Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pension Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee passes HB 1170 to emphasize pecuniary duty for public pension investing; 6–2 vote
Summary
House Bill 1170 was passed out of the Senate committee on a 6–2 vote. The bill would require fiduciaries of state pension funds to prioritize pecuniary returns and discourage consideration of non‑pecuniary (ESG) policies; sponsors said definitions need refinement and committee members raised concerns about due process and immunity provisions.
The Senate Retirement and Governmental Affairs Committee voted 6–2 to advance House Bill 1170, a bill that would codify a fiduciary standard directing those who manage state pension funds to focus primarily on pecuniary returns rather than non‑pecuniary or ESG‑type considerations.
Madam leader Daniels introduced the bill, asked unanimous consent to strike the title and described the measure as statutory guidance to emphasize fiduciary duty "to look only at the pecuniary interest of those assets and not drifting over into doing any, investing or managing based on any sort of ESG type policies." She said the language needs alignment with related measures and indicated she would continue to work with stakeholders to refine definitions and potential conflicts, such as a provision naming the treasurer as a potential whistleblower while the treasurer may also serve on some pension boards.
Senator Kurt raised questions about due process and whether the bill might prompt premature allegations without proper investigation; Daniels said she would add language to address due process concerns. Kurt also questioned a clause granting immunity from civil liability to officers; Daniels said indemnification language is common in other statutes but agreed to review it. Senator Stewart referred to a recent Oklahoma Supreme Court decision discussed during questioning and pressed whether the bill's drafting would avoid the legal issues that decision identified.
Senator Boren argued the bill was unnecessary and risked inserting political agendas into trustees' decisions; he announced a no vote. Daniels said the bill is intended as a financial policy rather than a political statement and that she would continue to work on definitions and alignment with other legislation.
After closing debate, the clerk recorded a committee vote of 6 ayes and 2 nays and Chair Bullard declared the bill to have passed out of committee for further consideration on the Senate floor.
The bill will next be scheduled for consideration by the full Senate; sponsors indicated they would refine definitions related to pecuniary interest, due process, and indemnification before floor consideration.
