Moon v. Investment Bd.
Decision Date | 31 July 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 11417,11417 |
Parties | Marjorie Ruth MOON, as State Treasurer, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The INVESTMENT BOARD of the State of Idaho et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Wayne P. Fuller, Brauner, Fuller & Doolittle, Caldwell, for plaintiff-appellant.
W. Anthony Park, Atty. Gen., Boise, for defendants-respondents.
Appellant Marjorie Ruth Moon, treasurer of the State of Idaho, brought an action for declaratory judgment in the district court against the Investment Board of the State of Idaho, the Department of Finance, the Commissioner of Finance and the State of Idaho, seeking to have I.C. § 57-724 and § 57-725 declared unconstitutional as applied to the Public School Endowment Fund. Appellant also sought to have the court declare that the provisions of Chapter 7, title 57, Idaho Code, which specify the Investment Board's creation and its investment functions, conflict with the constitutional duties of the state treasurer and are therefore void. Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment which was heard upon a written stipulation of facts. The district court granted the summary judgment holding that the statutes in question are constitutional. From that action, appellant brings this appeal.
Appellant's assignments of error raise two principal questions. First, does I.C. § 57-724 conflict with Article 9, section 3, of the Idaho Constitution in that: (a) the statute specifies that only losses realized from investments made by the board under section 9 ( ) shall be made up by a general fund appropriation of the legislature; and (b) the statute uses 'marketable value' for computation of losses incurred after the effective date of the act. Secondly, does the act infringe upon the constitutional duties of the state treasurer by transferring the authority to invest the school endowment fund to the investment board. We answer both questions in the negative and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Regarding the procedure of making up losses, I.C. § 57-724 provides as follows:
Appellant first contends that this provision conflicts with Article 9, section 3, of the Idaho Constitution by failing to provide for losses which occurred prior to 1969. In effect, appellant argues that the legislature cannot take any action to make up losses unless it includes all losses which have occurred since the adoption of the constitutional provision in 1890. The trial court held that while the statute was not all-encompassing, i. e., did not provide for losses occurring prior to 1969, that fact alone did not render § 57-724 unconstitutional. We find this reasoning of the trial court to be persuasive and correct. Article 9, section 3, of the Idaho Constitution provides:
(Emphasis added).
In enacting I.C. § 57-724, the legislature established a procedure for determining and supplying losses occurring after 1969. It did not sanction losses occurring prior to that time, nor did it preclude an appropriation to supply such losses. That the statute is not all-encompassing does not bring it within a constitutional limitation and render it unconstitutional. 1 Neither does the enactment of the statute relieve the legislature of its constitutional obligation to supply all losses, if any, occurring prior to 1969.
Secondly, appellant contends that the use of 'marketable value' as a basis for determining losses, rather than actual acquisition cost, violates Article 9, section 3, in that 'marketable value' fails to provide for 'all losses.' As an example, appellant contends that a security acquired prior to March 25, 1969, at $1,000 and which had a market value of $800 on March 25, 1969, and then is later sold for $900 would be reported by the Investment Board to the legislature as a $100 gain rather than a $100 loss. However, turning the same example around, a security purchased in 1965 for $800 and having a market value of $1000 on March 25, 1969, and subsequently sold for $900, would result in a reported loss of $100 under the act, rather than a $100 gain. What these examples demonstrate is that different methods of accounting can result in placing the loss or gain in different accounting periods, i. e., either pre-or post-March 25, 1969. However, as we have previously discussed, the fact that the legislature has by the questioned legislation only commenced making up losses occurring subsequent to March 25, 1969, does not render the act unconstitutional, nor relieve the legislature of its obligation to make up losses occurring prior to that time. The use of the phrase 'all losses' in Article 9, section 3, of the Constitution, is not self-defining and of necessity requires definition. Any accounting method, whether cost or accrual, which will accurately reflect the losses and gains in the fund on a consistent basis over the years would be in substantial compliance with the constitutional mandate. Nothing in the evidence before this Court indicates that the accounting method set out in the act will not accurately reflect losses and gains in the fund for the post-March 25, 1969, period. Merely because any losses accruing prior to that time are not covered by the act does not render it defective as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moon v. State Bd. of Land Com'rs
...is clearly in violation of a constitutional principle, it is a valid exercise of the legislative power." Moon v. Investment Board, 96 Idaho 140, 525 P.2d 335 (1974). The petition of the State Treasurer for a writ of mandate or prohibition is denied. State Treasurer is hereby ordered to ceas......
-
State, ex rel. Moon v. State Bd. of Examiners
...to supply all losses to the Fund is not self-executing--rather it requires implementing legislation. In Moon v. Investment Board, 96 Idaho 140, 143, 525 P.2d 335, 337 (1974), we "Implementation of constitutional principles is an appropriate function of legislation, and unless such implement......
- Lewiston Pistol Club, Inc. v. Board of County Com'rs of Nez Perce County
-
State of Idaho ex rel. Moon v. State Bd. of Examiners, 77-2157
...Board of Examiners and the State Legislature. See Moon v. Investment Board, 98 Idaho 200, 560 P.2d 871 (1977); Moon v. Investment Board, 96 Idaho 140, 525 P.2d 335 (1974). Appellant asserts two claims for relief: (1) for alleged losses to the Public School Endowment Fund, and (2) for recove......