
that.
C
So
so
I
think
you
know
the
analysis
would
very
much,
I
think,
be
different.
Depending
on
on
the
fund.
You
know,
given
that
each
of
those
funds
are
going
to
have
different
provisions
governing
them
and
different
purposes
behind
them.
D
All
right
go
ahead
thanks,
mr
chairman,
and
then
just
thinking
of
you
know
constitutional
amendments.
You
know
on
how
our
timing-
through
this
you
know
so
that's
another
issue,
kind
of
how
that
all
works.
D
If
we're
gonna
try
to
get
this
ready
for
the
next
election,
if
there
are
little
changes
that
need
to
be
made,
if
we
do
identify
this
percent
of
capital
gains,
if
we
want
to
put
that
in
the
constitution
or
whatever
it
might
be,
or
if
we're
going
to
move
this,
you
know
non-permanent
piece
in
with
like
an
endowment
model,
but
we
identify
the
corpus
and
how
we
do
that.
So
that's
another
timeline
out
there
is
the
election.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
has
the
has
the
unrealized
capital
gains
always
been
excluded
from
the
corpus,
or
is
that
or
have
the
realized?
Capital
gains
always
been
part
of
the
earnings
that
we
have
addressed
is
that
I
don't
know
what
the
history
of
that
is.
I
think
there
was
a
time
that
realized
capital
gains
were
not
included.
A
A
We
couldn't
hold
stock
until
we
made
the
constitutional
amendment
and
the
reason
was
is
the
bonds
I
mean
you
know
was
going
to
these
were
going
to
be
invested
in
bonds
and
and-
and
that
was
the
so
the
the
issue
that
you
had
was
they
didn't
they?
You
know.
Obviously
you
can
have
capital
gains
and
capital
losses
in
bond
sales,
but
the
object
of
bonds
was
to
buy
and
hold
and
clip
coupons,
collect
your
interest,
and
that
was
the
income
that
would
come
out
and
and
so
well.
A
I
think
what
we
found,
particularly
I
mean
particularly-
and
it's
only
been
accelerating
over
the
last
decade-
the
nature
of
investment
to
secure
this,
the
security
we
found
out
about
10
years
ago
that
you
can,
you
can
lose
a
lot
of
money
in
bonds.
You
can
use
an
awful
lot
of
money
and
you
lose
an
awful
lot
of
money
in
bonds,
and
so
we,
you
know
we're
still.
A
In
fact,
we
did
how
long
it
takes
to
make
up
to
finally
make
up
the
loss
to
the
to
the
come
to
the
common
agency
pool.
I
mean
we
just
made
up
the
capital
loss,
which
was
largely
from
bonds.
You
know
took
us.
We
carried
that
on
the
books
for
how
long
we
tried
that
on
the
books
for
don.
Do
you
remember
quite
a
few
years
six
seven
years
I
think,
before
it
finally
was
resolved,
there
was
120
130
million
dollars
of
losses
in
the
common
agency,
pools
that
we
had
to
do
that.
A
We
had
had
to
figure
out
how
to
carry
that
along
for
a
while.
So
you
know,
we've
just
we've
seen
the
world
we've
seen
the
world
change
and
certainly
the
the
the
investment
world
has
changed
a
lot,
and
so
that's
that's.
Why
that's
what
that's
the
whole
purpose
of
this
undertaking?
Do
we
do
we
need
that?
You
know
we
did
reflect
the
change
that
we
have
in
that.
So
representative
larson.
K
Mr
chairman,
I
don't
know
if
this
question
is
for
you
or
for
brian,
but
just
as
a
new
member
on
the
committee
and
as
I
read
the
material
that
was
provided,
I
found
it
interesting
and
my
opinion,
at
least
of
where
we
are
now
as
we
look
at
the
we
look
at
the
the
earnings
that
are
made
available
for
us
to
use
for
general
fund
or
or
whatever,
as
it's
kind
of
this
windfall
this
gravy
and
as
we
currently
have
it
structured
and
it's
ep.
K
We
get
x
amount
of
these
of
these
earnings
back
from
from
these
permanent
funds,
and
so
then,
as
we
have
this
conversation
and
we
talk
about
moving
to
an
endowment
model,
my
question
then
is
is:
are
we
then?
K
Instead
of
because
right
now
we
say
we're
going
to
use
five
percent
of
the
three
or
four
year
rolling
average
of
to
be
available,
general
fund
five
year,
rolling
average
and
then,
and
if
that
five
percent's
not
there,
we
have
the
reserve
accounts
and
stuff
if
we,
but
if
we
didn't
have
them
and
then
you
just
just
have
to
do
without
so.
The
question
is
in
this
endowment
model:
do
we
then
say
we
expect,
mr
treasure
to
have
x
amount?
K
If
we'll
just
use
five
percent,
we
expect
to
have
five
percent
earnings
to
be
to
be
used
for
the
beneficiaries
of
this
fund,
and
then,
if
that
is
indeed
the
case,
I
may
be
wrong.
If
that's,
if
that's
the
case,
then
how
do
you
determine
what
that
percentage
is
going
to
be?
How
do
you
discipline,
or
how
do
you
set
up
the
parameters
to
identify
what
that
endowment
model
should
provide
and.
A
That's,
I
think,
that's
the
purpose
of
the
study.
Okay,
that's
that's!
How
that's
how
we
identify
what
that
is.
Is
it
is
it?
Do
we
keep
a
spending
policy
or
do
we
have
a
different?
But
ultimately
the
idea
of
the
endowment
model
is
what
you
get
is
what
you
get
and
you're?
Not
you
don't
you
don't
have
to
have
a
capital
gain,
you
don't
you
know,
you're
getting
away
from
this
concept
of
realized
capital
gains
and
unrealized
capital
gains
you're.
A
K
A
Get
no
you,
you
set
up
an
amount,
it's
just
it's
just!
You
have
to
recognize
that
that
the
world
and
the
markets
are
going
to
change
from
time
to
time
and
there'll
be
times
when
you're,
not
when
you're
going
to
be
prohibited
from
you're,
not
going
to
get
as
much
revenue
that
you
might
and
might
regularly
get,
because
because
you've
got
this
limit
of
in
violence,
but
other
than
that
I
mean
you
use.
K
But
you
could,
mr
chairman,
that
you
could
have
in
place
you
can
you
can
have
that
that
corpus,
that's
in
violet
and
you
could
have
and
a
surplus
of
funds
here,
similar
to
what
we
have
as
a
reserve
account
to
to
ensure
that
you
reach
that
expectation
and-
and
I
know
that
all
the
answers
aren't
there,
I'm
just
wanting
to.
Am
I
tracking
with
the
questions
that
we're
trying
to
resolve?
A
H
Mr
chairman
and
I'm
gonna
try
to
articulate
what
I
think
that
we're
talking
about
to
get
to
the
question,
and
so
you've
got
the
unviolent
component,
but
I'm
going
to
use
the
then
you
have
the
principle:
that's
not
the
end
violent.
So
you
get
the
principal
amount
there
that
allows
much
broader
investment
strategies,
instruments
and
all
that
and
under
those,
and
so
under
that
scenario,
what
we're
trying
to
spend
is
in
the
interest
and
the
dividends
off
the
principle,
not
the
unviolent
component.
H
By
doing
it
this
way
and
allowing
the
opportunity,
under
those
bad
scenarios
to
be
able
to
spend
the
principal
you
also
free
up
that
opportunity
cost
to
generate
a
lot
higher
revenue
and
that's
my
understanding
of
kind
of
the
the
three
things
that
that
we
want
to
explore
under.
If
we
don't
do
the
whole
constitutional
amendment
scenario,
this
is
the
kind
of
what
we're
looking
at.
So
am
I
correct
in
that.
I.
A
Think
I
think
that's
right.
I
think
what
we
want
to
do
is.
I
think
we
need
to
understand
what
it
is
we're
doing
see
if
they
think
that
there's
a
better
way
to
do
it
and
then
and
then
from
there
we
would
see
what
do
we
need
to
change
among
the
structure
of
the
the
wyoming
constitution,
the
state,
the
act
of
admission,
the
other,
the
other
laws
and
the
other
things
that
were
we've
got
to
change
and
see.
Then
we,
then
we
would.
A
K
Done
I
think
so
then,
mr
chairman,
are
you
thinking
to?
Maybe
I
identify
those
cleaner
funds
so
to
speak
and
focus
on
them
and
then
use
those
principles
and
add
to
that
on
some
of
the
more
complex
funds
like
this
common
school
land
fund.
Or
how
are
you
thinking
approaching
that,
if
you're
going
to
do
that
in
a
in
a
two-year
time.
L
A
D
Yes,
representative
thanks,
mr
chairman,
and
I
think
that's
the
this
is
really
a
great
discussion
first
of
all,
but
I
think
also
we're
not
the
first
state
to
do
this,
so
there's
other
great
examples
of
western
state.
So
I
think
we
can
learn
a
lot
by
studying
those
that
have
already
kind
of
plowed.
This
ground
gone
to
congress
changed
their
constitution,
adopted
endowment
models
defined.
What
corpus
is
where
what
part
of
capital
gains
if
any
or
all
or
part
should
go
to?
So
I
think,
there's
some
great
examples
we
can
learn
from.
M
C
With
that,
that's
my
you
know,
that's
what
I
had
to
present.
I'm
happy
to
answer
questions
any
further
questions
and
I
think
otherwise,
it's
just
you
know
getting
marching
orders.
A
O
I
think
that's
the
low-hanging
fruit
if
there
is
anything
defined
as
low-hanging
fruit
in
this,
and
I
think
if
we're
gonna
protect
the
corpus,
I
I
wouldn't
I
I
would
just
spend
the
difference
in
the
difference
between
the
cost
and
the
market
value
and
say:
let's
say,
you've
got
a
a
fund.
That's
that's
10
million
dollars
market
value,
but
the
cost
value
is
eight.
O
Well,
you
get
you
get
that
two
million
dollar
overage
and
you
pin
it
and
you
spend
a
percentage
of
that
and
if,
if
you're,
trying
to
get
500
million
you
just
you
spend
20
percent
of
that
or
quarterly
payments
of
five
percent
a
piece
so
that
that
gets
you
to.
Essentially
you
get
a
five
year,
glide
path
that
nothing
comes
in,
but
you
always
have
your
interest,
your
dividend
and
your
other.
O
You
know
unrealized,
you
got
your
realized
capital
gains
and
your
unrealized
capital
gains
that
would
be
in
that
sleeve,
but
yeah
defining
the
corpus,
I
think,
is
the
first
thing
you
have
to
do.
I
think
going
back
to
that
that
1923
lawsuit
as
far
as
something
that
can't
be
replenished.
O
I
think
you
could
do
this
if
you
had
like
idaho,
a
a
five
seven
hundred
percent
reserve
fund,
and
then
you
could
go
ahead
and
do
it
and
necessarily
not
have
to
change
your
constitution,
because
that
would
never
go
into
the
corpus,
and
that
would
be
your
backfill
that
you
could
draw
out
so
and
if
you
can
get
your
reserve
fund
equivalent
to
your
two
billion
dollar
cap,
then
it
makes
it
relatively
simple,
but
you
know
so
you
don't
necessarily
have
to
do
it
now
to
representative
larson's
question
about
how
much
are
you
going
to
get
you
remember
back
when
we
had
huge
huge
gas
prices
and
cold
bed?
O
O
Necessarily
you
got
to
make
up
your
decision,
whether
it's
going
into
the
reserve
fund
or
whether
it's
going
into
the
corpus
you
know,
but
you
wouldn't
spend
it
if
you,
if
there's
any
prudence
left
in
in
our
organization
around
here,
you
know
you
would
you
would
you
know,
save
that
for
the
future
and
for
the
consistency
of
of
the
cash
flow
that's
needed
to
to
do
it
good.
Did
you
mind
if
you
have
patrick
join
you
up?
No.
A
Absolutely
come
on,
and
so
so,
as
you
merge
that,
so
I
mean
again
we're
kind
of
like
the
treasurer's.
Also
we've
got
a.
We
got
a
front
office,
we're
having
a
front
office
discussion,
we're
having
a
back
office
discussion,
but
one
of
the
things
that
that
enters
into
this
and
why
I
wanted
patrick
sit
up
here
and
and
patrick
and
the
treasurer
can
wax
forth
on
this
concept.
A
Is
that,
ultimately,
if
we
when,
when
we
take
and
we're
we're
bifurcating
and
trifocating
and
quadruplicating
all
of
the
all
these
different
funds
and
we've
got
them
in
lsras
and
we've
got
reserve
funds
and
we've
got
all
those
things
versus
a
total
return
opportunity
for
all
of
that
money?
Again,
I
think,
patrick.
You
were
talking
about
that
lost
cost,
but
tell
us
from
your
perspective
as
the
chief
investment
officer,
that
the
advantages
of
working
at
total
return
versus
some
of
the
things
we're
doing
now.
M
Mr
chairman,
the
number
one
concern
with
total
rate
return
is
you
could
care
less
about
realized
gains
and
losses?
All
you're
trying
to
do
is
get
the
best
return
possible,
whereas
you
know
with
these
other
funds,
we
are
limited
in
some
of
the
securities
that
we
buy.
For
instance,
as
you
mentioned,
the
state
agency
pool,
which
is
a
prime
example,
by
the
way
there's
20
million
of
unrealized
losses
still
in
that
pool,
but
we
have
72
million
in
unrealized
gains.
M
A
Now
so
it
turns
out
to
opportunity
costs,
and
so,
as
we
you
know,
one
of
the
things
we
look
at
is
if
we
start
to.
If,
if
what
does
that
do
to
the
ability
or
does
it
affect
the
ability
to
have
you
know
if
we
start
having
large
reserve
funds,
are
they
invested
differently
than
the
underlying
corpus
right
there?
The
principle
you
know
the
the
main
part
of
of
and
we'll
just
use
the
pmtf.
A
M
Chairman,
that's
a
great
question
and
point
because
that's
really
one
of
the
genesis
of
what
we're
looking
at
here,
because
right
now
with
those
reserve
funds,
if
you
have
let's
say
one
or
two
years,
spend
you
do
not
want
to
have
those
securities
invested
in
long-duration
assets
similar
to
our
conversation
on
the
lizard,
because
you
need
that
money
in
case
it
comes
back.
What
we're
talking
about
now
is
where,
if
you
did
away
with
this,
the
need
for
reserve
account
is
is
gone.
M
A
And
if
we're
doing
that-
and
we
can
smooth
that
by,
we
can
smooth
out
or
increase
the
conservative
nature
of
that
by
using
rolling
averages
by
doing
other
things
to
to
measure
that
difference
so
that
we
don't,
we
don't
necessarily
have
to
do
it
at
the
end
of
a
good
year.
We
can
do
it
on
kind
of
a
rolling
average.
It's
going
to
smooth
that
and
and
it'll
help
smooth
out
good
years
versus
bad
years,
and
things
like
that.
M
That
is
correct,
mr
chairman.
You
know,
for
instance,
representative
harshman's
comments
about
the
difference
in
the
funds.
You
know.
One
of
the
easy
fixes
would
just
be
go
for
a
five
to
a
three,
but
it
works
the
opposite
way
as
well.
If
we
had
a
down
draft
all
of
a
sudden,
then
you're
going
to
be
on
the
flip
side
of
that,
but
there's
a
lot
of
different
ways
that
many
funds
look
at
this
rolling
reserve
where
they
do
a
five-year
roll.
M
Some
of
them
actually
do
a
shorter
term
roll
and
then
a
forward
anticipated
number
so
there's
many
ways
to
skin
the
cat.
When
you're
looking.
A
So,
at
the
end
of
the
day
it
comes
down.
To
I
mean
it
comes
down
to
cash
management
in
large
part,
as
far
as
meeting
those
obligations,
it
comes
down
to
cash
management
and
whether
you
do
it
through
reserve
funds
or
whether
you
do
it
through
some
other
mechanism,
there's
a
way
that
there's
a
way
to
make
sure
that
whatever
your
anticipated
needs
are
within
within
the
statutory
structure
set
up
of.
M
Men
right,
yes,
mr
chairman,
your
only
limitation
on
that
is
is,
if
you
want
to
preserve
your
your.
Your
balance
is
to
make
to
make
sure
that
you're
not
spending
down.
You
know
the
corpus,
and
so
as
long
as
the
funds
are
in
violet,
you
have
that
that
chunk,
and
it
would
completely
free
us
up
to
look
at
the
best
investments.
We
don't
care
about
any
of
these
other
factors.
You
don't
care
about.
Reserve
accounts,
you
don't
have
to
separate
all
those
reserve
accounts
and
that's
you
know.
D
Yeah,
mr
chairman,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
think
you
know
it's
when
we
get
into
like
committee
directives
too.
I
think
it'd
be
interesting
to
really
go
back
to
the
permanent
middle
trust
fund
and
look
at
what
are
the
1.5
deposits
and
what
are
the
other
deposits
you
know,
and
I
think
then
we
can
start
to
understand
what
really
is
corpus.
The
constitution
what's
been,
you
know,
I
remember,
I
think
it
was
old.
Four.
I
had
an
amendment
on
the
floor.
D
100
million
dollar
deposit,
you
know
in
the
in
the
environmental
trust
fund,
and
so
we've
done
a
lot
of
and
then
the
tips,
those
kind
of
things
it'd
be
an
interesting
look
at
it.
The
second
thing
was
about
this
reserve
account,
which
are
invested
differently,
not
as
high
a
return
that
we
have.
We've
got
over
half
a
billion,
I
think
in
reserve
accounts
and
imagine
if
that
was
all
rolled
into
a
higher
a
tremendous
opportunity
cost
the
last
thing
I'd
just
say:
we
spent
time
and
revenue.
D
Mr
chairman,
on
monday,
just
kind
of
going
over,
you
know
revenue
just
kind
of
101,
and
I-
and
so
I
you
know
the
whole.
The
whole
cost
thing
on
this
thing
is
really
important,
but
one
of
the
things
in
the
tax
2000
recommendations
was,
you
know,
obviously,
an
income
tax.
Some
of
these
things
modernize
the
sales
tax
of
these
service
exemptions.
D
One
of
them
was
to
really
get
this
portfolios
modernized
and
get
our
investment.
Remember.
We
couldn't
invest
in
equities
at
that
time
and
we
were
spending
every
dime.
You
know
there
were
no
reserves
or
tips,
and
so
that
thing
only
grew
to
about
a
billion
dollars
in
the
first
25
years
of
its
existence.
You
know
now
it's
just
taken
off,
and
so
I
think
this
is
part
of
that.
D
You
know
I
think
investment
funds
committee
talked
about
today.
It's
been
a
lot
of
work
done
the
last
20
years
and
really
that's
kind
of
the
next
step.
On
this
thing
to
kind
of
take
us
to
the
next
level,
it's
a
huge
amount
of
money
that
can
generate
even
more
money
for
our
state.
So
it's
going
to
be
this
serious
deal
and
we're
going
to
do
some
serious
good.
I
think
on
this
deal
so
anyway,
I
know:
there's
not
a
question
in
there,
but.
O
Mr
treasurer
yeah
and
a
couple
other
states
have
done
it
a
little
bit
differently,
idaho
and
in
alaska.
O
It's
essentially
an
accounting
mechanism,
and
so
they
they
have
an
accounting
mechanism
that
says
yeah,
there's
a
reserve
fund,
but
everything
is
invested
exactly
the
same
way
for
the
highest
total
return,
and
that's
because
that
that
accounting
mechanism
allowed
them
the
flexibility
to
have
a
fund
large
enough
that
you
can't
invest
it
that
way
without
having
to
to
back
it
off,
and
and
do
it
now,
one
of
the
things
that
that
if
we
do
mess
with
the
constitution,
it
might
be
appropriate
to
put
some
sideboards
on
it,
because
you
guys,
we
realize
that
what
we
did
was
when
we,
when
we
had
these
reserved
funds
for
the
first
thing,
we
did.
O
We
used
them
for
backstops
and
that
really
required
us
to
do
it
on
short-term
investments,
because
if
we
had
to
use
that
money
for
a
backstop,
it
couldn't
be
invested
necessarily
in
a
long-term
manner.
The
other
backstop
that
I
think
would
would
be
nice
to
contemplate
is
is
to
make
sure
that
that
we
put.
E
O
However,
we
deride
the
spending
policy
new
mexico
did
that
they
were
capped
at.
I
think,
five
years,
average
of
five
percent.
I
I
think
if
you
want
to
never
get
into
spending
the
corpus,
you
know
you
essentially
you
you
put
a
percentage.
C
O
Actually,
the
the
area
that
that's
over
your
cost
basis,
and
then
you
never
do
get
into
the
corpus.
So
you
can't
what
because
you
get
it
just
as
you
get
a
set
percentage
and
if
that,
if
that
cap
over
the
cap
goes,
it
just
keeps
going
down
and
down,
and
so
eventually,
where
there's
a
way
to
where
well.
O
No,
all
you
get
is
a
little
little
interest
and
dividend
income,
so
you
know
those
things
and
not
not
allowing
the
the
court
system
or
the
executive
branch
to
you
know
essentially
raid
any
of
those
funds
or
even
the
legislative
branch
to
raid
those
funds
make
them
make
them
to
where
you
know,
there's
there's
none
of
these
games
that
get
yet
to
be
played
from
time
to
time.
You
know.
A
Yeah
case,
in
point
I
mean
this
is
my
opinion
and
it's
not
meant
to
disparage
joe
meyer
at
all.
But
but
you
know,
joe
meyer
was
a
great
great,
a
great
treasurer
and
but
joe
meyer,
I
mean
he
would
kind
of
wander
into
the
governor's
office.
A
A
We
leave
there
to
to
continue
to
grow
and
you
know
that'll
be
the
effort
and
you
know
there's
different
ways
to
do
it,
so
we,
I
think
you
know
we
want
to
take
a
look
at
how
somebody
you
know
we
don't
want
to
reinvent
the
wheel.
We
want
to
take
a
look
at
some
of
the
other
states
that
have
done
it.
Russell
was
talking
about
how
they
were
doing.
Alaska
idaho's
done
it.
I
think
south
dakota
new
mexico
has
done
a
little
bit
different
and
then
I
think
what
it
was
a
russell.
A
He
talked
about
sweden
about
the
swede,
the
north,
the
norwegian
sovereign
wealth
fund.
So
you
know
there
may
be
you
know
just
just
be
just
because
the
yankees
doesn't
mean
that
we
don't
have
anything
to
learn
from
so.
O
You
know
that
would
maybe
help
you
guys
in
121
to
a
certain
extent,
if
we
can,
you
know
find
out
whether
or
not
it's
set
up
as
an
endowment
or
whatever
you
know,
because
you
can't
you
can
have
a
sovereign
wealth
fund
set
up
as
an
endowment
model.
So
you
know
there's
some.
There
are
some
things
that
we
can
add
to
that
and
maybe
a
double
duty
out
of
that
thing.
A
Well-
and
I
appreciate
that-
and
I
and
and
I
think
that's
you
know-
I
want
to
thank
the
the
working
group,
which
was,
I
think
was
mike
and
larry
and
bob
I
think,
you're
on
the
working
group,
and
that
I
mean
I
mean
some
of
this.
You
know
that
you
know
this.
I
think
we're.
I
think
these
are
the
same
things
that
the
isc's
talking
about
and
how
they
think
they
can
get
more
bang
for
the
buck
and
there's
a
lot
of
work
to
do.
A
I
think
that
I
think
that
starting
with
a
pmtf
is
a
great
idea.
Does
everybody
kind
of
like
that,
but
I
think
at
the
same
time
we
ought
to
analyze.
We
ought
to
be
looking
at
at
the
same
time,
on
a
parallel
track.
We
ought
to
be
looking
at
the
the
most
complicated
lunches
which
I
think
is
going
to
be
the
common
school
permanent
land
fund.
A
The
reason
I
think
we
look
at
the
same
track
is
because
I
think
we
need
to
understand
if
we're
going
to
change
that,
what
changes
we
have
to
make
and
what
will
have
to
be
done,
and
that's
that's-
that
could
easily
be
a
two
three
four
year
process
to
get
through
that.
So
if
we
don't
get
started
on
what
it
is
that
we
should
do,
if
we
decide,
we
should
do
something
that
we
we
need
to
have
that,
because
that's
that's
going
to
be
a
longer
term.
A
M
Mr
chairman,
one
comment:
I
just
wanted
to
comment
on
mr
kinsey's
senator
kinski's
gone,
but
just
his
comment
on
the
original
draft
of
what
they
were
thinking
about
the
inviola
nature
with
with
equities,
because
at
that
time,
as
you
mentioned,
they're
only
investing
in
bonds
and
it
was
typically
a
buy
and
hold.
There
were
not
realized.
Capital
gains
so
just
my
opinion,
but
highly
unlikely
that
they
were
thinking
of
that
time.
What
kind
of
realized
gains
and
that's
why
the
term
income
interest
income
is
derived
from.
A
Senator
kinski's
still
there
you
just
can't
see,
that's
that's
the
way
he
works,
so
noah
you're
right
about
that.
So
we'll
we'll
have
that
argument
about
stress,
constructionist
versus
expansive
construction
of
the
constitution
in
this
regard
so
we'll
see,
but
that
you
know,
I
think,
that's
that's!
That's
a
you
know
great
point,
thank
you
for
that.
A
G
Yeah,
thank
you
in
terms
of
kind
of
setting
some
baselines
and
definitions
and
what
we're
looking
at.
I
would
encourage
the
working
group
to
consult
with
the
cpa
firm,
that
audited
the
state
of
wyoming,
that
audits,
the
state
of
wyoming
and
get
a
baseline
definition
of
what
how
generally
accepted
accounting
principles
defines
income
at
that.
G
At
this
point,
that's
been
a
moving
target
for
a
while
and
it
would
be
good
to
start
there
in
terms
of
what
in
fact
is
income,
and
then
we
can
divert
away
from
that
to
to
you
know
any
way
we
want
to,
but
I
think
that's
the
baseline
definitions
that
we
should
have
and
the
other
point
I
would
make
about
the
definitions
as-
and
others
have
made
this
point
now,
but
I
think
the
definitions,
or
maybe
the
when
you're,
looking
at
what's
in
violet
in
the
permanent
wyoming
mental
trust
fund,
perhaps
differentiating
between
those
the
constitutional
pieces
of
that
and
the
inflationary
pieces
of
that,
as
opposed
to
those
additional
chunks
of
money
that
were
added
and
maybe
in
addition
to
the
unrealized
gains.
G
A
I
Yeah,
I
mean,
I
think
I
think
it
would
be
difficult
for
the
committee
right
now
to
come
up
with
a
real
specific
list
of
exactly
what
it
wants,
because
I
think
our
research
is
going
to
take
us
a
couple
of
different
directions
before
the
meeting
I
kind
of
took
the
liberty
of
figuring
out
what
might
be
deliverables,
and
I
think
the
the
exact
schedule
for
these
is
gonna
depend
on
what
we
find,
but
you
know
I
think,
as
a
basic
basic
level.
I
I
think
we
need
to
look
at
what
the
requirements
of
each
of
the
individual
laws
are
from
federal
law,
the
active
mission,
the
constitution
and
our
state
statutes,
and
maybe
do
that
with
regard
to
each
individual
fund
that
we
have
paulie
has
actually
started
on
that
already
trying
to
identify
the
relevant
language
etc
in
each
fund.
I
I
think
that's
obviously
necessary.
In
a
broad
perspective,
I
think
it's
important
to
distinguish
between
the
funds
and
figure
out
what
it
is
about,
each
fund
that
might
bring
a
specific
obligation
to
the
state
who
are
the
beneficiaries.
What
is
the
law
that
created
the
fund
or
are
there
other
sources
of
income
that
help
meet
those
beneficiary
needs?
I
You
know
the
same
question,
but
any
any
heightened
duties
in
any
funds,
and
that
might
be
the
application
of
some
of
the
uniform
laws
figure
out
whether
they
do
or
don't
apply,
as
brian
said,
because
most
of
them
are
not
specific
to
the
operation
of
state
permanent
funds.
Specifically,
as
I
mentioned,
the
application
of
the
uniform
act,
the
uniform,
prudent
investor
act,
uniform
principle
and
income
act,
uniform
trust
code
in
the
uniform
management
of
institutional
funds
act.
I
Hopefully
you
know
I
that's
a
mouthful,
I
mean
to
say
whether
we're
going
to
be
able
to
determine
right
away
whether
the
uniform
trust
code
may
apply.
Is
you
know
that
that's
got
a
lot
of
applications
that
may
be
difficult,
but.
I
Scope
of
things
we
need
to
do
that
eventually,
I
think
that's
also
contemplated
and
required
by
senate
file,
121.
the
duties
towards
the
corpus
in
principle:
that's
a
little
more
in
the
weeds,
but
what's
what
we've
been
talking
about?
What
does
constitute
a
corpus
and
what
amounts
need
to
be?
I
It's
credited
back
towards
the
corpus
and
the
allocation
that,
of
course,
would
then
you
know,
touch
upon
the
meyer
rule
and
and
how
we're
currently
treating
those
and
then
finally,
I
mean,
of
course,
the
idea
of
an
endowment
model,
and
that's
something
that
I
think
you
know
it's
up
to
the
committee,
but
perhaps
lso
particularly
could
use
some
help
with
that,
because
it
sounds
like
the
investment
funds
committee
is
more
knowledgeable
and
has
done
some
work
with
that.
Perhaps
you
know
this
survey.
I
A
Well-
and
I
I
think
that
that
that
so
I
think
from
my
perspective,
we
need
to
know
where
we
are,
and
I
think
that's
what
you're
talking
about
this
examiner.
We
need
to
know
where
we
need
to
understand
where
we
are
and
to
some
degree.
I
think
that'll
also
help
us
understand
where
some
holes
are
now
we
did.
You
know
121
one
of
the
purposes
of
121
was
to
fill
in
some
of
those
holes,
and
we
did
that
we
defined
earnings.
A
A
So,
as
you
do
this
analysis,
it'll
help
us
all
also
identify
if
there's
some
holes
there,
but
I
think
that
then
we're
going
to
do
the
you
guys
are
doing
the
survey
and
I
think
when
we
as
we
get
the
survey
information,
it's
going
to
be
important
for
us
to
get
that,
because
that's
going
to
help
us
figure
out
some
idea
of
give
us.
If
we
want
to
move
in
a
direction,
it's
going
to
give
us
some
kind
of
model
of
which
direction
want
to
move.
Do
you
think
that's
yeah.
O
Exactly
maybe
we'll
we'll
ask
them
whether
they're
use
an
endowment
model
and
whether
they're
total
return
yeah.
So
I
I,
if
we
had
the
answers
to
those
two
things
there,
then
you
know
that
that
would
maybe
give
us
some
indication
of
what
either
best
practices
are
or
or
leading
best
practices.
So.
A
And
I
think
that
you
know.
Ultimately
I
think
that
that's
what
you
know
we
reinvent
the
wheel
and
we
can
make
and
we
can
model
after
one
or
we
can
pick
the
best
parts
of
a
couple
or
you
know
and
plus
put
our
own
twist
on
that,
but
I
think
you
know.
A
Obviously
we
want
to
learn
from
the
successes
and
the
failures
of
others
moving
forward,
and
so
somehow
some
then
my
hope
is
that
somehow
we'll
coalesce
around
what
direction
we
need
to
move
or
like
say
it's
possible
that
we've
come
to
conclusion,
that
we
have
it
as
good
as
we
can
get
it.
But
I
I
don't
think
so.
I
think
that
moving
in
the
direction
of
whatever
enables
us
to
move
in
the
direction
of
total
return
is
going
to
be.
O
Beneficial
to
the
state
chairman
that
russell,
you
know,
I
think,
kind
of
lamented
that
they
only
went
part
way
on
in
their
in
their
system.
Maybe
we'll
add
a
question
in
there.
You
know
what
what
did
you
leave
and
done?
You
know
and
see
what
people
come
up
with.
B
O
B
L
M
Mr
chairman
representative,
schwartz,
similar
to
what
russell's
comments
were
it's
it's
easy
to
do
the
left-handed
translation,
where
you
know
things
have
gone
so
we,
if,
if
we
were
have
if
we
had
higher
risk
at
that
point,
it
would
it'll
be
very
easy
to
look
at
it,
but
all
you're
doing
is
just
taking
moving
from
a
55
equity
portfolio
to
a
70
or
whatever
and
and
multiplying
it.
M
L
A
Right
and-
and
actually
if
we
can-
I
mean-
I
think
that
I
think
that
don
richards
and
our
budget
fiscal
people
already
have
some
of
that
stuff
kind
of
spreadsheeted,
and
so
ultimately,
if
you
can,
if
we
can
determine-
and
maybe
they
already
know
it-
I
mean
matt
you're
on
the.
Are
you
no
you're?
Not?
Are
you
still
on
the
craig,
so
I
mean
the
craig
guys
I
mean
I
have
I
mean.
Ultimately
we
have.
They
have
most
of
our
stuff
spreadsheeted.
A
So
if
we
want
to
give
a
different
assumption
on
what
the
differential
and
rated
return
or
what
the
rate
of
return
would
have
been
for
the
funds
as
a
whole,
I
think
that
that
we
you
can
get.
We
get
that
to
budget
fiscal.
We,
our
folks,
can
run
that
you
don't
have
to
necessarily.
I
think
they've
already
got
that
in
a
form
in
in
a
number
of
spreadsheet
forms
where
they
they
can
probably
change.
You
I'm
going
to
oversimplify
this
a
ton,
but
they
can.
A
N
So
my
question
is:
do
as
we
move
forward,
do
we
also
kind
of
do
two,
two
tandems,
so
that
we
also
look
into
what
we
can
do
now
without
a
constitutional
change
by
just
redefining
or
establishing
definitions
on
corpus,
so
that
we
can
then
and
start
looking
towards
our
current
reserve
accounts
how
we
can
manipulate
those
two
so
that
we
can
drift
if
you
will
kind
of
towards
endowment
models,
it'll
be
easy
to
effectuate,
but
also
we
we
can
establish
a
way
to
get
a
greater
return
immediately.
A
By
doing
that,
I
don't
disagree.
I
think
I
think
that's
going
to
be
a
natural
outcome.
If
we,
if
we
once
we
know
where
we
are,
we
know
where
we
want
to
go.
Then
the
next
step
is
what
where's
the
gap,
and
I
think
part
of
the
gap
is
exactly
what
you
said.
I
mean
we
don't
it's
not
like.
We
have
to
have
we're.
Gonna
have
to
change
the
constitution.
Do
everything
we
need
to
correct
this.
A
You
don't
need
to
change
the
constitution
to
to
to
continue
with
the
plan
to
have
better
efficiencies
and
and
the
support
and
the
professional
staff
we
need
in
the
treasures
office
and
then
the
investment
in
the
back
office
in
the
front
office
in
the
mid
office.
We
don't
need
to
wait
on
that.
We
don't
need
to
wait
on
so
I
yeah.
I
think
that
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
we
we
can
do
as
we
move
forward
on
this.
I
think
we'll
have
there
be
plenty
of
work
to
do
some
of
it.
A
We'll
have
to
be
able
to
just
do
by
that's
a
little
take
appropriations
and
it'll
take
legislation
but
yeah.
I
think
we
I
I
see
us
coming
out
of
here
with
with
long.
You
know
long-term
and
immediate,
and
you
know
I
I
would
be
surprised
if
there's
five
six
seven
pieces
of
legislation
that
come
out
of
this
this
year,
just
from
what
we
find,
that's
my
expectation,
but
maybe
wrong.
Maybe
we're
wrong.
H
So,
mr
chairman,
I'm
I'm
just
going
back
and
you'd
ask
earlier
about.
You
know
the
the
letter
that
the
subgroup
had
put
together
and
the
response
from
ifc
and
I
think
we're
missing,
or
I
don't
know
if
we're
missing
it,
but
I
want
to
know
how
we're
going
to
integrate
this,
because
one
of
their
recommendations
that
came
out
of
the
questions
that
we
had
asked
was.
This
is
all
great.
But
as
you
guys
ramp
up,
you
know
and
we
start
to
go
towards
an
endowment
model
with
the
turtle
total
return.
H
There's
some
governance
issues
in
there
associated
with
some
costs
that
are
going
to
go
with
that.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that,
as
we
start
to
analyze
these
things,
that
we
also
bring
that,
along
with
it
to
say,
there's
going
to
be
some
associated
build-out,
whether
it's
mid-office
back-office
investment
personnel,
and
what's
that
look
like
and-
and
I
think
that
has
to
go
forward
with
any
analysis
if
we
start
to
look
at
total
return,
endowment.
A
Model
well,
even
without
that
we
already,
we
already
know
from
cla
and
the
work
that
we're
doing
we're
already
headed
in
that
direction.
Even
if
we
don't
do
anything,
we
still
need
to
move
in
that
direction.
I
have
every
confidence
that
the
treasurer
and
his
chief
deputy
will
not.
Let
us
forget
that,
as
we
move
forward.
A
Oh
and
and
you
know
quite
frankly-
that's
that's
not
necessarily
a
tough
concept,
I
mean.
Ultimately,
if
you
go
look
at
any
fund,
there's
a
certain
number
of
basis
points
that
you
anticipate
go
into
the
administration
of
that,
and
so
you
know
we
do
that.
And
then
we
know
that
you
can
do
better
by
at
least
one
basis
point
or
maybe
two
and
but
anyway
long
story.
H
You
know
when
we
start
to
look
at
these
comparable
models
from
other
states
that
that
is
a
critical
component
that
we're
going
to
want
to
have
them
look
at.
So,
if
idaho
did
this
or
new
mexico,
what
was
the
cost
associated
from
changing
from
what
they
did
in
the
past,
to
what
they're
doing
now
and
personnel
and
and
was
it
15
basis
points
or
was
it?
H
A
No,
I
I
know
I
I
think
you're
absolutely
right,
mr
vice
president,
and
I
think
we
all
recognize
that
the
three
positions
we
authorized
in
the
last
session
is
a
down
payment.
That's
not
the
the
end,
but
it's
perfect
timing,
because
the
treasurer
needs
to
start
on
his
budget
proposal
for
the
coming
biennium
here.
Just
correctly.
O
Mr
chairman,
we
gotta,
we
got
a
lot
of
ways
to
move,
I
think
from
from
where
we
are,
and
I
I
hope
we
can
do
it
as
a
as
a
team
and
not
adversaries,
and
I
think
we
can.
A
O
A
B
O
C
I
Recognition
that
you
know
with
the
treasurer's
conference
there
is
that
date
at
the
very
end
of
august
september.
In
the
past,
we've
tried
to
attack
one
of
our
meetings
on
one
of
their
dates.
That's
a
possibility
right.
Let.
A
Me
I
just
got
a
curiosity.
I
mean
you've
got
it's
a
bit
of
a
heavy.
This
is
this
is
a
significant
lift
for
you
guys,
but
my
guess
is
you
guys
will
finish
first
in
the
you
know,
as
we
look
at
the
lead
times
to
get
this
done,
the
survey
and
getting
the
surveys
back
yep
I
mean
having
made
the
survey,
have
we
met
the
survey
kind
of
sort
of
drafted?
I
take
it
but
not
finished,
but
what
do
you?
What?
What
do
you
think?
A
What
do
you
think
is
a
realistic
time
frame
to
hear
back
on
the
surveys
you're
going
to
ask
some
info?
Some
pretty
pointed
information
and
folks
have
other
things
you
decide
to
answer
your
survey.
F
G
A
So
all
right,
so
with
that,
I
don't
know
that
I
mean
it
sounds
to
me
like
the
next
like.
If
we've
got
this
and
we're
ready
to
to
do
a
meeting
in
connection
with
your
treasures
conference
that
might
be,
and
it's
later
than
I
want
it
to
be,
but
I
would
go
for
the.
D
E
B
H
Do
we
gain
anything
by
doing
it?
The
treasures
conference
is
the
29th
to
the
31st
of
august.
I
mean
it
gives
us
very
gain.
Three
weeks
gained
25
days.
A
You
know
I
just
wondering
if,
if
if
we
had
a
meeting,
if
instead
of
I
don't
if
nothing
else,
to
get
a
report
back
from
staff
on
the
research
that
they've
done,
because
that
that,
if,
if
we
had
something
kind
of
preliminary,
when
we
get
the
survey
back,
we
might
be
able
to
make
some.
You
know
my
thought
is
if,
but
if
in
a
meeting
connection
with
the
treasurer's
conference,
we
might
be
in
position
then
to
actually
get
some
direction
done
and
actually
maybe
get
some
things
drafted
or
get
some
things
in
motion.
A
I
Chairman,
you
have
four
days
of
meetings
and
it
and
basically
double
the
the
appropriation
that
you
had
last
year,
but
four
single
day
meetings-
and
I
believe
one
of
those
is-
is
currently
scheduled
as
a
remote
meeting.
I
think
that
was
part
of
the
the
cost
factor
because
of
course,
those
cost
less
and.
H
Mr
chairman,
we
do
have
authorization
for
cap
finn
with
a
budget
to
attend
the
treasurer's
conference
right,
so
we
could
piggyback
off
of
that
it
doesn't
cost
us
as
much
to
do
the
half
a
day.
We
could
put
that
onto
the
treasures
conference,
those
people
that
went
so
we
got
a
little
more
money
there
in
the
budget
than
we
because
of
that
authorization.
A
A
Purpose
is
to
report
back
from
from
staff
on
their
research
and
and
kind
of
look
at
that
and
have
that
discussion
that
you
know
that
to
me.
That
might
be
that
that's
a
that
might
also
be
a
great
choice
for
a
remote
meeting.
But
if.
N
I
Mr
chairman,
you
know
it's
the
committee's
choice
and
whatever
the
schedule
wants
to
be,
I
do
think
an
august
fourth
date
to
have
the
breadth
of
what
I
outlined
to
you
done
is
awfully
demanding,
because.
I
Session
in
between
that
that's.
I
Problem
is
that
you
know,
as
that
comes
I
mean
you
know,
we
already
have
quite
a
few
bill
drafts
in
the
pipe
whether
they'll
be
introduced
or
not.
Is
you
know
up
to
management,
but
but
you.
A
P
D
D
C
D
I
A
A
H
C
That's
me,
mr
chairman,
right
yeah,
these
disembodied
voices
yeah
so
august
31st,
judiciary's
meeting,
so
I
know
there's
at
least
one
member
of
the
committee
who
would
have
a
conflict
and
then
one
one
of
our
staff
who
would
have
a
conflict
with
that
date.
C
E
A
Well,
it's
just.
I
think
that
the
problem
is
I
the
ifc
meeting
is
the
8
a.m
on
the
31st,
so
the
ifc
is
the
ifc
meets
that
morning
and
the
vice
chairman
and
I
will
be
at
the
ifc
meeting-
and
I
don't
know
anyway
at
the
ifc
meeting
on
the
31st
at
least
I
mean
you
could
do
a
half
a
day
meeting
on
the
on
the
afternoon.
The
31st.
E
D
A
I
H
E
B
H
H
J
A
A
A
I
I
I
A
A
Thank
you
for
your
chance
today.
Staff.
Thank
you
for
your
efforts.
We
appreciate
that.
I
know
you've
got
a
lot
to
do.
Maybe
maybe
management
council
can
help
bring
in
some
of
the
budget.
The
bill
requests
for
the
special
session,
but
that's
a
management
council
issue,
so
I'm
not
have
to
worry
about
that
one.
So.