The URS currently is not under any legal requirements on where its investments can go, other than standard investing laws followed by most public funds. Even if there were special laws for the URS, however, they could be difficult to implement because the system works with various consulting firms. "We try to have the safest and best investments — but that's it," Andersen said. Over a 30-year span, the URS has made just under 10 percent interest each year, a rate considered very good by industry standards. "We have 130,000 people in our retirement plan, between those who have retired and those still working" and contributing to the URS, he said, and the system's job is to maximize their pensions, not taking up social causes, no matter how good they might be.

These types of proposals are not new, either to Utah or the nation. In past cases, the URS convinced legislators that a hands-off approach was better.

Nationally, 22 states have Sudan divestment policies, and 15 of those are the same as Litvack's proposal, said Max Croes, advocacy associate for the Sudan Divestment Task Force, based in Washington, D.C. The task force ranks the companies that are the "highest offenders" in the war-torn Darfur region to help guide investors. The Utah Retirement System currently invests in two of those — Alstom, an international transportation and energy company, and Koenig Bauer AG, a German construction company, Andersen said.

Croes credits divestment with encouraging nine companies, so far, who have either withdrawn from Sudan or started to confront the government and actively aid marginalized people. One of those nine is Schlumberger, a French company that sells oil rigs to Sudan, and one in which the URS also invests.

"They've committed to establishing humanitarian policies that are lasting," Croes said. "They have committed to reforming their action."

Various studies, however, show that divesture along SRI models becomes a symbolic gesture, rather than having a real economic impact on either the firms or the offending governments, Andersen said. It can have a real impact on the rate of return for retirees. For example, divesting themselves of companies that have operations in Iran would mean that the URS would not be investing in a large chunk of the Middle Eastern energy sector.

"We're in the process right now of trying to find out just how much it would cost us to even hire such special consultants," said Andersen. A recent study found that it will cost the California retirement fund $17.8 million to divest unwanted stocks in only $2 billion of its large fund, he added, and over five years the lost economic value of divesture could be $725 million to California retirees.

Still, divestment policies may have political benefits, which could play a role in these specific bills since all of the House members, half of the senators and Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. are all up for election this year. A critic of the bill, whether a legislator or investment adviser, risks having his or her patriotism questioned. In fact, Andersen said, that has already happened to the URS, even when they assure legislators that they do not ever want to intentionally invest in a firm that supports international terrorism or genocide.

During a November public hearing, Sens. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, and Carlene Walker, R-Sandy, got into a verbal spat over Fisher's bill, with Walker accusing Buttars of questioning her patriotism, and Buttars saying perhaps he was.

---

E-mail: bbjr@desnews.com; dbulkeley@desnews.com