Opinion No. (2011)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports·Decided August 31, 2011·Published

Opinion

Dear Ken Miller:

¶ 0 This office has received your request for an official Attorney General Opinion in which you ask, in effect, the following questions:

1. What is the definition of Oklahoma Tobacco SettlementEndowment Trust Fund "earnings" that shall be considered in theannual certification by the Board of Investors? 2. Is there a conflict between the constitutional language(Okla. Const. art. X, § 40) and statutory language(62 O.S.Supp. 2010, § 2307[62-2307]) with regard to the components to beincluded in "earnings" for the annual certification of earnings fromthe trust fund that the Board of Investors of the Oklahoma TobaccoSettlement Endowment Trust Fund is directed to perform? 3. Can the Board of Investors impose a cap on the amount ofOklahoma Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Fund earnings annuallycertified, assuming it would be in the exercise of ordinary businesscare, prudent to do so, and in keeping with the Board of Investor'sfiduciary responsibility? 4. Should it be determined the constitutional and statutorylanguage governing the Oklahoma Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trustprohibit imposition of a certification cap by the Board ofInvestors, would it be permissible for the Board of Directors torestrict or limit annual expenditures to protect the corpus of theOklahoma Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Fund?

¶ 1 In 2000, the citizens of the State of Oklahoma voted to create the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Fund ("Trust Fund").See https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/questions/692.pdf (codified at Okla. Const. art. X, § 40). The Trust Fund includes revenues received by the State of Oklahoma from settlements with or judgments against tobacco companies. Okla. Const. art. X, § 40(A).

¶ 2 The Constitution creates a Board of Investors and a Board of Directors for the Trust Fund, and prescribes duties for each Board. Okla. Const. art. X, § 40(C), (D). The Constitution tasks the Board of Investors with the duty of investing of monies in the Trust Fund to generate earnings, subject to certain restrictions and limitations. Okla. Const. art. X, § 40(C). The Constitution vests the authority to spend the Trust Fund earnings with the Board of Directors. Okla. Const. art. X, § 40(F).

¶ 3 Subsection 40(G) of Article X of the Oklahoma Constitution specifically grants the Legislature the authority to enact legislation to implement that constitutional provision. In 2001, the Oklahoma Legislature enacted the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Fund Act ("Act") to implement the constitutional provision.See 2001 Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 274, §§ 1 — 10 (codified at 62 O.S. 2001, §§ 2301[62-2301] — 2310). The Act compels the Board of Investors to annually determine the earnings of the Trust Fund for the previous fiscal year ending June 30 (62 O.S. Supp. 2010, § 2307[62-2307](A)), and certify an amount which is prudent under the standard set forth in subsection C of Section 2307 for the Board of Directors to spend.1

¶ 4 You first ask what is the definition of "earnings" that shall be considered in the annual certification by the Board of Investors. The Constitution does not define earnings, but sets forth an incomplete list of items that is included in earnings, as follows:

E. Earnings from the trust fund, including but not limited to interest, dividends, and realized capital gains from investments of the trust fund shall be expended as provided in subsection F2 of this section for the [specified] purposes[.]

Okla. Const. art. X, § 40(E) (emphasis added) (footnote added).

¶ 5 "A constitutional provision is to be applied to give effect to the intent of the people voting on it." In re Protest Against theTax Levy, 959 P.2d 580, 582 (Okla. 1998). "[T]he provisions of a Constitution are construed using the usual rules of statutory construction." Cowart v. Piper Aircraft Corp.,665 P.2d 315, 317 (Okla. 1983).

¶ 6 Because earnings are not defined in the Constitution, we must assume the people voting on the constitutional provision, which created the Trust Fund and allowed the expenditure of earnings which accrue to the Trust Fund, intended for the word earnings "to have the same meaning as that attributed to them in ordinary and usual parlance." Riffe Petroleum Co. v. Great Nat'l Corp.,614 P.2d 576, 579 (Okla. 1980). The ordinary meaning of earnings is:

[T]he balance of revenue for a specific period that remains after deducting related costs and expenses incurred — compare profit[.]

Webster's Third New International Dictionary 714 (3d ed. 1993).

¶ 7 The ordinary meaning of profit as that term is used in the definition of earnings is:

(1) : net income (as in a business) usu. for a given period of time (2) : a benefit or advantage accruing from the management, use, or sale of property, from the carrying on of any process of production, or from the conduct of business[.]

Id. at 1811.

¶ 8 The ordinary meaning of net income as that term is used in the definition of profit is:

[T]he balance of gross income remaining after deducting related costs and expenses usu. for a given period and losses allocable to the period[.]

Id. at 1520.

¶ 9 Building on the ordinary meanings of net income, profit and earnings, Trust Fund earnings as used in Okla. Const. art. X, § 40 means the income generated from the Trust Fund, including, but not limited to, interest, dividends and realized capital gains from investments, minus costs and expenses of investment, and minus any losses realized by the Trust Fund.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion No. (2011), (Okla. Super. Ct. 2011).

Opinion No. (2011) (Opinion No. (2011)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Riffe Petroleum Co. v. Great Nat. Corp., Inc.
1980 OK 112 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1980)
Shea v. Shea
1975 OK 90 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1975)
Cowart v. Piper Aircraft Corp.
1983 OK 66 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1983)
State Ex Rel. York v. Turpen
681 P.2d 763 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1984)
In Re Initiative Petition No. 281, St. Question No. 441
1967 OK 230 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1967)
Ex Parte Hunnicutt
1912 OK CR 153 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1912)