HB 177A partly reflected the recommendations of a six-month study by the Select Committee on State Trust Lands, a group of citizens and legislators appointed by Governor Geringer.

HB 177A addressed numerous topics concerning the administration of state lands. The most important of these were:

• a declaration that state trust lands need not be sold to maximize revenue in the short term;
• a requirement that lease fees be set at fair market value, and a freeze on base rental fees until the Legislature defines fair market value by July 1, 1998;
• elimination of the preferential right of an existing lessee to match the high bid if the leased land is offered for sale;
• provisions allowing the Board of Land Commissioners to approve leases for up to 99 years; and
• provisions transferring many powers and duties now performed by the Board of Land Commissioners (the five statewide elected officials) to the appointed Director of the State Lands and Investments Office.

Declaration that State Trust Lands Need Not be Sold. Because most state trust lands were conveyed upon admission by the United States to the State of Wyoming for the support of schools, there has been an ongoing debate over whether the best interests of the beneficiaries (schools) requires that the trust lands be sold, as this would increase revenues (at least in the short term).

The Select Committee characterized the state trust lands as an "inter-generational trust" which should not be sold for short-term gain, but preserved for future generations.

The House defeated two attempts to place a moratorium on sales of state lands until the Board develops criteria for sales; these were offered by Reps. Mike Massie (D-H13, Laramie), Bill Bensel (D-H30, Sheridan), Phil Nicholas (R-H14, Laramie), and Charles Hessenthaler (R-H26, Byron).

The House finally adopted a moratorium amendment brought by Reps. Wende Barker (D-H45, Laramie), John Hanes (R-H42, Cheyenne), Phil Nicholas, and Pat Nagel (R-H56, Casper), on a 35-25 vote (see below).

Freeze on Lease Fees. Debate over HB 177A was permeated by conflicts of interest. One example: The amendment freezing grazing or agricultural leases at 1996 levels until the Legislature develops a new fair market value formula (or July 1, 1998, whichever is earlier) was successfully offered by Sen. Bill Barton (R-S1, Upton), a state leaseholder.

The Legislature was subsequently unsuccessful at enacting a new formula for determining fair market value (see SF 47A, 1998, below).

Elimination of Preferential Right to Match High Bid. The Select Committee on State Trust Lands unanimously recommended this provision, but the House approved an amendment allowing the existing lessee to

match a minimum bid set by the Board. Opponents pointed out that this would effectively cap bids at the minimum bid, but the amendment was retained in the final version of the bill.

99-Year Leases. This provision was dropped early in the debate after opponents pointed out that it was contrary to the Act of Admission, not to say an obvious attempt to get around any moratorium on sales.

Transferring Powers and Duties from the Board to the Director. The bill’s provisions transferring powers from the elected Board to the appointed Director were some of the most controversial.

While HB 177A provided that the Board may override any decision made by the Director, the bill gave the Director the authority to issue all standard lease and permit renewals which do not convey any permanent interest in state lands, and to approve lease assignments, sublease agreements and surface damage payments.

The Director may also concur in water rights petitions involving state lands and approve applications to construct improvements such as fences.

Proponents of the transfer of powers argued that it was merely administrative and ministerial, and did not convey the authority to make policy.

Opponents of the transfer of powers argued that transferring powers from the elected Board to the appointed Director was probably unconstitutional, and in any case did not provide sufficient accountability.

Conflicts of Interest. As noted earlier, HB 177a also generated considerable discussion of the broader issues of conflicts of interest. Conservation groups, as well as State Auditor Dave Ferrari, charged that legislators who lease state land violated the Wyoming Constitution when they voted on HB 177A instead of declaring a conflict of interest.

Legislators who lease state lands and voted on HB 177A were: Sen. Bill Barton (R-S1,Upton), Rep. Bruce Burns (R-H51, Sheridan), Rep. Jim Hageman (R-H5, Ft. Laramie), Rep. John Hines (R-H31, Gillette), Rep. Roger Huckfeldt (R-H4, Torrington),

Rep. Frank Philp (R-H34, Shoshoni), Sen. Vince Picard (R-S9, Laramie), Rep. Tom Rardin (R-H46, Laramie), Sen. John Schiffer (R-S22, Kaycee), Sen. Charles Scott (R-S30, Casper), and Rep. Marlene Simons (R-H1, Beulah).

Rep. Huckfeldt declared a conflict on HB 177A and did not vote when the bill was debated in the House, but during the vote on the conference committee report, he told the House he had made a mistake in declaring a conflict previously, and voted.

Sen. Scott declared a conflict of interest on several provisions of HB 177A that would have affected his family's ranch directly, but voted on the overall bill.

Sen. Barton and Rep. Philp also served on the six-member conference committee which worked out the final version of HB 177A.

Legislators arguing that there was no conflict of interest maintained that House and Senate rules allowed them to vote on HB 177A because they belong to a group (state leaseholders) and are not representing their personal interests even if the legislative action results in their financial gain.

Those arguing the existence of a conflict of interest said that most states have adopted the Council of State Government's guideline: If there is even an appearance of a conflict of interest, a legislator should not vote on the matter.

A subsequent opinion from the Wyoming Attorney General supported the position of the state leaseholders.

HB 177A passed the House, 49-10 (1 conflict) , and the Senate, 22-8.

Because there were so many issues included in this bill, it is difficult to interpret any legislator’s vote on the final version. There were no recorded votes on amendments in the Senate.