dissenting.
Pursuant to I.C. §§ 58-140 and 57-803 the Land Board is diverting into its own bank account ten percent of the funds which are received from the sale and lease of school endowment assets, The Board says: “Not to worry, we use the money for Land Board expenses.” One hundred percent of those funds should be going to the Public School Fund. This action by the Land Board is an unconstitutional invasion of the Public School Fund and the majority’s determination of this extremely important issue judicially sanctions that invasion.
The Idaho Constitution requires the Public School Fund to remain inviolate and intact. Idaho Const, art. 9, § 3 states:
Public School Fund to Remain Intact. — The Public School Fund of the State shall forever remain inviolate and *395intact; the interest thereon only shall be expended in the maintenance of the schools of the state, and shall be distributed among the several counties and school districts of the state in such manner as may be prescribed by law. No part of this fund, principal or interest, shall ever be transferred to any other fund, or used or appropriated except as herein provided. The State Treasurer shall be custodian of this fund, and the same shall be securely and properly invested as may be by law directed. The state shall supply all losses thereof that may in any manner occur. (Emphasis added.)
As the majority acknowledges, this Court has recognized in a number of cases that Idaho Const, art. 9, § 3 and §§ 4, 5, and 7 of the Idaho Admission Bill prohibit any attempt by the Legislature or State or Board officers to divert either the principal or interest away from the Public School Fund. Moon v. Investment Board, 98 Idaho 200, 560 P.2d 871 (1977); Engelking v. Investment Board, 93 Idaho 217, 458 P.2d 213 (1969); State v. Fitzpatrick, 5 Idaho 499, 51 P. 112 (1897). See also United States v. Fenton, 27 F.Supp. 816 (D.C.Idaho 1939). Yet that is the result of today’s case.
As the majority should also know, the words “inviolate” and “intact” are strong words. Webster’s defines “inviolate” as “free from change.” It defines “intact” as “untouched especially by anything that harms or diminishes.” Allowing the siphoning off of ten percent of the funds from the sale and lease of the School Endowment assets is definitely changing the fund; in no way can the fund be viewed as remaining “untouched.” Accordingly, the clear language of our Constitution is being ignored.
Moon v. Investment Board, supra, is controlling. In Moon, the Court issued an alternative writ of prohibition to the Investment Board to prohibit it from using monies acquired from the investment of public school funds to defray its expenses. As a practical matter, there is little difference between the investment of proceeds by the Investment Board and the management of endowment lands by the State Land Board. Hence, the rule in Moon should apply here, which is that pursuant to the Constitution, the Endowment Fund is to remain inviolate; it is also to remain intact; no portion of the principal may be diverted for any purpose, whether that principal be in the form of liquid assets or land.
The majority’s attempt at distinguishing Moon, supra, is unpersuasive. It argues that the money the Land Board is receiving comes from a different source than the money the Investment Board received. This is a distinction without a difference. The fact of the matter is that both Boards were or are seeking to use money for their own expenses, which originates from the Public School Endowment Fund, and such an attempt is expressly forbidden by our Constitution.
Common sense also dictates a ruling opposite to that of the majority. As a result of today’s holding, the Land Board will be able to pay all of its expenses without being required to go through the appropriation process. Accordingly, the expenses it anticipates each year henceforth no longer need be justified before the legislature; thus, accountability will become nonexistent. No controls will exist over the Land Board’s expenses account, and nothing requires the Land Board to return any unspent money at the end of a fiscal year. In short, the Land Board now need not answer to anyone for its expense budget, a most unwise and unhealthy state of affairs.
A second concern, also unaddressed by the majority, is the fact that I.C. § 58-140’s present provision for a ten percent withdrawal is not cast in concrete. While that may be a fair requirement, equally likely it may not be. The membership of this Court does not include any C.P.A.’s. We are not a board of auditors. Next year a complacent legislature may up the take to 20 percent or 50 percent. All of which concerns today’s majority not in the slightest. The majority’s reasoning in now approving § 58-140 will be equally applicable to any *396percentage which an amendment to § 58-140 sets.
A third concern is the fact that there is no discussion about what expenses the Land Board claims. Each of the members of the Board are politically elected officers who presumably have budgeted for expense accounts and staff support to assist them in the special duties pertinent to comprising Land Board membership. It would seem far better that the five offices pool an appropriate share of their own budgets than to fly into the face of a stringent and unyielding constitutional prohibition against invading school endowment properties or funds.
The result of today’s opinion nullifies our Constitution, defies common sense, gives the Land Board unchecked power, and leaves open the possibility for the further taking of monies that constitutionally belong in the Public School Fund. I therefore dissent.