Endowment Fund Investment Board asks JFAC to approve $100,000 pay increase for two staff; governor omits request

The Endowment Fund Investment Board requested that the Joint Finance‑Appropriations Committee approve $100,000 in additional compensation intended to raise salaries for two of its long‑tenured staff members, but the governor’s budget recommendation left the pay increase out.

Budget analyst Janet Jessup, a budget and policy analyst with the Legislative Services Office, told the committee the Endowment Fund Investment Board manages investments for state endowments and other statutorily specified funds and that its appropriation is funded primarily through dedicated endowment earnings and administrative funds. She directed committee members to the budget book pages that describe the board’s responsibilities and fund sources.

The request covered compensation increases aimed at two staffers the board said are materially under market pay. Thomas Wilford, chairman of the board, described the proposal as a multi‑year effort to correct pay disparities that date to a lower hiring rate when some senior staff were initially employed. “There’s a long history on this enhancement,” Wilford said. “If we had to replace him someday, we would have to pay more than we’re paying him.”

Chris Anton, manager of investments for the Endowment Fund Investment Board, described the change in scale and complexity that has increased staff responsibilities. “We’re managing about $5,000,000,000 now between the endowment fund investment board and the money we invest for the state insurance fund,” Anton said, and he said one deputy investment officer has been in the same pay grade for roughly 16–17 years and “is way below market.”

Jessup told members the board’s FY2026 request included $100,000 labeled as “compensation to increase salaries for 2 of its staff members,” along with separate requests for general inflation and one‑time technology hardware. The legislative packet showed historical adjustments to personnel funding in prior years and noted the governor’s recommendation supported general inflation and technical hardware but did not include the requested compensation for staff.

Asked about whether the board still supported the recommendation after agency discussions with the governor’s office and the Division of Human Resources, Anton said the board’s compensation committee and the board itself stood behind the recommendation but had not reached a final agreement with the governor’s office and DHR. State human resources staff told the committee their analysis showed one of the staffers was close to policy pay for his grade and that state pay policy aims to be competitive within state government rather than with private markets.

Why it matters: the Endowment Fund Investment Board manages large permanent and non‑appropriated funds that produce earnings used across state agencies and for beneficiaries; the board argued pay corrections are necessary to retain experienced staff who oversee a substantially larger and more complex portfolio than in prior years.

Committee members asked for the board chair and human resources representatives to explain the board’s rationale and how any raises would be divided. Wilford and Anton said the larger share of the requested dollars would go to the deputy chief investment officer and the remainder to the manager of investments. Janet Jessup and the board’s materials show the request as $100,000 for two staff, $1,200 for general inflation, and a $4,900 one‑time hardware request recommended by the Office of Information Technology.

The committee did not take a recorded vote during the hearing. Officials acknowledged the governor’s recommendation did not include the requested compensation and that negotiations with the governor’s office and Division of Human Resources were ongoing.

The Endowment Fund Investment Board representatives noted the board’s investment returns since 2010 and urged the committee to weigh retention and recruitment risks against pay policy alignment with state compensation benchmarks. The committee moved on to the Department of Lands portion of the agenda after the presentation.