Oklahoma HB3440

Oklahoma HB 3440

Oklahoma HB 3440 directs the Commissioners of the Land Office to disburse capital gains from the trust’s $2.4 billion investment portfolio as bonuses to public school teachers. Commissioners of the Land Office Secretary Harry Birdwell said most of that is in the form of unrealized capital gains that must remain part of the trust principal, even if they are liquidated.

The analysis from Attorney General Mike Hunter agreed. “Any distribution of capital gains from the fund to provide monies for teacher bonuses would be an invasion of the fund’s principal and would be unlawful.”

View HB3440 here.

View the OK State Constitution here.

 

Articles Concerning HB3440

Constitutional Issues Raised by Proposal to Tap Trust Funds for Oklahoma Teacher Bonuses

AG says Legislature can’t raid school land fund for teacher bonuses

Wayne Greene: Legislative fools take on God’s law, federal law and math’s law

Proposed raid on school land fund would not be legal, official says

Elliott Forest Held in Trust for Oregon Public Schools

By Margaret R. Bird

Background

In 1785 the Continental Congress granted one square mile (Section 16) in every 36 square mile township to support public schools.

The school grant was later expanded, and when Oregon joined the union in 1859 two sections, or 3.4 million acres were granted at statehood by Congress in trust to support public schools. (1)

Public schools are the beneficiaries, and the state of Oregon is the trustee. The lands and funds are overseen by the State Land Board comprised of the Governor, Secretary of State, and State Treasurer. (2)

The lands are administered by the Department of State Lands who pays the Oregon Department of Forestry to manage the Elliott Forest.

All proceeds from the granted lands are required by Constitution to be deposited in the Common School Fund. (3)

Oregon’s first Constitution as part of statehood indicated that the Common School Fund:

 

” . . . shall be set apart as a separate, and irreducible fund to be called the common school fund, for interest of which together with all other revenues derived from the school lands mentioned in this section shall be exclusively applied to the support, and maintenance of common schools in each school district and the purchase of suitable libraries, and apparatus therefor.”

Oregon First Constitution, Article VIII, Section 2

 

As of June 30, 2014, the fund was $1.45 billion. The proceeds from investing the fund support Oregon public schools.

In 1930, scattered school trust sections in the eastern portion of the state were exchanged with the federal government for 71,000 acres of burned timber lands in the Coast Range between Coos Bay and Reedsport. It was recognized that within a few decades, these lands could begin to generate timber revenue and that the well-managed forest would generate significant revenue as the trees re-grew. These lands are in one of the world’s most productive timber areas. It has been estimated that the Elliott Forest has an annual growth rate of 100 million board feet.

 

elliottforest

Endangered Species Act

Three threatened species live in the Elliott Forest. In 1990, the spotted owl was declared a threatened species by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1992, the marbled murrelet was declared a threatened species. In 1997, the Northern California Coho salmon was declared a threatened species in California but not in Oregon due to an Oregon Recovery Plan and better stream quality in Oregon.

In 1995 the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved an Elliott State Forest Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that included a 60-year Incidental Take Permit for the owl and a 6-year Incidental Take Permit for the murrelet which expired for the murrelet in 2001. Since that time murrelets have been managed through a take-avoidance strategy.

The Oregon Department of State Lands was unwilling to accept conditions imposed by U.S. Fish and Game in an HCP on the murrelet.

Recent History of Management and Litigation

Harvesting of timber began in 1955 and by 1988 had a vested harvest of 50,000,000 board feet per year. After 1989, the timber sales averaged 23,000,000 board feet which has resulted in an estimated loss of about $230 million.

In October 2011, the State Land Board approved a Forest Management Plan that would have increased timber harvest to about 40 million board feet per year. This would generate about $28 million annually based on $694/thousand board feet (4) for Oregon’s Common School Fund, a fund to support future generations of school children.

In January 2012, Cascadia Wildlands, the Audubon Society of Portland, and the Center for Biological Diversity filed suit regarding habitat in state forests, including the Elliott, for the marbled murrelet, a seabird protected by the Endangered Species Act. The lawsuit halted or deferred some timber sales until it was settled in February 2014. The terms of the settlement of the case indefinitely scaled back timber harvest levels and associated revenues.

In FY 2013, the Department of State Lands lost $3 million for schools, as their expenditures to the Department of Forestry and their litigation costs exceeded their revenue by $3 million. This is the first time in 227 years of school trust history that a state has spent more than they have made from the school lands. This resulted in taking $3 million from the Oregon Common School Fund.

 

“Continued losses are projected into the future.”

ELLIOTT STATE FOREST,  “An Asset of the Common School Fund,” Department of State Lands, revised June 2014, p.2.

 

A small volume of timber has been sold since the settlement and will be harvested before the end of 2016.

 

graph8

 

Oregon Land Board Decision to Sell


The Oregon State Land Board composed of the top elected officers of the state has now decided to sell 84,450 acres of school trust land in the Elliott Forest. Applicants may not pay one penny over the Department’s appraised value of $220.8 million; higher bids will be considered “non-responsive” and rejected.  The list of potential buyers has already been closed with about 40 applicants including federal agencies, counties, State Department of Forestry, timber companies, native tribes, and conservation groups. Plans must be submitted by November 15, 2016, and the Oregon State Land Board will make their selection if more than one plan is submitted.

Transaction-Specific Protocol to Identify Potential Comprehensive Ownership Transferees for the Elliott Property, Oregon Department of State Lands.

“The plan must include commitments with enforceable mechanisms to protect enhanced public benefits above and beyond those which are already provided for under applicable federal, state, and local law, specifically (and at a minimum) including:”

  • Conserving public recreational access on at least 50% of the acreage;
  • Conserving the economic benefits from the Elliott Property by ensuring for a period totaling 10 years that at least 40 direct and indirect full-time jobs (or their equivalent) are generated annually from activities including timber harvest, hauling, reforestation, support of recreation activities, infrastructure maintenance, and habitat restoration;
  • Conserving older forest stands by protecting from harvest at least 25% of the acreage; and
  • Conserving high-quality watersheds by providing riparian management areas of 120 feet or more on both sides of all stream segments containing salmon, steelhead or bull trout and their transitional upstream reaches (to the next confluence, if the presence of these species does not end at a confluence); and
  • The plan must be without any contingencies for the benefit of the transferee. “A responsive acquisition plan will need to identify other entities or agencies willing and able to enforce the commitments.”  Any offer exceeding the appraised value of $220,800,000 by a penny will be considered “non-responsive.”

Fiduciary Duties of Oregon as Trustee


Pursuant to standard trust principles from Restatement of the Law on Trusts Sections 170-181 some of the state’s duties are:

  • Duty of Undivided Loyalty to the Beneficiary
  • Duty to Preserve Trust Property
  • Duty to Exercise Reasonable Care and Skill
  • Duty to Make Trust Property Productive
  • Duty to Take and Keep Exclusive Control
  • Duty to Pay Income to Beneficiary

References


  • Oregon Enabling Act Section 4 and the Oregon Territorial Act of 1848, Section 20, August 14, 1848.
  • Oregon Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5.
  • Oregon Constitution, Article VIII, Section 2.
  • Douglas Timber Operators, Timber Industry Report, January 31, 2016 for logs in southern Oregon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arizona Prop 123

A Bad Deal for Desperate Teachers

In September of 2015, a proposal, which came to be Proposition 123, was made by the governor of Arizona to raid the school trust fund to settle an unrelated lawsuit known as the Cave Creek Unified School District vs. Duecy for years of underfunding. Desperate school leaders accepted a bad deal that will, in the long run, make matters worse.

Plaintiffs: Cave Creek vs. Duecy

  • Cave Creek Unified School District
  • Casa Grande Elementary School District
  • Crane Elementary School District
  • Palominas Elementary School District
  • Yuma Union High School District
  • The Arizona Education Association
  • The Arizona School Boards Association
  • The Arizona Association of School Business Officials
  • The Arizona Charter Schools Association

Dark Money and Legal Questions

The No Prop 123 coalition did an admiral job with little resources and almost succeeded in defeating the measure. Prop 123 passed by the narrowest of margins funded by a massive marketing campaign from dark money.” The election fraught with voter issues was certified on May 26, 2016. Arizona State Treasurer Jeff Dewit brought to light several legal questions, and more are sure to come. Treasurer Dewit, who made a stand on the issue at the cost of his career, was forced to begin payouts in June 2016.

Poor Policymaking

Proposition uses the School Children’s Trust Fund to pay back money to schools owed to them by delinquent politicians from the states general fund. Several former State Treasurers, the Arizona Federation of Teachers, The Arizona League of Women’s Voters and former Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Stanley Feldman, among many others, have publicly decried the proposition and carefully explained why raiding the trust fund is such bad policy and the long-term implications.

Opposition to Prop 123

Many educators in Arizona agree that Prop 123 is bad policy but decided to vote in the affirmative as they felt it was the only option and were so desperate for revenue.

“They’re going to take a big chunk of money out of something that was intended to be forever. I think that’s wrong.” Clark Dierks, treasurer 1979-1983
“If you can do this once, you can do this more than once. When times get kind of rough, you can just go tap that pot again. I just think that’s such a violation of the concept of the trust in the first place.” Carol Springer, treasurer 1999-2003
“Prop. 123 may well violate the congressional act that enabled Arizona to become a state and that created the trust.” Stanley Feldman former Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice

Regrets and Bad Apples

Payouts from Prop 123 have begun, and school is in session once again, and yet Prop 123 seems to linger in the minds of many like the aftertaste of a bad apple. A recent Cronkite News poll from the Arizona Republic and Morrison Institute reports,

“A small but significant slice of voters who helped narrowly pass Proposition 123 this year said they would change their vote on the public-education funding measure if they were voting now”

Dangerous Precedence

We urge school leaders to seek the facts regarding school trust lands, permanent school funds, and the laws governing them. Arizona sets a dangerous precedence of raiding the school trust fund and diminishing revenue for future school children and what happens in one state can affect future laws in other states.

empower

Advocates for School Trust Lands “Empowering states to effectively support prudent management of school trusts.”

There is Always a Better Option

School trusts are a sacred compact and should be regarded as such. There is always a better option and Advocates for School Trust Lands is here to empower educational leaders to protect school trusts. Many legal questions regarding Prop 123 remain to be settled, and only one thing is certain, this will not be the last assault on school trust lands and public education. We must be united. We must be vigilant.

 

Welcome to Advocates for School Trust Lands

School Children are who Advocates for School Trust Lands work for.

Advocates for School Trust Lands

We are an organization dedicated to providing educational leaders and legislators information on the productive use of school trust lands and funds. All states once had school trusts; and now trust only exist in 20 mostly western states. Prior to Advocates For School Trust Lands, there was no organization working on behalf of the beneficiaries of these trusts.

Advocates provides research, education, outreach, and outreach on school trust land. (Get in on the action here)

Advocates communicates with national education groups and with national and policy making groups on school trust land issues. (Make connections here)

The Advocates of School Trust Lands is an alliance providing data to educational leaders on the productive use of 45 million acres of school trust lands and 72 billion dollars in school funds. Advocates supports professionally managed trusts. (Learn more here)

Advocates is a non-profit 501 (c) 3 corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Utah in 2000. It is funded by grants from the United States Department of Education and donations from corporations and individuals, educational organizations, and those who generate the revenue for schools.

 

Print

Our Vision

Productive school trusts providing for world-class schools.

Our Mission Statement

School trust lands were granted to states at the time of statehood for the sole purpose of generating revenue in perpetuity for public education. Advocates for School Trust Lands helps states honor their historic commitment to optimize revenues from school trust lands and manage their permanent funds as an ever-growing, sustainable source of education funding.

Who We Are

We are parents, educators, school board members, state land commissioners, productive land users and others working to ensure a robust endowment for the benefit of today’s schoolchildren and all future generations, as intended since the founding of our country.

Our members include representatives of the State Offices of Education, Superintendent and Principal Associations, State Boards of Education, state affiliates of the National Education Association, Parent Teacher Associations, School Administrators, School Boards Associations, and other educational and non-profit groups.

Join us by clicking here: Advocates for School Trust Lands Membership

Our Purpose

To support educational opportunities for schools from school trusts by:

  • Cultivating a network of western education communities.
  • Sharing creative solutions to the management, investment, and use of the trust lands and permanent funds.
  • Empowering states to effectively support prudent management of school trusts.

Our Core Values

  • Put the education of children first.
  • Conduct all business with honor and integrity.
  • Frame all school land issues in terms of education.
  • Find win-win solutions.
  • Respect the unique characteristics of each trust, beneficiary, and state.
  • Build and foster long-term relationships.

What Advocates For School Trust Lands Do

Collaboration Benefits

Our members’ collaborative efforts include:

  • improved education through increased funding from school trusts;
  • support by education communities for actions that benefit school lands and schools;
  • increased revenue from permanent school funds through professional management;
  • data to support trust managers; and development of public information, for each state, about the trust lands and their support for children’s education.

Join Advocates by becoming a member here: www.advocatesforschooltrustlands.org/membership/

What We Do

In addition to hosting an annual conference, researching, and networking, Advocates For School Trust Lands provides support services to members. Advocates For School Trust Lands provides presentations to state, regional and national policy makers as requested. Presentations are tailored to meet the needs of each state and organization. They include but are not limited to training, research, outreach, consulting and networking assistance. (Connect with Advocates here)

Advocates For School Trust Lands has assisted state, regional and national organizations in preparing and adopting resolutions and position statements dealing with school trust lands.

Consultation

Advocates For School Trust Lands consults with Advocates members as they consider strategies that support the trustees in their mission as prudent managers. Upon request, this can include the review of legislative and policy proposals from a beneficiary perspective.

Presentations

Advocates has met with and provided presentations to legislative leaders, subcommittees, and task forces as they have reviewed performance and considered legislative and policy changes to capture opportunities for improved prudent management of the respective trusts.

Communication

Advocates For School Trust Lands provides ongoing communication with the state trust beneficiary groups and regional/state education groups as they determine their involvement, strategies and support efforts for the trust managers. The organization attempts to provide support towards attaining each group’s goals through targeted research, proposal review, networking and consultation.

Request some of these services for your organization here: www.advocatesforschooltrustlands.org/requests/Print

School Trust Lands 101

What is a School Trust?

School trusts were created by the U.S. Congress at statehood. Congress granted 137 million acres in trust to support schools. The statehood act along with the state constitution create a sacred compact between the federal government and each state. States assumed the responsibility to manage the lands to support public education. Each school trust consists of two parts: lands and permanent school funds.

Trust Lands

School trust lands include lands that were granted by Congress to states at the time of their statehood, the mineral rights associated with those surface acres, lands acquired by exchanging school trust lands, and lands purchased with funds generated from a state’s school trust. How states manage school trust lands depends on the state. Some common uses of trust lands include oil and gas production, wind farms, grazing, agriculture, timber, solar farms, rights-of-way, and commercial, industrial and residential development.

Permanent School Funds

Permanent school funds are made up of the revenue generated from school trust lands. The main purpose of permanent school funds is to ensure that future generations of schoolchildren receive benefit from school trust lands in perpetuity. Throughout history, school trust lands have faced many challenges that have diminished their ability to fulfill their purpose: providing funding to public schools. Even today, the significant funding stream for the nation’s public schoolchildren that comes from school trust lands is threatened.

The permanent funds are generally managed by the State Treasurer, a professional investment board, or the Land Board.

Land Uses

Revenue from trust lands are placed in permanent funds.  Trust lands generate revenue by selling the land surface or minerals. In addition, money is earned from grazing, agriculture, timber, mining, commercial development, and right-of-way grants.  Revenue sources from the land that flow into the permanent fund vary from state to state. Every state places revenue from land sales in the permanent fund.

Funding Education

In some states all the revenue flows to the fund, growing the fund and investment revenue larger each year.  In others, it is only revenue from resources that are non-renewable that are deposited into the fund and renewable resources are distributed directly to schools.

Once the profits are placed in the trust land account it will be held for an indefinite time for the schools.  Each school has a community council that consists of the administration, parents, and teachers.  This committee determines how the school will use the trust land fund for the benefit of the students.

History

At one time, every state had a land grant and/or a school fund held in a trust for public education. The General Land Ordinance of 1785 set aside one square mile in each thirty-six square mile township (almost three percent of a state’s total land area) “for the benefit of public schools.” As western states entered the Union, the grants expanded to two square miles per township (about 5.5% of a state’s total land area). When Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico entered the Union, they were each granted four sections per township (over 11% of each state’s total land area), because their land was so arid.  (Learn more about the states here)

National Comparisons of School Trust Lands

State Trust Lands

Currently twenty states participate with the Advocates for School Trust Lands organization. Each of these states retains a trust for public schools. Each state trust is different, beginning with the original land grants, the geographical location, and the land’s resources. The trusts continue to change because of changes in management structure, political support, state statutes, evolving land management opportunities, and the involvement of the beneficiaries.

Methods of Generating Income.

School trusts vary significantly from state to state for a variety of reasons. The original land grants were different from state to state; some states received two or fours sections in each 36 square mile township instead of one and the resources available on the surface and under the granted lands also vary widely.

Currently, some states make the majority of their revenue from forestry, while others generate most of their annual revenue from oil and gas under the surface. Every state generates revenue from grazing, but the percentage of the overall trust land revenue made from grazing varies substantially from state to state. For example, Arizona currently generates the largest percent of annual revenue from land sold at auction for development.

rate-of-return-14

Trust Management

In addition, the method of managing the trust lands varies between states. Some states elect the land commissioner in a state wide election. In other states, the commissioner is appointed by a board or by the governor.

The permanent funds associated with trust lands are also managed differently. In some states, the money is managed within the land office. In Texas, the responsibility lies within the state board of education. In most states, the state treasurer invests the fund, sometimes with and sometimes without an advisory committee. (learn more about School Trusts here)

Funding Education

The flow of funding from the land to schools is unique for every state. A few states save all that is earned minus the expenses of land management. Schools then receive the annual interest and dividends made on the fund. Others distribute the “renewable resource revenue” directly to schools in addition to interest and dividends from the permanent fund.

National Comparisons

The comparisons shown here are provided as a point to begin discussion. Recognizing that every trust is different, every state has something others can learn from. Over the years, land commissioners have continually learned and implemented new ideas from their sister states, improving what they already do well.

State of the States

To learn more about school trust lands in your state, see our States page (here) for more information.

CLASS Notes Summer 2016 Newsletter

classnotes_summer16_smThe Summer 2016 edition of CLASSNotes is here! It includes information on Arizona Prop 123, Oregon Elliott Forest, our incoming President, Barbara Smith, The Beadle Club of South Dakota, the exciting rebranding of our organization, and links to the WLSCA Conference.

View-PDF-button

2014 Utah State Report

This post is about the 2014 Utah State State Report. This post has a featured image  that is the same as the first photo in the post.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nullam maximus neque quis lorem euismod blandit. Nulla facilisi. Curabitur rutrum ultricies velit a semper. Vivamus ut egestas odio, eu placerat magna. Pellentesque rutrum, mauris eu imperdiet lacinia.

View-PDF-button