A bird in the hand . . .

Published: Wednesday, Aug. 24, 2005 10:42 p.m. MDT
E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
. . . is worth two in the bush. If the State of Utah would have heeded this proverb's counsel, it would have $50 million more in the bank. Instead, it ended up with zilch.

Here's what happened. Workers Compensation Fund wanted to wrest itself from state control because it needed to protect its out-of-state business interests. So the fund's managers approached the state with an offer. If the state surrendered its ownership rights — except as a policyholder — the fund would give the state a $50 million buy-out. This was fairly remarkable, considering the fund had operated free of state funding since 1922, when it repaid the state $40,000 in start-up money appropriated in 1917. In 1988, the Legislature turned the fund into a nonprofit enterprise that was not administered by the state in any way, although the governor retained the power to appoint the fund's board of directors.

Some people, including former Gov. Mike Leavitt's brother Dane, who heads the family's insurance empire, believed the state's interests in the WCF were substantially greater, perhaps even $300 million. Legislators opted for more time to study the issue. In the meantime, WCF sued the state.

Story continues below
Once again, in 2004, the $50 million buy-out was offered in conjunction with settlement of the lawsuit. But Gov. Olene Walker didn't accept the compromise bill, which was sponsored by Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo. Bramble twice attempted to run such bills, to no avail.

Earlier this week, the Utah Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that found the state held no ownership in the fund. The settlement offer had been pulled off the table long ago. The state walked away empty-handed.

It is perplexing that Govs. Leavitt and Walker weren't somewhat persuaded by the fact that the state's purview of the WCF had become extremely limited over time and that as a policyholder, the state had considerable interest in enabling WCF to protect its business interest elsewhere so it could continue to offer low rates.

To the lay person, a $50 million return on a $40,000 investment (albeit in 1917 dollars) appears to be a handsome buy-out. Far better than zilch.

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.