Nebraska Private Sector Endowment Fund Investment, Amendment 2 (2006)

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 2 Text of measure
* 3 Background
* 4 Support
* 4.1 Supporters
* 4.2 Arguments in support
* 4.3 Campaign finance
* 5 Opposition
* 5.1 Arguments in opposition
* 6 See also
* 7 External links
* 8 Footnotes

|  | Voting on state and local government budgets, spending, and finance

Policy
Budget policy
Ballot measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
| Local

City budgets
County budgets
Spending limits
School budgets
Nebraska Constitution

Preamble
Articles
I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XI • XII • XIII • XIV • XV • XVI • XVII • XVIII

The Nebraska Private Sector Endowment Fund Investment Amendment, also known as Amendment 2, was on the ballot in Nebraska on November 7, 2006, as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was defeated. The measure would have authorized the investment of public endowment funds in such manner as the governing body of political subdivisions determined.[1]

## Election results[edit]

Nebraska Amendment 2 (2006)

Result| Votes| Percentage
d No| 292,456| 56.90%
Yes|  221,499|  43.10%

Official results via: Nebraska Legislature

## Text of measure[edit]

The question on the ballot:

| "A vote FOR this amendment will authorize the Legislature to permit political subdivisions to invest public endowment funds in the same manner as would a prudent investor acting with skill, care, and diligence and in such investments that the political subdivision, acting in a fiduciary capacity for the exclusive purpose of protecting and benefiting such investment, may determine, subject to limitations as the Legislature may provide.

A vote AGAINST this amendment will retain the existing, more limiting restrictions on a political subdivision’s ability to invest public endowment funds.

A constitutional amendment to authorize the investment of the public endowment funds of cities, villages, school districts, public power districts, and other political subdivisions in such manner and in such investments as the governing body of such political subdivision may determine, subject to limitations by the Legislature."[2] [3]

## Background[edit]

The primary objective of this proposition was to enable the Community Health Endowment of Lincoln (CHE) to invest its assets into stocks, with the expectation that its rate of return would be substantially increased. The CHE was formed in 1998 from the sale of publicly-owned Lincoln General Hospital to the privately-owned Bryan Hospital, and at the end of fiscal year 2006, it was worth $49,918,720. There are very few public endowment funds owned by political subdivisions of Nebraska, and this is by far the largest. The CHE has been allowed to increase annually slightly faster than the rate of inflation, and additional interest and donations, averaging approximately $1 million annually, have been used for various community health purposes.

[4][5]

## Support[edit]

### Supporters[edit]

The measure was sponsored by Nebraska state senator Chris Beutler, from Lincoln.[5]

### Arguments in support[edit]

* Enabling the CHE to invest in higher-return investments will increase its ability to improve public health care in Lincoln, at no additional expense to the taxpayers.

* Passing the amendment might encourage other communities to form and develop high-return endowment funds, similar to the CHE, and likewise improve their community services at little expense to the taxpayers.

### Campaign finance[edit]

Donors to the campaign for the measure:[6]

* Nebraskans for Amendment 2 Committee: $21,188
* Total: $21,188

## Opposition[edit]

### Arguments in opposition[edit]

* Private individuals and entities have much more incentive to invest wisely and profitably than government entities, as a failed private investment results in an obvious loss of wealth to the invester, whereas if a publicly owned, or government, entity, such as the CHE, fails in an investment, the government can simply raise taxes to recoup the loss, and the only real losers are the taxpayers. Therefore, government entities should not be allowed to keep and invest an excess of public money, much less in potentially risky stocks, but should cut taxes if they have too much money.

* Some opponents think that the best way to improve Lincoln's health care into the future would be to return the value of the endowment fund to the taxpayers, who would then be able to invest the money from the tax refund, or tax cut, to create wealth with it, and in the following years, the increase in the net wealth of residents of Lincoln would be taxable, in one way or another, and would have the same impact as freeing up the CHE to invest in stocks.

## See also[edit]

| Suggest a link

|

* List of Nebraska ballot measures
* Nebraska 2006 ballot measures
* 2006 ballot measures
* History of Initiative & Referendum in Nebraska

## External links[edit]

* Nebraska Legislature
* Nebraska Blue Book 2006-07(p.988)
* Nebraska Blue Book 2008-09
* Text of the proposed 2006 amendments (see page 2)
* Vote totals by county
* Brief summary and explanation of proposed amendments (dead link)

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ Nebraska Legislature, "Statistics on Constitutional Amendments, Initiated and Referred Measures," accessed July 10, 2015
2. ↑ Nebraska Secretary of State, "Sample Ballot Nonpartisan Ticket General Election November 7, 2006 Proposed Constitutional Amendments," accessed August 5, 2015
3. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
4. ↑ Community Health Endowment of Lincoln, accessed August 5, 2015
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Lincoln Journal Star, "A primer on proposed constitutional amendments," October 6, 2006
6. ↑ Follow the Money, "Donors"

v • e

2006 ballot measures

• Alabama 2006 ballot measures • Alaska 2006 ballot measures • Arizona 2006 ballot measures • Arkansas 2006 ballot measures • California 2006 ballot propositions • Colorado 2006 ballot measures • Florida 2006 ballot measures • Georgia 2006 ballot measures • Hawaii 2006 ballot measures • Idaho 2006 ballot measures • Louisiana 2006 ballot measures • Maine 2006 ballot measures • Maryland 2006 ballot measures • Massachusetts 2006 ballot measures • Michigan 2006 ballot measures • Minnesota 2006 ballot measures • Missouri 2006 ballot measures • Montana 2006 ballot measures • Nebraska 2006 ballot measures • Nevada 2006 ballot measures • New Hampshire 2006 ballot measures • New Jersey 2006 ballot measures • New Mexico 2006 ballot measures • North Dakota 2006 ballot measures • Ohio 2006 ballot measures • Oklahoma 2006 ballot measures • Oregon 2006 ballot measures • Pennsylvania 2006 ballot measures • Rhode Island 2006 ballot measures • South Carolina 2006 ballot measures • South Dakota 2006 ballot measures • Tennessee 2006 ballot measures • Utah 2006 ballot measures • Virginia 2006 ballot measures • Washington 2006 ballot measures • Wisconsin 2006 ballot measures • Wyoming 2006 ballot measures •

v • e

State of Nebraska
Lincoln (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2022 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy