Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Advisory Committees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House delays bill changing Investment Advisory Committee appointments after heated floor debate
Summary
Lawmaker amendments to remove a PTA-appointed seat and shift appointment power drew strong debate; Representative Brown and others argued the change would remove financial expertise, and the House voted to 'circle' the bill (defer consideration).
Representative Grover presented substitute Senate Bill 147, an education-related cleanup bill that includes language affecting membership of the Investment Advisory Committee. The measure prompted extended floor debate about whether the statute should reference private organizations by name and whether a parent-organization-appointed member should remain on the committee.
Representative Powell and others asked for clarification of the language that would replace a PTA-appointed seat with an appointee from the State Superintendent who would be required to "represent a parent organization." Representative Brown, who raised the issue, said the current PTA-appointed member (Kimo Esplan of the Huntsman Corporation) brought financial expertise that benefits the committee and argued that changing the appointment process might reduce investment expertise and impair stewardship of trust funds.
Supporters of the amendment said the change was intended to avoid placing private organizations’ names in statute and to preserve the committee’s effectiveness by allowing appointment of qualified individuals. Several members who previously served on the advisory board, including Representative Hundzeck, emphasized that appointees are chosen for financial expertise rather than to represent particular organizations.
After procedural confusion about whether deleting lines would remove the committee from the bill or repeal its statutory basis, Representative Edson moved to "circle" the bill (defer floor consideration) so sponsors and staff could resolve language and committee structure. The Chair ruled the motion passed, and the bill was placed aside for later action rather than be voted on that day.
The substantive disagreement centered on committee composition and the trade-off between neutral statutory language and maintaining guaranteed representation for a parent-organization perspective. No final changes to statute were adopted on the floor; work on the bill will continue off the floor.
