Legislative Joint Auditing

Good morning folks. Thank you all for being here today. And folks, thank you for being here today on a. A jury or a rainy day. We've been called to order. Our next item is item B. Which is adoptions of the minute of the July 12, 2024 meeting. Do I have a motion? I have a motion. Do I have a second? I did not see a second. I see a second now. I have a motion a 2nd, all in favor say aye. And he oppose say nay. OK, they have been approved. And I'm gonna recognize. Uh, Kevin, uh, to speak on a couple of things. Um. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, um, before us today we have the new AV system. Some of you might have been in this committee already and have dealt with the AV system some this might be for some of you your first time. Um, we have the name plates out for your assigned seating. However, you know, if the member has not shown up, then you can sit in that seat if it's available. So any one of the plaques that have Bureau of Legislative Research, you can sign in on. Um, In order to sign in on the seat, you have to enter your four-digit PIN. Um, that four-digit PIN for senators, it starts with 01 and then it is followed by your district number. If you're a representative, it starts with 10, followed by your district number. For instance, if you are, um, And if you are a single digit district, you have to add a 0 before your district number. So, for example, if you're senator in district 21, your pin would be 0121. If you're a senator in district 2, it would be 0102 for the House members, if you're a House member in district 21, your pin would be 1021. And if you are, um, in District 2, it'd be 1002. If you have any questions about your pen, we have staff available who can help you just raise your hand, um, and we'll help get you signed in if need be. Um, the other piece of information is the colors have changed in relation to the hot mic and not now it means red is white and green means go. Red is you are waiting to be recognized green as you have been recognized to speak. Um, And as well as signing in at these nameplates does not count for attendance. So in order to count for attendance, you still need to sign in in the back. That completes it, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. White. Moving on to Adam C, adoption of the reports of executive and standing committees. I'll be reading the executive, uh, Summary The executive committee met Thursday, September 12th, 2024. And new business representative Springer presented a request for a special report on the University of Arkansas of Little Rock. Dawson program. The committee approved the request with a stipulation that legislative audit performed their work as time allows. Staff reported to the committee, the audit special and investigative reports scheduled to be presented to the standing Committee and the full legislative Joint Audit Committee this month. Staff also noted reports that are anticipated to be released by year's end. The committee approved adding a September 5 and September 6, 2024 meeting date and we have approved the 2025 meeting calendar. With no additional business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned, and the next meeting of the executive committee is scheduled for Thursday, October 10th, 2024, or to call the cheers. And members I moved for the adoption of this report. I have a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, this port is recognized. Next we have the standing Committee on Counties and municipalities in if I believe you're gonna present that. Yes, sir, is it on, sir? In here, OK. The committee adopted the minutes of the meeting held July 11, 2024. The committee was also updated on the status of water and sewer audits staff in 132 letters reminding entities. That are delinquent in submitting reports to obtain those reports as soon as possible. In response to these letters, 49 reports and 11 copies of engagement letters were received. And the entity provided And one entity provided notification they had dropped below 100 connections. The committee requested a second letter to be sent to the remaining entities asking them to provide a written plan for obtaining the current audit report. The committee requested that a representative of Arkansas Natural Resource Commission be present at the October meeting to discuss the water rights studies. Required of water departments. The committee reviewed 8 deferred reports and 176 current reports. Officials from 6 entities were present to address repeat findings. 7 previously deferred reports were filed of the 176 current reports reviewed 18 were referred to prosecuting attorneys and the attorney general and one was certified to the governmental bond board, the committee filed 174 current reports and deferred to to allow officials to answer questions at a future meeting or provide further information. Officials from two entities. Whose reports were filed were requested to attend the October meeting to provide additional information. Mr. Chair, I move for adoption of this members members, I have a motion, do I have a second? I have a second, all in, uh, I believe we do have discussion. I'm sorry, Central Love, Cral love you recognize her. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I, I've talked to um to Cheer R in regards to this. So yesterday, uh, we, we, uh, heard from Lone Oak, uh, as you know, Lonocast uh several issues on our audit report and so we were just, uh, discussing what was in the discussion was about the comp time and, and different things like that. Well, later that meeting, there were some employees that approached me and said, hey, the entire time that lady was not telling you the truth. Now, I'm not here to to to try to establish if the lady was telling us the truth or not as far as her testimony, but I did want to hear from the employees. There were 3 employees that stopped me. I wanted to hear from the employees because they um, there were several that continued to say, hey, they're not doing our comp time right, which is what we actually passed out and I wanted to either hold that, hold that part of the report to say that Lone Oak should come back. So that we can hear from those employees, or if we can hear from the employee, I, I know there's one or two employees here now. If we can hear from them, so I will leave it at your discretion on how you want to handle that, but I do want to take that portion of the report out, which is a portion about the Lone Oak and it's comp time. Central love if, if you would like, you, you're allowed to make a substitute. All right, I would like to substitute and say that I've moved at the the uh the report be adopted except for the portion that it relates to Lone Oak. OK, members, we have substitute motion. Do I have a second on that? I have a 2nd. All in favor and we're voting on these substitute. Motion all in favor of that say aye aye, any opposed? See none Center love your motion has passed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And with that we will now. And members with that. This particular report is uh deferred until next month. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, well, by being deferred, will the chair hold that reporting here for those discussions to occur with the chair like a motion to refer it back to the subject matter committee where those discussions can take place in that, uh, subcommittee of audit. And center Hammer, we're going to take the motion to refer it back to the subcommittee. OK, I'll make, I make a motion, Mr. Chair, to refer back to subject matter committee for that subcommittee to take up that discussion, have those individuals requested to be present. I've got a motion in a second. Members, we have a motion in a second to refer this report back to the subcommittee. All in favor. That'd be the loo. That'd be, that'd be just the loan, of course the loan the loan portion. All in favor say aye, and opposed. Say none, this will be, uh, the loan portion of the report will be referred to the subcommittee next month. Moving on to the standing committee. On educational institutions, Representative Hodge, sir, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The committee reviewed 28 audit reports consisting of school districts, charter schools, and higher education institutions for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Representatives from the Jacksonville North Pulaski School District, Hope Academy of Northwest Arkansas Charter School and Marvel School District, whose audit reports were deferred from the July meeting, were present and answered questions from the committee related to findings in their respective audit reports. Representatives from the Jasper School District and Rector School District were present and answered questions from the committee related to repeat findings in their audit reports. The a report of the Mountain Pine School District was certified to the governmental bonding Board, as well as referred to the applicable prosecuting attorney and the AG. The audit reports for Deer Mount Judy, Osceola, and Viola School Districts contain findings which were referred to the respective prosecuting attorney and AG. The audit report for OCLA School District was deferred to the October meeting so that school officials could be present to answer questions, uh, to the committee related to findings in the audit report. Pursuant to a motion made at the July meeting an official from the Arkansas Department of Education was present and provided information to the committee concerning school districts that are currently under state control. The committee filed 27 audit reports that were brought before it and deferred one audit report to the October meeting. Mr. Chairman, I move adoption of this report. Members, I have a motion. Do I have a second? I have a second. All in favor of adopting this, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, just, I didn't see you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, through the chair to Representative Hodges, was the Jacksonville, uh, North Pulaski, um, response agreeable to the organization to the body. It was, we had the superintendent, the school board president and the school's attorney there, um, from what I gather, they had an emergency meeting of the school board and they submitted a much more in-depth response and corrective action plan to the committee. And the school board and the audit committee, I think, all agreed that it was a, a solid plan. Well, I, I appreciate that because I've been working with the district and I did not get an opportunity to attend the meeting. Uh, they're in my, in one of my, uh, they're in my Senate district, so I just wanted to get final approval. I know how hard they'd worked to get that done. So I appreciate the committee accepting the report. Thank you so much and thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. Members, are there any additional discussion. See none, I have a motion. I have a 2nd on the floor. All in favor of approving this report, say I any opposed? Saying none. This report for the educational institution has been uh recognized or approved, rather. Moving on to the standing Committee on state agencies. Senator Caldwell, sir, you're recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair. 7 reports were on the committee's agenda yesterday 2 reports with the following findings were presented, the Department of Commerce did not properly complete year-end accounting entries and the Department of Agriculture reported questionable payroll disbursements at a conservation district that receives funding from the agency. In addition, 3 special reports were presented. Law enforcement agencies compliant with asset seizures and forfeiture requirements, law enforcement agencies compliance. With tobacco seizure and forfeiture requirements and review of selected policies, procedures, and transactions at the Sevier County Medical Center. V uh agency staff members were present to report on how the agencies intend to address the audit findings and to answer to, uh, committee questions during the meeting, uh, the committee filed the 7 reports. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I've moved for adoption of this report. Members, we have a motion on the floor to I have a second? 2 members of. Is there any discussion? See none all in favor say aye. Any opposed? Say nay. See none. This report has been adopted. Members we're now gonna move on to review of reports, A Delta. First up is the city of Bos. And Miss Ashley, Michelle, you're. Thank you, Mr. Chair and good morning committee members. Subsequent to presentation of an investigative report on the city of Bauxite at a meeting held in July, this committee made a motion to defer the report and requested that legislative audit conduct an additional review of Bauxite District court transactions and procedures, as well as invite specific individuals to attend today's meeting. This report is issued in response to that request. In 2017, Bauxite entered into an interlocal agreement with the city of Brant in which the Bryant court assumed administrative duties related to citations, fines, fees, and cost of the bauxite Police Department. Also under this agreement, the Bryant court maintained a bond and fine account for Bauxite, and Bauxite agreed to pay Bryant a monthly fee of $1200. The Bryant Court also maintained a court automation fund, which was not part of the agreement. In 2023, the Bauxite mayor asked the city council for permission to move administrative duties back to Bauxite and recommended an individual to serve as court clerk. The city council approved these requests, and the court clerk was appointed without the authorization or approval of the district judge in noncompliance with Arkansas code. In March of this year, bauxite resumed collections for citations issued by the police department and the mayor requested that the bank replace the district judge and brought court clerk with Bauxite officials and employees on the signature card for the court automation fund. In May, the Bauxite mayor and recorder treasurer requested that the bank close the bond and find account used by the Bryant court. Our review revealed several areas of non-compliance with Arkansas code regarding regarding court automation funds. We noted that court automation funds were not appropriated by bauxite, and prior to April 2024, the court automation fund was not maintained by the city treasurer, but by the Bryant court. In May of this year, the city resolved the issue by opening a new court automation fund, which is being maintained by the recorder treasure. Additionally, review of expenses revealed over $18,000 in improper disbursements and transfers that were not for proper court automation purposes and were not approved by the district judge. It should be noted that over $16,000 was transferred from the police department fund, which partially reimbursed the improper expenses. The remaining 1800 had not been reimbursed as of July 31st. Our review also revealed additional areas of non-compliance with Arkansas code, which are discussed on pages 2 and 3 of the report and relevant sections of Arkansas code are provided in Appendix A of the report. During the transition period in which administrative duties of the Bauxite court were being moved from Bryant to Bauxite, fines, fees and costs collected by the Bauxite court were temporarily deposited in bank accounts where they were commingled with court automation funds and other operating funds. Subsequent transfers corrected this issue. The bond and find account previously used by the Bryant court had a balance of just under 39,000 at the time it was closed by bauxite. This balance, which consisted of fines, fees and costs for cases not yet adjudicated, was improperly transferred to the police department fund. Additionally, monthly bond and fine settlement checks are signed by Deputy court clerk and the recorder treasurer. However, Arkansas code requires that these checks be signed by the court clerk and one other person authorized by the district judge. According to the district judge, she and the Bryant court clerk were removed from the account without her knowledge and she has not authorized anyone else to sign checks. Finally, the bank account used by the Bauxite court for the processing of fines and costs is improper. name based on Arkansas code requirements. Other matters noted during this review are discussed on page 3 of the report. Bauxite stopped making the $1200 monthly payments to the Bright Court in April of 2023. Although the Bryant court continue to provide services through March of 24. This resulted in an overdue balance of over $13,000 as of July 31st of this year. As disclosed in the previously issued investigative report. It was brought to our attention in May of this year that bauxite was not remitting or reporting for the state district court judges program. As of July of this year, DFNA has confirmed that this issue has been resolved. Audit recommends that bauxite transfer approximately 39,000 from the police department fund to bond and find accounts to reimburse the improper transfer. Transfer approximately 1800 from the general or police department fund to the court automation fund to reimburse improper disbursements. And we recommend that they seek legal guidance regarding the terms of the interlocal agreement between Bauxite and Bryant. In addition, we request the bank alter the incorrect account name to comply with Arkansas code, we further recommend that bauxite and the district judge take necessary steps to ensure that bond and fine checks are signed by authorized individuals. Mr. Chair, this cancludes my presentation. The report has been forwarded to the 22nd Judicial District prosecuting Attorney and the Attorney General, management response is provided in Appendix B of the report and bauxite officials are present to respond to committee questions. Pursuant To a motion adopted by this committee at its July 12th meeting, the district court judge, city attorney, and a representative from administrative office of the courts were also invited to be in attendance today. And members we have, uh, representatives from the city of Oaux here today as well as our district judge and, uh, Mr. Mayor. Uh, I would ask you and your group to come forward and. Uh, Judge Casty, I would ask you to come up as well. First thing I'm gonna do is ask you all to Um, announce yourselves and then I'm gonna swear you in. For testimony And if you would just um tell us who you are. Judge, if you go first, ma'am. I'm Judge Stephanie Cassidy. I'm one of the two judges from Saline County. Thank you, Judge. Thank you, ma'am. Treasurer for Bauxite. Thank you, ma'am. Eddie Jones, Mayor of Bauxite. Mayor, thank you, sir. Chris Madison, the civil attorney for the city of Buckside. Thank you, sir. If you all would please. Rise and please raise your right hand. State your name. Your employer and your position. And then we've done that. Do you solemnly swear or do affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Thank you all. Have a seat, please. And Mr. Mayor, if you would like to make a statement first, you're welcome. Mr. Chairman, we, we did have some issues with the, uh, transition of the court system. We have worked hard to try to correct the issue, uh, and we have worked with the legislative audits to come down. I think we have got everything going in the right direction. I hope this, uh, committee understands that. Uh, we did send a or send an email to the judge. She emailed us back requesting an alternate signature and, uh, I'm gonna try to get with her. On that and in the coming months to get it straightened out on as far as the signature. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Judge Cassid, ma'am, would you like to make a statement? Uh, yes, sir, I would. I, I appreciate, appreciate the opportunity to be here today because I feel like a lot of the information that was provided at the last meeting is inaccurate, and I've, I do appreciate the opportunity to be able to share some things with you all, um, In the opening that he just made. I believe he's talking about the signature card for the bank account on the bond and fine account that I was on and that I'm supposed to designate the signers for. That doesn't take a few months, uh, you know, that should have been done. A long time ago, shouldn't have been undone to begin with. Members at this time, I'm gonna open this up for questions. From the body Central love, sir, you recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, if we could go back to the, the staff recommendations. I want to go to the last slide cause I was, I was confused. It says. No, I think there's a recommendation, seek legal guidance. Um, At this point in time, the, um, our staff said that bauxite should seek legal guidance. It, it was my understanding that Chris, you are their attorney, correct? I am Serge. OK, are you, are you not advising them on, on this issue right here that staff is speaking of. So I think this issue relates to the payments that bauxite was paying to City of Bri to Bryant, and then it was stopped during Miller, if you would speak to the microphone sorry, I thought I was speaking on enough. The, uh, I believe this is related to the financial obligation between Bauxite and Bryant. Um, I think I have been working with them on the transitions of this, although I was not directly. involved with it when it was ongoing. I've been involved with it since and working with legislative audit to try and resolve the issues that were identified. Um, I mean, one of the challenges in this is under our agreements we had a 90 day notice period for transition that we didn't get to utilize. So that created kind of the, everything changed all at once. At the same time we were dealing with legislative audit on other issues when this came up. So working with them to try and resolve it, I'll work with them on regarding the financial obligations for the past bills. That are due to Bryant, as I understand it, and, uh, we'll work on getting those resolved. That's what I, that's what I understand my legal representation to be. OK, at this point in time, do, does bauxite have the funding to to actually remedy all the legal obligations that they have. That are, are you, what I'm saying is this, is it an issue that you don't have the funding to remedy or is it that you all are in contention with the remedy? I think the. I was not aware of the financial obligation until the report. So I'm working with them on that. I don't know what the financial status is of the city where they can write the check for the whole amount or not. It's, it's a small city with, you know, limited funds. And so we're working to get the issues resolved. Um, I can't speak to how much money is in any one particular account because I don't pay attention to that the treasury is there, right? Are you all, is there, is there an issue with the um. Amount of funding are, are you in contention with that you owe this or do you all have the funding to meet your financial obligations? Um, we, we can, we can meet the financial obligations, um, we would have to do it like in, in, in a payment sort of thing because I think it's like around what, about 14,000. And so we would have to do payments, but we can. We can meet that obligation. I mean, again, we are very small and I think right now it's, um, uh, in our general fund, I think we have about, um, 3000 or so dollars in there. So we're, it's quite small. OK, Mr. Chia, I'll get back, I'll get back in the queue because I did want to come to the the judge, but I'll get back in the queue. Sent to Payton, sir, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my question is very much along the same line as Senator Love, um. I'd just like to know if anybody seated at the table. Disagrees with or would like to dispute any of the findings of legislative audit or or is there agreement that legislative audit got it right? Yes, sir, I agree they did get it right. So is there any part of the legislative audit recommendations that you would like to dispute that you think is, is not necessary to to right the wrong. No, sir, I do agree with what the, the, the legislative audit found when they come to the city and done the books, we have reimbursed the $1800 back where it needs to be, and we are working on the other as a senator requested a little bit ago, we will try to get them caught up. OK, just to be clear, I think you mentioned 14,000, but legislative audit recommends the transfer of $38,923. From the police department fund to the bond and fine account. So I mean that's a 38, almost $39,000 transfer there. Sir You know. Yeah That was the 18. Going the 1839 was, was what was left out of that 38 that needed to be you've already transferred the 38,900, ma'am, if you would please speak closer to the microphone. I did not hear you. The transfer of the 1839 from general to the court automation, that was the What was left over of the 38 that was supposed to be. OK. So I guess just to simplify it, everything's where it should be now. So just to simplify, if anybody at the table. Uh, objects to doing the recommendations of legislative audit. Would you please speak up? OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Payton, and I'm gonna have the staff speak up, uh, to make a clarification. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So our audit staff reached out and Um, through email communications yesterday with recorder treasure. And, um, there does seem to be a little bit of confusion still about the $38,000. So our, um, our plan is to meet with the two ladies after this meeting and go over that again, um, to help them understand exactly how the transfer needs to happen. Um, some of it has been done, but What they sent us yesterday does not satisfy the 338,923 that we discussed. And so we're going to work with them and help them and show them the numbers and help them understand. How the transfer, um, happened on the front end and how it needs to happen to correct it. And the chair recognizes Senator Hammer. Thank you Miss Steph. Would you mind Would you mind repeating what you just said because I, I just try to get my mind around what you just said because I think I just need an understanding of the clarification between what they are interpreting as having satisfied the obligation and what you just said. Yes, sir, Senator. So we reached out yesterday to get proof that these transfers had taken place and the deposit ticket that we received was not for the full 338,923. And so, um, When I was visiting with the auditor that did this, he agreed that after this meeting, after, um, We, we would sit down with them again. We've already sat down with them and, and explained it and showed the spreadsheet of where the money was, but we're going to sit down with them again and help them understand. So we're going to continue to work with Bauxite to help resolve this issue. How much was the deposit ticket for? Yes what we looked at yesterday was for the, um, satisfy the 18,0254. So is it audits position that the 38,000 is still owed? That's correct. It still needs to be transferred to the correct account. I'd like to hear the treasure's response or the lady's response to that, if you don't mind, please, Ms. Chastain. And I'm sorry, what what was your question? I'm just trying to get my, I know y'all are gonna have a meeting afterwards it sounds like. But the, the testimony y'all just gave, gave me at least the impression that y'all had already transferred the 38,000 and you, you're sitting there thinking that that 38,000 is satisfied. Is that your understanding or not? I thought that the 38,000 was satisfied, but it's like we will definitely get with, uh, the auditors and. See where what has happened. I mean, yes, well, well, I mean, it will be corrected. OK, OK, um. Chris, I'd like to ask you a question, um. Is, is this your area of expertise that because It seems like They It seems like bauxite wouldn't be in this situation if they'd gotten the legal advice along the way and so Mayor, um, I'd like you to weigh in on this too after Chris gets done and then, and then Judge Cassidy. And that is How did we get here in the first place, if you're the legal counsel, is this your area of expertise or what do we need to do moving forward and that may put you on an awkward spot. I realize brain surgeons don't do gallbladder surgery, so maybe lawyers don't either, but what, how did we get here? All right, so I knew of the transition and I knew of the agreement that we had. And it was my understanding under our interlocal agreement that there would be a 90 day transit notice period and transition. We could work through these financial issues because I know that there are specific accounts, but how those actually work, I do not know. I, I don't do that type of lawyering stuff. I know that there's the court automation fund. I know there's fines and fees, and I know those monies have to be separated. I knew that those accounts had been set up as far as the specifics of who can sign what and where. I did not know. I was not involved in the transition as this was going and as I understand it, when we gave notice of hey. We're wanting to do this transition, pretty much all the files were handed over to us at the one time. And so that put us in a situation of trying to sink or swim, and apparently we did some sinking in this, this deal. I have no doubt that we're working to try and resolve these issues. As I understand it, what happened when the money initially came over, we set up the accounts, didn't fully, I don't believe the city officials fully understood the necessity of one, the naming conventions that are in state law, where you have to name the accounts specific things. And how the money flows from the one account to the other accounts and out. And that was part of the, basically, it was a messed up transition from, from my viewpoint of it. And you're correct, this is not the, uh, gallbladder surgery that I'm familiar with. Um, I've been involved with it from a distance, but I haven't really started studying it until recently trying to help work through this. But I am, you know, confident that we're working to get the issues resolved. I don't believe there's been any money, uh, Improperly spent. I think it may have been put in wrong accounts, but we're working to fix those out and get the names right and we're happy to work with legislative audit to make that happen, Senator. All right, Mr. Chairman, can I have a question to the mayor. Go right ahead, Senator. Thank you. Mayor. The question I'd like to ask you and give you a chance to uh speak to and Judge Cassidy if the chair let me then, then I'll yield up, but They, is there any intent on your part to take any money from any account associated with the fines and fees and use it for other purposes other than where it's supposed to be. No, sir. It comes out of the out of the accounts and goes in for the payroll of of a PD or the Marshall department and associated, uh, expenses related to it. Then let me ask you, how do you feel that we Got to where we are or how is it that we have gotten to where we are, that the money is not in the proper accounts. From, from your administrative position, how do we get to where we are? To be honest with you center, it's hard for me to answer that because like, like Chris said, we, that was handed to us the day that we went over there to get the ladies for court clerk. So it is, it is honest mistake on our part that we transferred the money to the wrong account. We was the understanding that when we had the audit done, we had transferred it out of this one account into the correct account. Evidently we didn't do what we should have done, but that's the way we understood the audit when they come down and. spoke with us a few weeks ago. So that is what we're going to get corrected to figure out where it is and get it transferred in the correct, uh, correct account. In the correct amount. And what about the judge's name being on the account? I, I am not in office. Let me, let me tell all the, the senators and representatives. I am a working mayor. I'm not in the office 7 days or 5 days a week, 8 hours a day. So I don't get Privy to everything that comes in. I was notified of the email that, that the the court clerk sent to the judge and I was the privy to the email that the judge sent back requesting her name be put on the, the Checking account. I don't have a problem with that. Maybe I should have, have had them go ahead and send her, uh, who she wanted to be put on it, but I don't have a problem with that. No, sir. So you work toward getting it done. I'm working towards getting it done, but there again, I am not in the office 8 hours a day. I'll work and I have to go down and take care of this stuff for the evening or take off work to go do it. So it's not something that I am privy. 5 days a week to because there may be 2 or 3 days that I do not go in the office because I'm working. And Judge Cassidy, your response or anything you wanna weigh in on that as far as the money where it's supposed to be getting back to where it's supposed to be, do you feel that it's moving in the right direction or I want to open up the mic for you to respond. Uh, Senator Hammer, no, I do not. I, I don't feel like any of this has happened in a timely manner, um. And I, I first I'll go back to the 90 day notice requirement. Now, you know, I, I am a full-time state district court judge. So I have multiple cities that I, that I service the largest city being Bryant, um, Shannon Hills, Haskell. Bauxite, those cities also come to Bryant and have a similar contract to the one that we're discussing here today, OK? So at some point, bauxite had their court in-house, so to speak. So in the, in the city of Hall of Bauxite. clerks were there. Everything was maintained there. During that time, I was signing checks. Now there have been numerous court clerks over the years. I'm about to start my 4th term, I think. Um, and it was always that way, OK? So, Several years back, The city of Box I wanted. The contract with Bryant for Bryant to handle all of the administrative duties, meaning the City Hall of Bauxite would not have court clerks or any personnel that would deal with court business. People, citizens would show up at the City of Bryant, which is very close, just a couple of miles down the road. And the clerks and Bryant would handle all of the day to day business for that city in exchange for a $1200 a month payment. So we started doing that. Those checkbooks, same accounts that had always existed, essentially just got picked up out of Bryant City Hall and brought to, I mean, Bauxite City Hall and brought to Bryant. Already had my name on it. I just had to add my chief clerk, Lindsay Denwitty, who's here, and we continued to do the monthly operations under the contract for the city of Bauxite. Now, Last year, Mayor Jones wanted to meet with us, and it all centered around money in those court accounts And it's a little complicated to explain, but the, the bond and fine account for a city is always going to have money that cannot be distributed yet. Bond and fine money. So if you, if you get arrested and you pay a bond. At the end of the month, I'm not going to disperse that money because you haven't been adjudicated guilty or pled guilty. So every month when we run reports. Those reports tell us exactly how much money goes out, and it's not going to equal the amount of money in the bank account. And every time we, we talked or every time a representative from the police department was sent over. It all hinged on that money and access to that money. And in in June of last year, I, I was, they requested a meeting. The mayor came over, my chief clerk Lindsay did what he was there. A police chief who's no longer with them was there and an officer who's no longer with them were there. Now, I did not know at the time, but they had already passed an ordinance to move things back to bauxite. But all that meeting was about was money. And we tried to explain how many is distributed and showed the reports that we get. And I, I thought there was an understanding and that everybody left feeling like they better understood how things went. So fast forward, Bryant continues to do the, the administrative work for the city of Bauxite. We never received a written notice of their intent to take things back. In fact, like I said, we were sitting at the same table, and that had already been passed, but I was not told. So in March, March the first of this year. A representative from the police department contacted Judge Clay Ford, who's the other district judge in Sing County and asked him if he would swear in some new clerks for the city of Bauxite. Um, He contacted me and told me that, and then he contacted them and said, You're going to have to contact the judge that is assigned to bauxite if you want new people sworn in. So it's my belief that had Judge Ford done that, those clerks would have been sworn in without my knowledge, let alone what the Arkansas code says about me. Appointing them and having, you know, say in that. So this is very contentious, and it has been this way for a long time. And it's my belief that it's about money. It's about access to those accounts. And I'm sorry I rambled. Thank you, Judge. I'm done for now. I'm I like to recognize my co-chair Representative Gassway, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I think that Basically answered my question, uh, based on what Senator Hammer asked, but essentially, something's going on here. And uh I can't tell exactly what it is, but there's some type of, uh, animosity. I, it seems between the mayor and the district judge, uh, or that office and, and you just answered that you think it's about the money. Uh, which is a fair answer, may very well be what it's about, but it seems pretty clear to me that something's going on here and I'd just like an explanation for somebody to just get real for a second and explain what's really going on here. So somebody wants to do that, I'm open to listen. Thanks. Well, you know, back, back to the bank accounts. I was removed from the bank account without my knowledge. I think the legislative audit will tell you all that during the time that I was on the account and that my clerk, Lindsay Denwitty, was on the account. Funds were not commingled. They were not distributed improperly and everything was accounted for. Once I was removed. Without my consent or knowledge. That is when funds became co-mingled. That is when money was taken from the bond and fine account and the court automation account improperly. That is when many, you know, was floated over to another account to cover payroll and then paid back, you know, those are things that should not happen. And, and the day, yes, I did end up swearing the clerks in because Bryant hadn't been paid for the contract. I didn't appoint them or select them, but they were there. They were already city employees. I did give them everything on that day. But I gave them a memo that listed everyone that they would need to contact and all of the things that they would need to do to get themselves up and running. And, and one of the attachments was this district court accounting law. And I said, this is a new responsibility for all of you. You know, as court clerks, you have to read this and you're responsible for complying with the law. It and I got this from the administrative office of the courts to make sure that I provided them with everything that they would need. And it's, you know, it's pretty simple that there are laws in place for a reason. And if you're going to have the responsibility of managing those accounts, you have to properly distribute the money. Follow up, Mr. Chair. Go ahead, sir. Thank you. So, and thank you, Judge, I appreciate that because it doesn't appear to me to be a coincidence that you were taken off the bank account, that all this money that should have been in those accounts is now in some other account. None of these things are just a coincidence. All of this happened. It appears to me in a very coordinated way. Very likely, it sounds like now based on your explanation is about the money and so I think that's very helpful and I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, sir, can I, can I speak just for a moment. Um, and I will tell you, I, I feel that if we had the 30 day Our agreement considered 30 days between Bryant and Bauxite within and each of those parties would be able to, um, dismiss the agreement and given 30 days. We didn't get 30 days. We got an afternoon and by 4:30, the court clerks were sworn in at 2 o'clock. By 4:30, Bryant's window was closed and we had a line that was out of the door with, um, people paying. Tickets, we had, we didn't have a receipt book, we didn't have accounts, we didn't have a computer, we didn't have the software, we didn't have anything. So had we. Been able to be within the 30 days this mass would not have happened, but when you've got people giving money, what are you going to do? And, and it's, I had it stuffed in a drawer. That drawer has got to be deposited. Where am I going to deposit that at? We don't, we didn't even have time to even open an account to get things transferred over. Nothing. We got, we got closed off at 4:30 on March 12th. So that I, I do feel that that needs to be spoken because it's like it was not intent for us to, you know, to, uh, deceive anything. This is what our council wanted. We had ladies that were able to step up to the plate and said yes, we'd be happy to do so. Uh, we had them sworn in. The judge said this was not her first rodeo. She was used of having a number of court clerks. That's great. This is what we did and but by 4:30, it's like. We're done. We're done. So we didn't get and to this day we don't get help from, from the, uh, from Bryant. So what are we supposed to do? So we have to deal with what what's on the table. Was it right? Was it wrong? Probably not, but you know what, but that money was deposited. We had even our, uh, the ecors, you know, where you can pay online. That wasn't even, we weren't even being able to transfer that until like weeks later. And that's part of the 38,000. So it's like, so here we are. It's like I know that it can't be mingled in, in, in, uh, the general fund, so we stuffed it into the police department. Was that right? That's the only option that I had. What am I gonna do? We don't have a safe. I can't put cash into a safe. It can't stay there overnight. Now we've got 3 $4000 that is in cash and what am I supposed to do? So I deposited it. But nothing seemed, it didn't seem like it was a, a problem at 2 o'clock, but boy, it was a problem like at 4. Thank you, ma'am. And the chair will now recognize Representative Hawk. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, OK, first off, ma'am, I'm, I guess the treasurer, I'm over here, um, it sounds to me like you're shifting blame on Bryant now, but no, just like you, you sounds like you're shifting blame on Bryant when there was never. Coordination with the judge from day one, because you, you're sitting here saying that, you know, at 2 o'clock it was OK, at 4:30 it was not OK. Well, people have to go home, right? And, and this was not the judge's fault, correct? This was you guys coming in and wanting to shift the courts down the boxx side and so this was your doing. This was, this was not anybody else but yourself to blame on the rush and and the time timeliness of this, correct? No, I disagree with. I disagree with that because had we had the 30 days, none of it would happen. Nobody honored those 30 days. Nobody honored that. It's like, so what is somebody supposed to do? Did you coordinate with the judge at all on any of this? I personally did not know. Did anybody from the city of Bauxite coordinate with the judge at all on this? Judge Cassid, did anybody coordinate with you on the, on the transition and if it were to be done with you, how would you have done this differently? Oh, yeah. No, no one coordinated with me and the, the notice that she's talking about would have been a notice in writing. And had that happened, there would have been certain things that I could have helped with. Now, um, MSI, the company that we use, virtual Justice had there been a transition period, what would have happened is they would have made payment to MSI. MSI would have done what they needed to do to get their system up and running. And then part of what they do also is quote the city a price depending on how many clerks there are and how much time it will take, they quote them a price on how to train the clerks on that system. Now, here, here is the issue, and I think you all can see there's a lot of disorganization, the, the, the management inbox site, it is a problem. There is just no way that I was going to let my Bryant clerks share responsibility in that system, which is what I hear them saying might should have happened. That's not gonna happen. You know, there's past, there's Passcode access, there's entries, there's deposits. One entity has to be responsible for that, because then when legislative audit comes and they're looking through the checking accounts and there's $38,000 that's been put in the wrong place. Someone has to be responsible for that, and it's my belief that it has to be a clear responsibility where I haven't allowed two separate cities clerks to work on the same system at the same time. So that is, that is the Cut off that they're talking about. Yes, I wore them in. Yes, we did have everything for them to take back to the city of Bauxite. But on this memo that I gave them. It had all that contact information on it. The first one being MSI Consulting Group with their address and their phone number, and then down toward the bottom, credit card payments, e-corp pay with their phone number and Rosa, the contact that we use at that business. So it was all there and yes, it would have been a rushed operation for them, but they decided that's what they wanted to do, and I gave them a memo with all of the pertinent information. They, it would have been urgent. They would have had to go back and start making those calls and, and. Handle it quickly. Now with regard to deposits and checking accounts, I kept those checking account books because at that time I was on that account, they were never denied the opportunity to make deposits and no one called or emailed to ask for that opportunity or for help with that. Got you Um, my next question, uh, for if you're OK with that, Mr. Chair. Go right ahead, sir. Um, for Mr. Madison. Bauxite's 4 miles away from Bryant, right? I, I just did a Google Maps of it. So it's 4 miles from, from the district judge or from the courthouse to bauxite. What is in your opinion, what, what's the point of this when it's 4 miles away, it just seems added resources are, are not needed to, to, to go down to Bauxite when we're we're talking about 4 miles here. I, I know I, I just texted with the mayor of Alexander, and they're trying to get the courts out of Alexander back to Bryant. In your opinion, why, why is this being done? what's the need for this when it was working just fine in Bryant. So I can't speak to policymakers' beliefs on it. Um, but what I can say is. The agreement allows and the law allows. Clarks to be either housed within the city that is responsible for the fines and fees and the violations or to shift it someplace else. And so one, the law allows this. And so it's an exercise of your lawful right to do it. Secondly is the opportunity to actually have direct control and input on the money and how it's going and tracking it. And, you know, I, I, I recognize the frustration between the, the treasurer and the judge and the mayor here. And really, there's a lot of distrust, I think, is, is one of the challenges, both sides, um, and I think that has really aggravated the over. circumstances. One of the things I would like to point out is the agreement that we're talking about and, and. The Ms. Chastain was talking about 30 days. It's actually a 90 day notice and it is written. What's interesting is the third page, which has that 90 page in it. We didn't have in bauxite. The scandon image that Bryant scanned in years ago when we did this agreement in 2017, the third page didn't get in. In fact, I called back some time ago and I didn't follow up, but I called and left a message asking for this and hadn't gotten it. Had we had access to this, we would have followed this precisely because I would ensure that that's what we had done. Is this a messed up deal? Absolutely. Are we trying to get it fixed? Absolutely. The monies and the transfer was done rushed and unfortunately, when you have people that are unwilling to cooperate, it makes it even more challenging. I mean, I'm, I'm happy to try and work through the circumstances of this. I have no doubt that the, the recorder treasurer and our deputy court clerk want to do what's right. I believe I've spoken with legislative audit chief counsel about these exact same issues. We're trying to get the things fixed. Could it have been done better? Absolutely. Had we had this, I'd have given the we'd have given the 90 days' notice and we would walk through the transition period, you know, and is it a challenge? Yes. Are we trying to fix it? Yes. Here's the thing, I can't undo The bad things and the bad blood, but we can say, OK, we're at a position now, we know what our problems are. And we're going to move the money and do what we need to do to get fixed. That's, and that's all we can do at this point. From, from my perspective. So, I think it's a matter of exercise of lawful jurisdiction, and it's a matter of, hey, we want the direct control of this and we have the authority to do it. Thank you, sir. One last question, Mr. Chair, um, to the judge, Judge Casty, when you guys were handling all this, did you guys send out monthly statements, um, showing the account balances and things of that nature. Representative Hawke, I'm glad you asked that because in the July meeting, The mayor had said that one of his issues was that monthly disbursements weren't made. And I can assure you, yes, every month, we ran reports and every month with no exceptions, we sent out checks to every entity, the DFNA everywhere that we were supposed to send them every single month. And if I might add one thing. Um, in the July meeting, I did watch it a few times. Mr. Madison referenced that in her local agreement and he talked about the period of time that you would give notice, um, it, it is a little misleading to say that he didn't have that. You guys, he drafted that. He wrote that. He was the city attorney in Bryant when that agreement was entered into. He, he knows the terms of that agreement. That's misleading. If I may, you recognized. Thank you. You're right. I did draft agreement in 2017 when I was working for the City of Bryant. And if I recall correctly, I said it's a 30 or 90 day I couldn't recall specifically what it was. I didn't have it in front of me. Had I had it in front of me, we would have followed the exact terms of it. Did I know there was a notice term in there? Yes, I remember the specifics of it. No, not until I saw it just this morning. Thank you, sir. church you may continue. Did I answer your question, Representative Hawk? Thank you, Judge. And, and Mayor uh city of Bauxside, a lot of us are from small towns. A lot of us have been on city councils and have been mayors and no, no one is on trial here. We're just trying to understand what's going on and, and help you all put this thing back together. And, and I appreciate this, sir. I really do. I'm not an attorney. I don't write the laws. I don't know how to, how they interpret. And I, and I tell Chris, you can get 100 attorneys in a room and you're gonna get 100 different opinions of laws. So we're trying to do the best that we can do to make sure that we are following the law and to make sure that we're, we are correct on what we're doing. It's, it's. True enough, it may have been haste on my part. I will take the blame on that because I am the mayor of the city. I mean, I'm not gonna put the blame on anybody else. It, it's, it falls on my shoulders, but there again, I'm not an attorney. I don't know the laws. I don't interpret them. So, you know, I appreciate everything that, that the legislative audit has done and come in and tried to walk us through this stuff and tell us how to do stuff and, and going forward, we will try to do a, a, a lot better job of what is going on. Thank you, sir. And the chair recognizes Senator Love. Sent to love, you recognize her? Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, uh, um, thank you all for being here. Uh, it's just You know, I, I had the same questions as Representative Hawkhead in regards to, I, I would say but Mayor, I do want to ask you something because you wouldn't have the, you would have the, I'm gonna say you would have the knowledge of what the council was thinking in regards to moving the court back to to bauxite. So what I mean, like, why did you all feel necessary? That the court needed to move back to box sign. Sir, the only thing that I can, that I can answer that with is, is the council looks at it that this is part of the city of Bauxite and the council wants to have control of this finances beings we are responsible for the finances. And, and that was one of the reasons we had discussed this several times in meetings about it. Myself and the recorder treasurer in that city council is is ultimately responsible for all the monies that comes through that city, whether it be going through court and Bryant or whether it be going through the court at bauxite or going through the, the recorded reass in the court clerk. They want to make sure that They're not getting blindsided if something is done incorrectly. And this is one of the issues that they looked at wanted to bring it back over there so they could have more control of it and could understand it. And, and, and be. able to discuss it and stuff. We have received one bank statement from Bryant since they've had it at their court. They send us the reports that they send the checks out, true enough they do do that, but we have never received but one bank statement on each checking account sent to the city to present to the city council. All we get is a report like the judge said, where she pays stuff out and pays the DFNA and the different places, but we had no idea how much money was in each account. Because we never received a bank statement. And that was one of the issues with the city council. OK, and so when you all planned on making this transition because I mean, you passed an ordinance. So there was a plan to make the transition. Why did you all feel like you could not include the judge in that transition. To my knowledge, sir, we tried to, and whenever the court, the girls went over there to get swore in, it was all dropped in their lap. We had talked to about sending a letter. We didn't know how the 30 days or 90 days, 60 days, whatever it was. It happened so quick that that we didn't get a chance to do what we needed to do according to the agreement. And, and that's the issue that we have here. We, we got thrust into it and, and there again, I'm gonna take the blame for this. I'm the mayor of the town. And it is, it's my responsibility, but if they're, you know, true enough, there could have been more verbal communications and more working together to try to make sure everything was done correctly. So there, there's nothing else that I can put to that. OK, clarify something for me because you said I'm confused in regards, you said you were thrust into this. and, and I mean by whenever they went over to be sworn in, they was handed all the paperwork that day. We, we didn't have a chance to, to work with Bryant to transfer over, it was handed to us that day when the ladies went over to get swore in. OK, what was the agreement coming to an end or did the resolution in the agreement? I'm, I, I guess, I mean, do you hear what I'm saying, Chris? Did the resolution that you are passed in the agreement or was there some agreement in place that was going to, it was an interlocal agreement. So ending in, and so therefore you were thrust into this position. So I, I think I'm gonna, I'm gonna take some of the responsibility in this also because during this transition I was busy doing other stuff and it's a small city and I try not to build them for things, you know, as we were working through it. The selection, so the adoption of the ordinance by the city council began it on our side. It was my understanding, and I could be correct if I'm wrong, is that when we went to do the meeting and get the clerks sworn in, we thought that was one of the steps. We needed to do. And it was then that we would then work through the transition period with the finances. But instead of having the the transition period after our clerks were sworn in and eligible to do the work. is when it was just given to us to start working with. And, you know, I wasn't there at that meeting. I didn't help facilitate that, uh, in hindsight, I wish I would have been, but it's one of those things that, uh, you know, I think, I think from the city of Bauxite's perspective, we were, OK, hey, we want to transition this back from the city of Bryant's perspective, and I understand the judge saying I don't want two different people working the books. I totally understand that. Um, could it have been done differently? Absolutely. And I, I think when we talk about being thrust into it was our intent was, hey, OK, we're lawful now. We want to shadow, learn, do the transition period, and that wasn't what we got. And then we had to start working with it. And so, uh, I mean, lot, lots of mistakes were made and we're working on fixing those. And I understand that the judge's position on it of not having two people involved in it. Totally respect that. Uh, I just, I, I think the animosity or the distrust. Just exacerbated the circumstances of, of the transition and the notice. And, and had, and yeah, I wrote the agreements so I said well, had I had this in front of me, I guarantee you we would have followed the 90 day written notice and follow the steps of it. I knew there was a notice provision in there, but I don't remember what the specifics of it were, and I couldn't get a hold of it, so. I, I'll accept the responsibility on that side of it because we were trying to get the things done and I should have followed up more to make sure I had the agreement in front of me to follow the terms of it. I've got quite a few in the queue, so I'm gonna move you back to the back of that. Representative Darby, ma'am, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm over here in the far right side. This is basically for Judge Cassidy and I really think that the next report, the special report that's next will help answer probably some of the questions that I have, but it appears to me, Judge Cassidy, that there was money that was deposited though improperly. And that some of that money was being used to make payroll and other departments and not in the judicial department of the district court. And it also appears to me that. Uh, there was money, the court stuff was moved back to bauxite in part because bauxite was behind in payments to Bryant and didn't, hadn't made the payments they were supposed to to Bryant. And it appears in our last meeting, if I recall, and I want you to kind of I'm putting this all in one question so you can just address it, Judge Casty in our last meeting, I recall the mayor testified that you were always notified as to dispersements from being made out of the court automation fund and is that correct? All of those different things, if you could kind of speak to those, please. Um, starting with the, the misuse of the, the court funds. Yes, that is my understanding that, that it was transferred to another account that was not a court account and that it was used for something else. And, and, in fact, the information that I had gotten for one month, was that the court bond and fine account did not have enough money in it to send out the monthly settlement checks required by law until more money came in, which, which obviously should never happen if you're complying with. State law with regard to the accounting laws. Um, now, for court automation, And that's part of of the state law with regard to, to judge's approval for that, the spending of that money, uh, since the transition. I do not recall ever receiving a request for an approval or, or anything like that in by way of email or hard copy. I just don't remember that. I haven't had access to that automation account. I haven't seen any statements. Uh, other than information provided by legislative audit. Still today I don't believe I have any access to it and nor would I be privy. At one point I contacted the bank through my clerk, Lindsay Denwitty, just to see if we had the authority to come look at things or ask for information, and we were told by the bank that we did not. And if, if I may have a couple of follow-ups, Mr. Chair, uh, and Judge under Arkansas law as I understand the Arkansas law, the district court judge. is the signatory on that bank account for that fund, is that correct? Well, and, and what I think for the automation account, it hinges on approval. You know, regardless of who, who may sign those checks, nothing should come out of that account without the district judge approving that expenditure. Because that account is used specifically for automation within the district court, correct? Right. And it could be used for things that benefit the city of Bauxite now that it's housed in the city of Bauxite, but it would still have to go through me. So it could, it could be used to pay a monthly bill or something else related to automation expenses, but that would be something that would be discussed with me and then I would approve that expenditure. And none of that was happening, is that correct hasn't happened since, um. The clerks were sworn in for the city. And then with regard to the bond and fine account, you know, it's very clear how that money is to be maintained and how that money is to be sent out. It should never be sent to another account within the city or used to pay for any expense that the, you know, the report that comes out. From our case management system tells us where that money goes. It's, it's very simple, unless you make it complicated. And, and I feel like the, the law is pretty simple, unless you don't follow the law, and then it becomes very complicated like what we're dealing with right now. And in that regard to the bond and fine money, let's say it. I had gotten a ticket or and I post a bond, that money's going to sit there until the court adjudicates that my case, correct? And there's either got to be a finding of guilt, a of guilt or a finding of not guilty and then that money starts getting dispersed. Right? So the case has to be adjudicated. So even if you get a speeding ticket, you don't have to come to court. People get speeding tickets and they pay their ticket. But if you got your ticket today. And you paid your ticket online tomorrow. But the court date on your ticket isn't until. October 5th. You know, that's the day that I'm going to actually find you guilty of speeding October 5th. So there you've got October 5th. So then in November, after October has completely ended in November, we'll run a report that tells us how much money goes to each place, and that money would actually show up in a check to bauxite in November. Even if you got the ticket today and paid it tomorrow. I hope that makes sense, but it's, we're always a month behind and sometimes further than that, depending on the offense and what the money is there for. You know, if it's a bond. Because you got a DWI 2 or 3. That money still has to sit there. Until you come to court and plead guilty or you have a trial and you're found guilty. And, you know, sometimes people post that, and then they don't show back up for court. So there are times when that money May sit there in limbo for a while. But that's the right thing to do. It has to sit there until That case has been adjudicated. And, and one last question, Mr. Chair. Judge, but that money is sitting there. It's not for the general use of anybody that wants to come along and use that, correct? I mean, I, I look at it sort of like an attorney's trust account, you know, that money is there and it is designated for a specific thing and the way the law reads it can't be used for anything else, period. Thank you. And the chair recognizes my co-chair Representative Gassway. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, and thank you, Judge, for that explanation that that's also very helpful. We, we heard earlier, uh, essentially that. An explanation that with regard to the money, this transition period that didn't take place as it should and so there was this money there and they didn't know what to do with it, so they had to put it in certain accounts. And OK, that's fine. But is it not also true that they hired your clerks? Can you explain exactly how that situation happened? So. You, you mean the clerks that are now the clerks, the clerks that are housed in bauxite. So, so there were 3 people that came over the day that I swore the new clerks in. Uh, one of them was doing work for the police department. And so I had told her, you know, the way that I read the law, you cannot work for the police department and be a court clerk. So confirm with me later that you're no longer that you no longer have responsibilities and job duties with the police department. I'll swear you in later. That did happen later. So there were two other clerks, um, um, that came and were sworn, um, they were already City of Box. Employees. I believe in the water department. There was no like selection process or interview process or these weren't new hires. OK, but to be clear, the law allows you, as the district court judge. To hire the clerks who work for you. That's what Arkansas law provides. Am I correct? That's right. And that did not happen in this case. So who hired the clerks who work for you? Well, you know, they were already city employees, and then they just were, were handed additional duties of of court clerk duties. I, I didn't, I wasn't consulted about that, nor did I consent to that. I did swear them in, but listen, they owed the city of Bryant $13,000. They wanted it back. I do believe the law allows them to, unless you all change it in your next session, you know, bauxite is a court department. They're allowed to be in the city of Oxide if that's what they want to do. I felt in that way that I was limited. And, and I think you all have seen enough reports on the city of Bauxite to understand, you know, their funds are limited too. They couldn't go higher and it, I, I think from their perception, they probably couldn't go hire a new clerk. I have had other small cities where there have been turnover with clerks. And, and in every other situation the way it has gone is something like this. They let me know or the current clerk lets me know that they're moving on. And then there, there is an advertisement that, you know, posted the job applicants. I, I'm forwarded a list of the applicants. I looked through those. One of the things that's important to me because it does involve the handling of funds is background checks. We've always done those. And then there's an interview process where we talk to everyone who's interested in the job, and then I select the person that I want to have those responsibilities, even if they're housed in the city hall of a smaller city where I don't go to work every day, if that makes sense. Yeah, thank you for that explanation. I appreciate that. So just to be clear, and this is really my point. Is that There's kind of this argument out there that all of this was just simply a big misunderstanding about the money because there was some uncertainty about what to do with it for a period of time because there was this transition. But the fact is, you were never consulted about who was going to serve as clerk before they showed up to be sworn in, essentially. Your name was taken off a bank account without your knowledge or consent. And so it's not just about confusion about where the money goes. It was more than that. It, it's more than that. There's no confusion on my part. I'm not confused about how anything should happen. Yeah, absolutely. OK, thank you very much. And the chair recognizes Representative Rye. Yes sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Judge Let me ask you a question. Let's just say that you have a certain amount of tickets and All those are written. In this originality, who handles that particular job on the front end. As far as the breakout of what goes here, the breakout of what goes there. Is that your Call there. Well, no state law dictates how the money is divided up. So like the, the fines and fees, the code will actually address that. And then we use a MSI or system, you know, when that ticket is entered into the system or uploaded into the system, it's there, and when you receive payment for that, and then you run that month-end report, that system is set up to automatically divide that money up. OK, follow up, please. Um, Then once that actually takes place, that disbursement, the money that is supposed to be held by the city, state, county, and all down the line, that goes to where it's supposed to go. Now, as far as the bank accounts. You said you were taken off of the account. Are you, who is, who took your place on that? Well, so after, and I, I was actually told. By legislative audit that I was no longer on those accounts. The city never told me. Um, Jimmy Locke, who, who is here, was the auditor that we were going back and forth with providing information to him based on emails and calls, and he had called, he had, he had sent me a message that he wanted me to call him and I called him. And it, it was just a, hey, I just want you to know you're not on those accounts anymore. Almost like, don't try to write a check or sign your name on that account because you're not on it. And I appreciated that because I did not know. And he, he's the only one who's communicated that with me even. To date. So. I want to move back to the queue so I can get others that we've got quite a few still in the queue. Since a dismay, sir, you recognize I'll try to be brief and what I'm trying to go back to is one step farther in the past because this is where the head nodding and I think the big disagreement is. All right. So I mean, there was someone was made aware at some point that bauxite wanted to do this. They were just exercising their rights as we allow by law and I guess what I'm curious about is. But we're pretending like I, so did that just happen in a vacuum and Judge, you weren't made aware of that and no one was aware that these conversations were happening and one day we just woke up and suddenly box that says we're going to do this in 24 hours, we do it later. We, you, you send them a memo, tell them good luck, whatever it is, is that, I mean, how, what was the timeline that led to this? Were you aware that this is what they were wanting to do? I did not know. In fact, we had the meeting in June, and no one told me about the council meeting that had happened the month before. I did, I didn't know that, you know, that's not, I don't routinely attend council meetings if, if the city attorney or someone from the mayor's office doesn't let us know that they have addressed something that pertains to us. I just don't know. I, you know, I know, I didn't know. I wasn't some news story. There wasn't anything that let you know that these people that you serve, We're wanting to make this change, there wasn't a news story to my knowledge, and generally when bauxite makes the news, someone will contact me and let me know, hey, did you hear about this? No one contacted me and said, did you, did you see they passed an ordinance or did you see they're taking the court clerk duties back to the city. No, I did not know. Um, March, I really, I, I just no no one contacted me by letter or phone call, nothing, um. We were you supportive of the move? I mean, if it had, you know, if it had happened to, you know, I guess if you'd gotten noticed, what would your response have been? I had gotten notice. I would have had them contact MSI and get the proper training ahead of time that they wanted to move and set this up with, I mean, are you supportive of what's happened? Well, obviously the things that have happened where the concerns that I had from the beginning I can tell from both sides. I don't think it's limited blame on bauxite's side to say that they didn't follow the procedure. It sounded to me like you gave him a memo and said, good luck. Um, and I, and I think, I don't think that's disputable from what I can hear today. What I'm trying to understand if there was any notice beforehand that this is what they wanted to do, and maybe they put you in that box because you had no idea this was. Go on, you just happen to have a memo that you gave them that day and said, here you go, figure it out, because I, I, I do understand because we also have other laws about depositing funds and so they're trying to figure out how to mesh everything that's happened in a very short window. And the best I can tell. And I guess at the end of it, my biggest question that I would like for you to answer, and I would really like to hear from Bauxite if there was any notification given whatsoever, because I know we're giving you a lot of time to say what you need to say, but I think they need to, I need to hear from them. I Were you, I mean, you really don't have a choice but to be supportive of this move. But I also know, for instance, if I pass a law and a and an agency doesn't like it, occasionally they do everything they can to prevent the implementation of that large drag their feet. Maybe it's the rule and, and that sort of thing. So I'm just hoping we're not in that situation where they were exercising, doing something they're allowed to do, but you didn't really like it. So then you just kind of, you help muddy and make a mess of things because of your inaction or maybe, you know, you're not, your lack of support for what they were trying to do. Were you, well, I mean, were, were you able to be supportive? Can you be supportive of the change because They're where they are, they have the right to do this and you are elected to represent them or serve them. I mean, you're paid to serve them, um, and so you don't, like I said, I, What, what are you going to do moving forward because the whole back and forth didn't really matter. Moving forward, I, I, to me, a good faith effort on their part would be putting me back on that bond and fine account so that I see where every check goes. Which is Because I feel like I have a responsibility to make sure that money goes to the right place. Like you said, be supportive in a partner in this deal, or is this something that you just don't want to do and and it's gonna be a difficult process from here on out. No, I don't think it's like that. I mean, I, I, I'm, I'm there to, to be the judge, you know, this is some administrative stuff that I get caught up in, which is part of what district judges have to do that's a little bit different than circuit judges or other judges. Um, and you know, Sometimes it's messy. This is obviously one of those cases. I, I don't feel like I'm not supportive of the change, and here we are, we've got to make it work we understand there's missteps. We're going to work through and move on, but I feel like it's just continuous finger pointing, and I don't know if the goal is that to move it back to Bryant or what's going on then let's just stop all that. And, but I, I would like to hear from the city. With that, I want to recognize the lady in the white blouse and then represented Betty, I'm gonna give you the last question. Go ahead, ma'am. Could you move closer to the microphone? chief of police at the time, Mike. Bowden had Talk to the judge about us being court clerks. As our name, how long we've worked at the city, what we do at the city, um, And told us that we needed to come March 12th to get sworn in. But if we would have known we were gonna get it dropped in our laps that day, we would have been making arrangements prior to To that, to be doing the right thing because, I mean, it was just, you're on the hook. Here you go. Mr. Chairman, may I speak? Go ahead, Mr. Mayor Senator, to your question, I will get the judge's signature back on the checking account and from, from this point forward, we will work with the judge on getting everything straightened out. She will get a bank statement every month on the checking accounts that we have and that way we can, can move forward with this and, and get all the, the, the petty issues out of the way. Like I said a while ago, this is all on my shoulders. I'm not. want the blame to the judge and not pointing the blame to the recorder treasury anybody. It's my job to do, to run the city. And I'm gonna do the best that I can to run it the best way that I know how and, and at least by what the law says to do, but I will when we leave here today, I will get the judge's signature back on the checking account. She did send an email requesting her have an alternate signature on it, so whoever she wants on it, that will be up to her. Uh, and then I will send her a bank statement every month of, of the checking accounts that we have. And that way she knows where the money's going, how much money's in it, every month, Tina, which is a court clerk, sends the payments out every month on the 10th to every department that is supposed to get it. So to your question, we will work through this and, and quit pointing the fingers. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and the chair recognizes a Representative Betty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm over here. Um, A couple of questions earlier in your testimony, Mayor, uh, you said you agreed with leg audit and the findings in the report, uh, I scrolled back to the management or didn't scroll back, turned to the last page on the management response on August 21st, um, and, and basically reading that letter basically says we've done nothing. We will do something at some point, but right now reading that nothing was done. So here we are about 3 weeks later. My question is to the findings of the report, not concerned about where the blame lies. In, in what happened. Have you changed the name on the account yet? Yes, sir, we have. All right. Um, The, the $38,000 has not been transferred back. What amount of that $38,000 has been transferred back, if any. Uh, served there again, uh, the, the legislative audit is going to get with us. It is my understanding that the money was always there. It was just put in the wrong checking account. Once we got the checking account straightened out, all the money was transferred in there with the exception of the $1,838 which was written yesterday, a check for that. My, my question is, what, what's the balance in the police department fund now, the, if the, um, treasurer can answer that. The police department, uh, does not have any court funds in there funds. I just asked what's the balance in the believe it's um. Mhm I want, it's not very much, it's like maybe a little over $100. $100. Yes, sir. All right. And then you did say that the $1838 was transferred to that automation fund. That is correct. Do you know what the balance in that automation fund is approximately 1,010,011,000. Well, Again, not pointing blame, um, On how we got here. But this report was fairly clear in the steps that needed to be taken. And, and here we are today at the majority of those steps have not been taken, um, can you tell this body that within the next 30 days or a time period where, where this will be taken care of and we can put this issue to rest. Mayor, Yes, sir, we will. We will meet with the legislative audit after this meeting and we will get it straightened hopefully within the next 30 to 60 days it will be done. Everything will be corrected, the funds will be where they're supposed to be, and then, you know, like I said, this, this issue can be put to, put to rest. I think that's all we're asking for. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. I am going to recognize folks we need to move on, but I'm gonna recognize representative Gonzalez for a quick question, and Senator Hammer, I'll give you the last question. Representative Gonzalez. I've, I've heard from the beginning of his testimony that, um, this was kind of a last minute thing like you had 24 hours to, to make these decisions but looking through our audit report, our auditors found that in 2023, the box up mayor asked city council for permission to move the administrative duties back to bauxite and recommended an individual to serve as court clerk at a meeting held on May 15th of 2023, and that's when the city council agreed that for the funds to be collected at City Hall. All And then, almost a year later on March 13th, 2024, bauxite resumed collect collecting fines, fees and costs for citations issued by the Bauxite Police Department. Um, and then on March 25th, the box up mayor issued a letter to the bank requesting the district judge in Bryant court clerk. Be replaced with bauxite officials and on May 14th, the Bauxite mayor, um, requested that the bond and bond account be. Us used by the Bryant court be closed. So can, can y'all help me understand that you acted like it was a last minute thing, but this shows almost a year from the time you first decided to take it over till when you did, had all that time to prepare and then you got, you got somehow surprised by what you, what your responsibilities were. So I think I, I'll, I'll speak to that representative. So the ordinance was passed in 2023. Um, we went through some transition in our staffing and office, things like that. So it was, it was slow. The, I, I think when we're talking about the dropped in our lap was, OK, we finally got our piece people in place. We've got our systems like we're ready to start actually doing this, should it have been done in 23, absolutely. But it was, wasn't until this year. 24 when we started working through the actual getting people doing the things. And I think when they refer to the drop in their place was that, hey, we're here to start doing the actual logistics of transition, and that's when it really went off the rails. Yeah, but that's not what the testimony was. I mean, the testimony was it got dropped in our laps and, uh, and we weren't ready at all. We didn't have any time to prepare. We didn't have accounts together, but they made a request to Cancel these accounts and knew that they were going to do this almost a year prior. So, so there were, it seems like there was plenty of time to get those accounts, those deposit accounts in place. Even, I mean, they would have been illegal accounts anyway because you didn't have the, the judge on those accounts, but they could have, they still could have been there. I still don't understand about the accounts. Judge Cassidy, you had mentioned earlier on that, that those accounts had remained open. But this acts like they were closed. But without your knowledge, so you, you have mentioned in your testimony earlier that the, the accounts remained open that they could have approached you about when they collected those funds, uh, depositing those monies back into that account even though they had some control of it, but so is. And I guess maybe you don't know if that, if they were closed without your knowledge, you maybe you thought they were still open. Are, are they open today or have they been didn't know when they were closed and, and like I said, like at such point that I was cut off from them, I couldn't even access information through the bank, even if the city didn't send me something, I couldn't go on my own and get information because I wasn't an authorized person on the account. But I didn't take any steps to close any of those accounts they could have continued to maintain those and had access to those. But it would have been illegal for them to do so because by law you have to be on the account. I mean, as I read the law, I have to designate. Who's on the account. And I had told them the day that I swore them in that I, that I intended to remain on that account and that they should let me know after they talked among themselves, which one of them they would want to have designated as the co-signer, so that, you know, there's two signatures on each check so that we would have some oversight and, and I went on to say, you know, we'll get together at the end of each month and look at the report and sign the checks and send the disbursements out. Yeah, yes, yes, sir. I just wanted to let you know it's, um, yes, even though that the ordinance was passed, uh, a year prior to that, um, we, I mean, we still weren't ready for it. We had um our clerks were not, um, designated. We really didn't know how we wanted to do this, um, so the, the delay accounts. Well, the delay, the delay happened. Well, it was a year later, but you had a year to care. OK, I think we're beating a dead horse here. This doesn't matter at, at, at this point. What matters is what you do going forward and you need, I mean, you need to get it correct by law, put her back on the accounts, you know, collect your own fines and fees, whatever, um. Just get it right. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Gonzalez. Well said, and Senator Hammer, you're recognized for the last question. Thank you, Mr. Sher. I have a question, then I have a motion if the chair will accept it, um, Chris, I want to ask you for, just so you have the opportunity to publicly state it in case the question is raised later, are you here on your own time and have you taken time away from your, uh, personal responsibilities in the capacity that you hold with the state. Yes, sir, I am and always have been as far as any time that you've ever represented. Uh, bauxite, uh, in any capacity you've always taken personal time away from your regular dues, is that correct? OK, very good. Just want to get that out of the record for your sake and our understanding. Mr. Chairman, I have a motion if you'd accept it. One second, uh, I'm gonna say something first, set your hammer and I'll come back to you. Thank you. Folks, first of all, thank you all for being here today. Um, You don't have to have each other over for Sunday dinner. But you're dealing with the people's money. And you all need to sit down and talk this out. You don't want us to come back next, next time we come back, it'll be much more unpleasant. So let's work this out. And with that, Senator Hammer, sure you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you'll accept the motion, I'd make a motion to file the report, but that, but that legislative staff will give us an update next month as to the progress that is being made, uh, with regard to this matter to keep us a surprised that movement is moving forward. I don't really want to ask the judge to have to, you know, clear her docket or the mayor to clear his. or staff, uh, but I would like our staff to report back to us and if we see that, um, you know, there's an issue, then we can call them back up. But my motion be to file it and get a report from our staff as to the progress that they are making to get this straightened out. That's my motion. Senator Hammer, that's a good motion. Do I have a second? I have a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That's a pretty weak eye, but we'll go with it. And this, uh, has been filed. Thank you all for coming here today. I know you're all very busy. Thank you excuse, sir. You you're dismissed, yes. Thank you, Judge. In love, we'll have to wait till he comes back. Members, uh, Central Love wanted to do this, but I wanna make sure that. Sir Ches fell still here today is Senator Chesterfield's birthday. My old seat mate. And Centen Chesterfield, thank you for all you have done for us over these years. You we appreciate you so much. How many years in the legislature. 2020 years, folks. 20 years of wisdom right there. Thank you, Linda. Thank you Now we're moving on to our next item, which is a special. Report concerning the Arkansas district courts. And, uh, Miss Lancombe, you recognize Heather? Thank you, Mr. Chair. This report is issued pursuant to a request approved by the legislative Joint Auditing Committee for legislative audit to obtain selected information concerning Arkansas district courts to help the House and Senate Judiciary Committees comply with Act 38 of 2023, which requires a legislative study, a financial matters related to the court system. And consideration of any legislative changes necessary to address issues identified during the study. This report was presented to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. On August 1, 2024. As shown in exhibit 2 on page 4, and on the slide, the state had a total of 39 state district courts and 10 local district courts during calendar year 2023. The 10 local district courts will no longer exist, beginning in calendar year 2025, when they will become state district courts. Appendix A provides a list of the county's departments, and outlying jurisdictions that make up each district. During the review period, there were 66 full-time state district judges from the 39 districts and 10 local district judges. Each judge serves a four-year term. Further information regarding state legal personnel and court administration can be found on pages 5 and 6 of the report. And caseload information for district courts and public defenders is provided in Appendix B. This slide shows the portion of exhibit one on page 3 that pertains to state and local district courts. As noted in the exhibit, both state and local district courts have limited civil and small claims jurisdictions, and here traffic violations and minor criminal matters. Overall, for calendar year 2023, District court annualized revenues or funding inflows totaled 119.4 million, including 59.3 million from state-generated revenues, and 60.1 million from local entities as shown in exhibit 7 on page 13 and on the slide. Annualized expenditures totaled 800.2 million, including 35.9 million in state cost and 44.3 million from local entities. As noted in the summary on page 12, the 23.4 million excess at the state level is primarily attributed to the inclusion of all state administration of justice or AOJ revenues totalling 24.7 million as reflected in appendices E and J. And they're being minimal expenses associated with district courts. Distributions from the state AOJ fund can be found in Appendix F. Items in this appendix that were utilized to fund a portion of the state expenditure amount of 35.9 million include distributions to the prosecutor coordinator, the municipal judge, Clark Education Fund, and the Arkansas Public Defender Commission. As reflected in Appendix F, distribution for these three totaled approximately 1.7 million. The slides that follow discuss these funding sources in further detail. The flow of state level court funding is discussed on pages 6 through 10 of the report. As reflected in Appendix J, these sources include those that are attributed to a district and those that are not. The 26.5 million attributed to individual districts is composed of 19.4 million in uniform filing fees and miscellaneous revenues. 3.8 million in proportional share of district judge salaries. 3.1 million in judicial fine collection enhancement fund fees, and nearly 239,000 in public defender user and attorney fees. An additional 32.8 million in funding could not be attributed to an individual district. Included in this amount is $11.9 million from the state's Central Service fund. 10.6 million from the Constitutional officers Fund. 1.2 million from the county aid fund and over 900,000 from professional bail bondsman's fees. An additional 8.2 million comes from other sources, including circuit court collections remitted to the state AOJ fund and the judicial fine Collection Enhancement Fund. The e-filing fee is collected by the Arkansas Supreme Court, which also benefit the judicial fine collection Enhancement Fund, and federal grants, as reflected in Appendix C and noted on page 6, uniform filing fees of $65 in the civil division and $50 in the small claims division are collected for initiating a cause of action. Additional court costs include $300 for violations of the omnibus DWI Act or the underage DUI law, $75 for traffic offenses. $100 for misdemeanor offenses. $25 for non-traffic violations or of local ordinances. $25 for violation of mandatory seat belt law, and $25 for failure to present proof of insurance. The various cities and counties are allowed to keep a certain portion of these fees and costs referred to as their retained share to fund their city or county level AOJ fund. Any excess is submitted to DFNA monthly to fund the state AOJ fund. The monthly and annual share amount that the various cities and counties are allowed to keep. For all entities that make up a district is reflected in Appendix D. The excess attributed to the state ALJ fund is reflected in the first column of Appendix E. As noted on pages 7 and 9 of the report, there is a $10 installment fee applicable to district courts. Half of the fee funds the state AOJ fund. 4th goes to the judicial fine Collection Enhancement Fund at the administrative Office of the courts. And the remaining 4th is retained locally to fund the district court automation fund. Of the district court installment fees collected in calendar year 2023. Approximately 5.1 million was remitted to the state AOJ fund, as noted in Appendix E. And 2.6 million was remitted to the judicial fine collection enhancement Fund at the AOC, as noted in Appendix I. Although not identified separately in the report, approximately 2.6 million was estimated to be retained at the local level for remittance to the to the district court automation fund. As discussed on the previous slide, 5.1 million in installment fees was collected by district courts. An additional 14.3 million in uniform filing fees and court costs was collected, and both ultimately funded the state AOJ fund. When the additional 5.3 million in collections from circuit courts are added, the overall funding for the state AOJ fund for calendar year 2023, totals 24.7 million. Exhibit 4, shown on the slide and on page 7 of the report shows the top 5 and bottom 5 districts that contributed to the state AOJ fund during calendar year 2023. Amounts are broken out to reflect those related to the excess over allowed retained share of court cost. Those related to installment fees and overall contribution. In addition to the court costs and installment fees. Collected by the district courts and remitted to the state AOJ fund. Numerous other miscellaneous fees and fines are collected by district courts, as reflected in Appendix G. With the exception of the $5 district court installment fee already discussed. The slide above shows the district court miscellaneous collections that exceeded $100,000 for calendar year 2023. Although numerous types of fees and fines are collected. Nearly 95% of the total 6.2 million in collections relates to the items on the slide. With a combined total of over 3 million, the fine installment fees and court technology fee help fund the judicial fine collection enhancement Fund at the administrative Office of the courts, the detail of which can be seen divided out by district in appendix I. Monthly distributions are made from the state AOJ fund to various other state and non-state entities. Appendix F provides all distributions from the state AOJ fund for calendar year 2023, which totaled 21.4 million. Because of past shortfalls in the fun balance, legislation requires that salaries for court reporters, trial court administrators, and the Arkansas District Judges Council be funded at 100%. Additionally, bond requirements provide for preferential payments to the judicial building construction fund. Distributions outside of these preferential categories are proportionally reduced in equal percentages. Like state level funding, local level funding comes from a variety of sources. Her calendar year 2023, revenue revenue was composed primarily of $51.4 million in fines and fees collected. Court costs and other revenue totaled 6.8 million and just under 2 million respectively. It should be noted that local revenues and expenditures are self-reported by the counties and municipalities in each district. Municipalities do not have a standardized chart of accounts and therefore the classification of and distinction between the types of revenue reported will vary. It should be noted that legislative audit staff reached out to a total of 3336 entities to obtain this information, as reflected in Appendix A. Three entities. Provided none of the information requested in legislative audit could not obtain the information through alternate procedures. Certain fees that produce local-level funding include a bail bond fee of $20 that is remitted to the Public Defender commission. Of each $20 fee, $3 is remitted quarterly to the county to defray the operating expenses of the public defender office. The $2.50 district court installment fee is also retained locally in the district court automation fund and is to be used to fund district court related technology. Additional funding comes from the court security grant program, which is administered by the administrative Office of the courts to provide financial assistance to local governments for implementation of physical security and emergency preparedness plans for circuit and district courts. Although considered a funding source, a revenue for the local government, it is also considered an expense at the state level. Other funding sources include county and city AOJ funds, and collection of various fines that counties and cities are primarily allowed to retain. As previously mentioned, state and local expenditures totaled 80.2 million for 2023 and include 1.2 million in state non-salary expenditures, as detailed in Appendix K. Also included in this total is 34.7 million in state salary expenditures, including taxes and benefits paid to the 66 state district judges. Those deputy prosecuting attorneys and public defenders who regularly participate in district court operations. Staff of the office of the prosecutor coordinator. And AOC court automation personnel. Detailed information is provided in Appendix M. Finally, 44.3 million in local expenditures detailed in appendix N, includes salaries and benefits of district judges. District court clerks, and other personnel who participate in district court operations, as well as other expenses. Mr. Chair, this concludes my presentation. Officials from the administrative office of the courts are present to respond to any committee questions. Thank you, ma'am. Members. Uh, at this point we have probably 25 minutes left of presentations. It appears that we're taking casualties among our ranks, perhaps from indirect fire. I, I would ask that if you have questions to make them short and succinct so we can get through to the end and land this thing. With that, uh, Senator Hammer, you'll recognize her? Miss Sher and let me ask staff this question first and maybe I'll save some time. Am I missing it or is it even relevant to ask. Is there anywhere in this report that it shows the amount of uncollected fees that are outstanding. Balances Is it in this report or is it relevant? Um, no, sir, that's not part of the, um, of what was included in this report. Am I correct to understand though from previous conversations and other meetings seems like there's outstanding fees that have not been collected. Or am I, am I just got a bad memory right now. Senator Hammaack, there, there are fees at the local level that have not been collected, that's your question. There are fees and there are amounts at that local level that have not been collected. That was just not part of and included in the scope of this review. It was the flow of funds, not the lack thereof, if that helps. And do you have that information somewhere? Is that a leg audit information or is that going to be a bureau of information we'd go to get? So that, that sort of information would live at the local level. So in relation to this report and just getting the amount of money coming in and flowing. It took us reaching out to 336 separate entities across the state, um, in acquiring that information. So that information would be with those. An additional 336 entities, if I understand that correctly. It'd be at the local level in their records. OK, uh, I'll be silent for a minute. I may ask them if you get them to the table. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The chair recognizes Senator Chesterfield. Well, I see that um Representative Dalby has He Mike lit up. I was going to move to file the report. But I'll yield to her. And then when you come back to me for that Representative Dalby, ma'am, you're recognized Thank you, Mr. Chair. All I was going to do is to think they got it for taking this on, on behalf of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. This has been very helpful in our study and we will be having a report come out, uh, the first of October, and, and a lot of it was from the work of what leg audit did and I just publicly wanted to thank them for taking it on because they had a lot of other things to do, so I really did appreciate that. Thank you. and Senator Chesterfield. Is that the proper motions, I have a motion to file. Do I have a second? I have a second. All in favor say aye. And he opposed. Thank you. That has been filed. Now we're moving on to The Arkansas Educational Television Commission. And Mr. David Webb is going to present this. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This presentation will cover 3 reports related to the Arkansas Educational Television Commission, which is also known by the name of Arkansas PBS. They are the audit reports for fiscal years 2022 and 2023, as well as a special report. Audit findings and responses for management for the two audit reports are included as appendices A and B of the special report. So first is Arkansas Education Television Commission's fiscal year 22 report. This report was presented at this committee in November of 2023. The report included two findings. Arkansas code. Arkansas code defines small procurements as purchases not exceeding $200,000. These may be obtained without seeking bids. Using repeated small quantity procurements to circumvent competitive bids or failing to obtain competitive bids without justification, constitutes a violation of Arkansas procurement law. Our review revealed that on multiple occasions, the agency entered into agreements to procure goods and services from two companies owned by the same individual. If the goods and services had been obtained from the same company. Bids would have been required. Additionally, the agency regularly informed vendors of how much they would pay for goods and services and made numerous purchases just below the $20,000 threshold for obtaining bids. The agency also regularly paid for a portion of goods and services before the work was obtained. And often executed and internally generated scope of work agreement with vendors instead of or in addition to a purchase. As a result, the agency circumvented and violated certain aspects of Arkansas procurement law. The second finding in the fiscal year 202 report relates to time and effort, or TNE sheets. These are prepared separately from from the regular timekeeping function. And are used to by certain employees to track the number of hours that are worked on various projects. The agency did not reconcile TNE sheets to ASI timely or ensure that the number of hours for specific grant programs, which would have been reimbursed by a grant tour were correct. The second report covered in this presentation is for the fiscal year 2023 audit. This report was early released February 12th of this year. And this report also includes two findings. The first finding relates to procurement issues, some of which were also noted in the 22 audit. A review of 61 maintenance and operation expense items and 35 expense items for from credit card activities revealed that the agency obtained goods and services without always obtaining bids for transactions that were at or near the threshold for requiring bids. Additionally, a contract valued at $250,000 was not manually or digitally signed by the vendor, rather, the vendor's name was simply typed onto the contract. Contracts for 2 for services from two vendors valued at 48,000 and $37,000 were not executed and expenditures totaling $25,000 were coded to incorrect expenditure descriptions. Contrary to Office of State procurement guidelines on the use of state credit cards. Expenditures totaling over $75,000. contractors, travel costs were charged directly to the the agency's travel card, and $6800 was charged to the personal credit card of an employee instead of being paid for by the contractors and then reimbursed. Overpayments for rental car charges totaling $33,000 were identified and the agency was charged for a hotel room for a contractor who did not stay actually, who did not actually stay overnight. The second finding identified improper supervision of an AETC employee, specifically an agency employee trained an employee of the Arkansas PBS Foundation from June 26th through September 1st of last year. As stipulated in an agreement between the agency and the foundation, the agency employee was under the exclusive direction of the foundation's chief executive officer during the time of the training. And the agency received $17,000 from the foundation to cover the agency's payroll costs. So under this arrangement, the agency employee was supervised by a person who was not a state employee and who was paid with funds not appropriated by the General Assembly in noncompliance with Arkansas code. The remainder of this presentation covers a special report that was issued in response to a request which followed the fiscal year 2022 audit report. For us to examine processes and procedures of the agency. The review period for this special report was generally July 1, 2021 through December 31st of 2023. The first objective. Of the special report was to review internal controls and processes surrounding expenditures and procurements for adequacy. During the review period, Arkansas PBS did not have formal written internal controls over contracts or a clear definition of what constitutes a project. For procurement purposes. Therefore, a single project could be construed as either an entire season or a single episode of a broadcast series. Arkansas PBS implemented a procurement guide in February of this year. And in this guide, individual episodes or segments are considered components of an overall project. For procurement purposes. The second objective was to assess expenditures and procurements for compliance with Arkansas law rules and guidelines. Our review indicated that, as said before, Arkansas PBS did not always utilize standard contract documents, which would have been reviewed by an attorney or authorized by the Office of State Procurement, for example, as I said before, they often used scope statements instead of and in addition to purchase orders and contracts, as mentioned in the fiscal year 22 audit on multiple occasions, Arkansas PBS entered into agreements just below the $20,000 bid threshold with Two companies owned by the same person. In apparent violation of Arkansas code. So to further address the risk that certain procurement laws were circumvented. We identified 44 additional instances. During the review period in which multiple vendors at the same address received payments from Arkansas PBS. We reviewed payments associated with 17 of these instances. which accounted for $476,000 and represented vendors that had received more than $1000 each. No questionable payments were identified other than those that were noted in the 22 audit report. Payments were also often made to vendors before goods and services were received. Examples include an upfront payment of $13,000 for a video project that is incomplete and currently on hold. And over $19,000 for a portion of a documentary that was incomplete as of December 31st. 2023. Although the vendor has been paid in full. The third objective was to analyze recent staffing levels of Arkansas PBS. So Arkansas PBS has written procedures in place for hiring new personnel as well as documenting discipline or termination of employees. Exhibit 4 on page 7 illustrates the number of filled full-time and extra help positions as of December 31, 2016 through December 31st, 2023. While the number of appropriated full-time positions decreased 6% since fiscal year 17. The number of filled full-time positions decreased by 20%. The number of appropriated extra help positions has remained constant. Exhibit 5 on page 7 summarizes reasons for employee terminations and departures since fiscal year 17. According to Arkansas PBS and has, and as recorded in ASIS. Since fiscal year 2017. For the 13 administrative positions shown in exhibit 6 on page 89 positions have been held by 25 individuals. 3 positions and the employees in those positions have not changed, and one position was not filled after an employee departure. As of December 31, 2023, 4 management positions were vacant. The 4th objective was to review processes and controls surrounding compliance with Federal Communications Commission requirements. According to Arkansas PBS staff since the associate director position became vacant at the end of 20 October 2023. No single employee was responsible for overseeing compliance with FCC requirements. Now, no payments to the FCC were necessary. And the FCC did not impose any fines on Arkansas PBS. During our review period. A complaint had been filed with the FCC by a former employee in December of 2023 regarding problems with closed captioning for the rise and shine programming. Arkansas PBS acknowledged that it was that it had experienced a production issue with embedded captions, but in maintains that as locally produced educational programming, rise and Shine is exempt from closed captioning requirements. Furthermore, since at least 2014, Arkansas PBS has utilized an out of state law firm that specializes in non-commercial radio and television broadcasting as well as educational telecommunications laws for FCC issues. Arkansas PBS is last approved contract with the firm expired in 2019 and has not yet been renewed. Arkansas code requires the attorney General to provide legal services for state agencies. And if the AG is unable to provide such services, the governor may authorize an agency to obtain legal counsel. Legislative audit could not locate authorization for the services provided to AETC by this firm since 2019. During our review period, Arkansas PBS paid the firm approximately $14,000. This review also identified two other issues that are discussed on page 9 of the report. First, the corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is a source of grant funding. Assessed a penalty of just under $131,000 due to the late filing of the fiscal year 2022 annual audit report by Arkansas PBS. To the corporation for Public Broadcasting. So CPB intends to reduce the estimated penalty. Down to 3 to approximately $33,000 and that penalty was deducted from a subsequent grant payment. Second, the Arkansas PBS director and an outside investor producer, co-developed the concept for a program and entered into a co-production agreement in April of 2022. Subsequently, Arkansas PBS received over $45,000 in production fee revenue and recouped $100,000 from the investor-producer for marketing and education services. The agreement included a key person clause, allowing the investor-producer to terminate the agreement and engage with another PBS station if Arkansas PBS management were to change. In the event of such termination, all or part of the future revenue payable to the Arkansas PBS may be transferred to a new PBS station. It is unknown how much additional revenue, if any, Arkansas PBS will collect in association with this agreement. So as a result of this review, Legislative audit recommends that Arkansas PBS continued to provide procurement training to employees. Comply with procurement laws and guidelines. Submit required reports to grantors and oversight organizations timely. And seek approval for the use of outside legal counsel when necessary. This report has been referred to the 20th Judicial District prosecuting attorney and the Attorney General. Management's response is included in its entirety as appendix C, an agency officials are present to respond to any committee questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That concludes my presentation. Thank you, sir. And the chair recognizes Representative Gonzalez. He was chair, uh, I just had a motion at the proper time, so you want to let Senator Sullivan get his question and I'll hold my motion. Yes, sir. Senator Sullivan, you're recognized her. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I'm just wondering about the role of the Department of Education and all of this. This is a division of the Department of Ved. This is a very significant report. And I hope the Department of Ed has someone here. If necessary to speak to some of these issues and I'm also wondering if the board chair is here. These go back years, and it seems like the board chair would need to be here too, but I'll, uh, I think the representative may have a motion that addresses these. Thank you. I do. We have, uh, anyone from the Arkansas Educational Television And I'm gonna ask you to stand. And I'm gonna ask you to state your name, employer, and position. Raise your right hand. I State your full name. Director of Arkansas. Do solemnly swear or affirm. That the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Thank you. Please have a seat. And uh if you would. Uh, open your mic and, and introduce yourself just for the record. Courtney Pledger, director of Arkansas PBS. Jason Konar, CFO. Arkansas PBS. Would you all like to make an opening statement. I would, yes, thank you, um. You know, there, uh, we've had a rare opportunity during the COVID years and had a huge influx of funds from Uh, through our partnership with the Department of Education and, uh, in, in within that was uh the requirement to produce a massive amount of content in a very short window. Uh, and yes, we had capacity issues, and yes, mistakes, errors were made. Uh, we now have a largely new finance division. Um, But at no time did we have any intention. Of doing anything other than sticking to procurement law. Um, We, we take legislative audit and the legislature and procurement law very, very seriously. We dug down deep to actually find the root causes of every single one of these errors, um, we took immediate steps to strengthen our fiscal division, we, um, and our procurement processes, uh, with hiring of an experienced procurement manager, uh, both a new controller. A new accounting coordinator, we instituted a new role of fiscal manager. We now have 3 certified accountants in that division and a new CFO who's committed to working with me to close any knowledge gaps. And improve processes we created an in-house handbook, as was mentioned in the report, uh, specifically addressing, uh, Arkansas PBS challenges and we now hold special departmental procurement trainings. We've limited the number of employees who touch procurement and we will be ready should another opportunity arise for education projects that are outside our normal scope and capacity. Thank you, ma'am. In C Chesterfield, do you recognize me? Thank you. Thank you very much and thank you for being here this morning. Uh, I'm a big fan of PBS. Thank you When I hear the same report. Over again. It, it gives me great consternation. Uh, one of these reports we've deferred, which is why it seems so familiar. The first report I can almost say verbatim the findings that he had because people with long-term memory. Remember that kind of stuff, uh, at my age, that's what I've got long term memory. Uh. But I'm concerned too. Because I know how difficult this is. Are you sure you can assure us that, I mean, this is back to back, and that's what I find so uh disconcerting. I at first report that the gentleman read. You came back and had those some repeat findings. That had already been alleged in the first report. Is the training working? Are people more aware? Are we not gonna have these bids that are $19,999. Uh, they go to to go to the same vendor so that we really have a contract of over 40,000. Are those the things that you were discussing because those are the things that continue to come up. When we deal with you. And as I said, I'm a fan, so I was prepared to come in here. I said, oh yeah, they got it together and we can come in here and say let's file this report. I, I need to hear it again. Are we going to stop doing at PBS what we have been doing that is causing the consternation. Now that As a member of the audit committee, I'm finding because when you have these repeat findings. You know, and you know how difficult it was coming down here, you know what great fans you have down here as a whole. So, I, I'm just wondering, are you sure you have in place enough? So that we don't hear from you, so that they don't hear from you again, because this is gonna be one of my last meetings of audit. Yes, Senator, uh, I can guarantee you that, um, you can count on it. The audits, uh, overlapped FY 2022 and 23, we, we did not really have the the time to make the turnaround, which we have now made. Uh, we, we will not, you will not see those. repeated. All right, thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Chesterfield. Senator Hammer, you're recognized her? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Question staff, is this one getting referred over to the prosecutor also, or is this just a report we're gonna file? Yes, sir, this report is being referred to prosecuting attorney and the attorney general. OK, then. I'm sorry, Senator Chesfield, you recognized, ma'am? Senator, what parts are being referred to the prosecuting attorney. Uh Thank you, Senator. Um, when we refer these special reports, we refer the entire report. All right. Misleder, correct? Is that, am I correct, Ms. Pledger? OK, So a comment you just made kind of stuck out to me. You use the term mistakes and error. But some of these things to some of us don't appear to be mistakes and error. And how long have you been with the agency? 5 years. So you were there during this time frame, which has happened, correct? In what capacity were you in during that time frame? I'm in now, which director, director, OK. So You said mistakes and error, but this is going to be referred over to the prosecutor because it appears that. There may, may not have been some procurement laws that were broken. I, I'll be honest with you, it gives me a little bit of pause that you view them as mistakes in error when in reality it seems like maybe perhaps time will tell that some of the stuff was done intentionally. Could you just give me a sense of peace and Reassurance. Yes, um. They were errors, um, some, I would say were errors in judgment, and uh we now have a completely new financial, uh, fiscal division, um, We will not do any of the things listed in here ever again and for the $20,000 benchmark, mark, uh, for bids. Nothing anywhere near, uh, we, we'll go through our shop without bids. OK, because we've sat through other Reports dealing with cities, municipalities where people got right up to the ceiling multiple times, and it was determined that their intent. was For not Right purposes and, and I noticed that the individuals that are being assigned. The responsible for that are no longer with the agency and your response if there were mistakes and errors, why were they let go? Or did they voluntarily resign? It says in the response during this time all agency procurement activities and contracts are overseen by former finance division, CSO and former procurement coordinators, all of whom are no longer with the agency. Why are they no longer with the agency? uh coordinator was um terminated. Um, the CFO, one of our CFOs who had been with us long term, uh, left in fall September of 2022. And uh we searched for a CFO for. 5 months, uh, without any, any luck. Um, And had another CFO prior to Jason, who was there for a year and she is, she is no longer there. She was not terminated. OK, and the reason for termination and maybe this goes into personnel files you can't comment publicly was for mistakes and errors or for other reasons. I don't know that I can comment on that. OK. All right. And is it Jason? I'm sorry, I meant your name, sir, again. Yes, sir. Jason, showing your capacity you fully understand and, uh, because you want to draw a line in the sand between you and this previous history, you fully understand, you feel you're competent as far as, um, not making mistakes and errors as are reflected in her comment. Yes, sir, today, um, I, I, I very much have the support of Director Pledger, um. With our new financial staff, we are, uh, very much, we communicate a lot. Uh, we, we have worked to build relationships with the Office of Procurement, as well as Department of Finance and Administration, uh, we are working very diligently to make sure that all parties involved understand what is expected of them, uh, where the lines are, where, where we want, we very much want to comply with, with the letter of the law. And so certainly we, we take these findings very seriously. And we want to take steps to ensure that these never happen again. Uh, we are, we, we collaborate, we correspond, uh, daily just to, to work and ensure and make sure that we are staying within the confines of the, of the procurement laws of the state? Are you still doing business with the vendor that's called into question in this report. Which, um, on the. I, I want to say no, I don't believe we are. Um, I believe if I remember correctly, I believe that was in regards to a specific production and, um, I think that was a lighting contract and, and we have not been lighting contractor. I don't know that we have had a need for those services in our recent, uh. Uh, productions. So to the best of my knowledge and and belief, I don't believe we've utilized them anymore. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Sullivan, you'll recognize her? Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I don't know if this is to the chair or to the people testifying. Again, I'm surprised that the Department of Education is not here and I'm wondering what role the department has, Department of Education has an oversight of all the things that we're seeing. Who can, can someone answer that question? Or who, who gets to answer that one? I will offer a little bit that. The official name for the agency, uh, we refer to it as a division of elementary and secondary education Arkansas Education Television Commission. Because the. That that's the wording in Arkansas code. However, Arkansas, PBS, uh, education television commission has for years. Acted in administered themselves independently. Of the Department of Education. Before, before transition or transformation. And subsequent to transformation. Arkansas PBS has conducted its Activities independently of the Arkansas Department of Education. So if I understand right, then the Department of Education may assign a job to. PBS and then PBS decides on the best way to carry out what they've been assigned to do. Is that accurate? Arkansas Department of Education, usually the division of elementary and secondary education does utilize the agency as a vendor or as a contractor for certain. Uh, for certain grants and programs. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but, uh, The Department of Education had a great deal of money that they were going to spend for. Educational opportunities. Arkansas PBS was the. Partner with them to produce these television shows, lessons. Um, the art, I'm sorry to interrupt, but if so if there are if the Department of Education had a vendor, any vendor who was not fulfilling their contractual obligations then the Department of Education would have some culpability or some discretion in uh renewing that contract, not renewing it or setting new parameters. Would that be pretty correct? I believe so. I think the Department of Education. would have oversight. Of their sub recipients, or they would have some oversight with their contractors. Uh, regardless of whether that was another state agency or a non-governmental agency. OK, um, Mr. Chair, could, could the witnesses please speak to that? I'd like to hear what they have to say about their relationship with the Department of Education and who has oversight and responsibility. Director of Fletcher, would you, uh, address that, please? uh, when we receive a grant from the Department of Education in the case of um, the, the funds during the COVID period. Uh, they were for, uh, rise and shine, which was a summer. Learning to fight summer slide for kids over the summer and uh the, the second big project even larger was um a a series for K through 2nd grade, social studies, um, social studies based on social studies standards to teach kids social studies and early citizenship. Um, the grant, we, you know, we fulfill all the aspects deliverables and rules of the grant uh between Arkansas to Arkansas PBS and the Department of Education, and that is a, a, a very close tight, communicative relationship over those grants. Um, you know, how we, um, you know, it's, it's done in, in very close collaboration with the Department of Education. Yeah, uh, Mr. Chair, I think there are some representatives from the Department of Ed here at the proper time I'd like to ask them to come to the table and I see that we do have representatives here from the Department of Education. Would you please come down? And don't, don't take a seat yet because I want to swear you in. OK, I want to ask you to state your name, your employer, and your position. If you will raise your right hand. That's your full name? Employer in position. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Thank you. Please have a seat. And Senator 7 You're welcome to ask your question. So Um, I guess how big a news is it to the Department of Ed that we have this kind of an audit. Finding is that, is that new news to y'all or old news, uh, since it's been going on since 20, I think we went back to 2014 in some cases, uh, maybe 2017 in other cases. So how familiar were you previous to this audit of some of these issues. I take it since you're having to look through the audit, you're not very familiar with what the audit said. I wanted to make sure nothing has changed. Well, I knew that there was some that, uh, early on that went through with uh some purchasing of, uh, lighting equipment. That one I did know about, but I don't know if there's anything else other than that, so that, that's why I was trying to make sure I knew about that one, but if anything's added to it, then I, I don't know about right now in who you contract with for these services. I just, I don't know if you do or not. Maybe we're mandated to, to work with PBS, but I'm just wondering if you have discretion in doing that. For different services, so there are certain services with uh PBS that we are required to work with them, that would be the ideas portal for online, uh, teacher, uh, professional development that is in law that we're supposed to offer that through, uh, PBS to, to have that, um, the other thing I think what we were talking about with the rise and shine and the summer programs. That was a grant that we did with them during COVID because they, they. Are the darks all local, uh, news show that we could use them to, uh, help with education loss during during COVID with us. So when you find out that a contractor, any contractor has this kind of an audit. Going back for years, does the state have any discretion or responsibility in getting those corrected. We, when they, when they have an audit, we do require them to send their corrective action plans to us and to show the results of that audit to make sure that whatever deficiencies happen within that audit have been corrected before we continue to send them grant funds. OK, so If I understood what you said, if these issues are not corrected, then The Department of Education would be obligated to find, to have a corrective action. Up to and including find another vendor except where you're required by law. Would that be accurate? Pretty much, pretty much, I mean, yeah, it would depending on the corrective action plan that the entity was doing to correct that whatever audit finding was done in there and the and obviously the seriousness of it. So that would be something we have each grant that we go through, we have require each grantee to do a, a risk in that factor, a risk analysis, so many, so many points are given for based off that different risk. And so it would depend on the, all the risks together, whether that entity would be Somebody that we would still comfortable granting funds with. So it's hard to say just on one thing that it would preclude if you are Awarding a grant. To any vendor that this one in particular, this case, do you require outcome, uh, data of the grant that you awarded for rise and shine or whatever the other ones were, you award them the grant. Does this, does PBS have to submit to you evidence that outcomes were achieved and were outcomes are part of the ground. OK, so if their outcomes are, they have to be there and you award PBS a grant on Rise and Shine with Outcomes have they turned those outcomes in? And they were outcome not just survey, not 50 kids watched it or 1000, but their actual real-time outcome similar to outcomes that you would require, uh, in the Learns Act, for example. Based off the grant proposal that was done, yes, I mean, it, and that's why I'm trying to, I'm not trying not to answer that because I don't have the grant in front of me so it's based off what the grant was, was done for, and how did that grant meet those outcomes that were established in the grant. So when each grant's done, there are outcomes that are established in the grant and, and then we measure the successfulness of the grant against those outcomes. OK. And the PBS has essentially met those outcomes and you have that data. And responses. I, I, I believe so I don't have it with me, but I'd have to the department, they submitted the proper information to make whatever was in the grant, they, that was measurable, and they have submitted those. OK, and so now that we have this is my last question, Mr. Chair. So now that we have, um, this audit. Uh, you will be measuring their compliance with the audit going forward. Yes. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Springer, you recognized, ma'am? Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to make a comment that, and I spoke, I just went up and spoke to Senator Sullivan. I praise PBS because I have a non-traditional licenser in elementary education and a master's degree in education and I was able to do my uh Professional development through PBS, so I praise the services that you've offered, and I know that we do have other teachers within the state of Arkansas who also utilize this service. So there are some good things that that are taking place within your, uh, division. So I just wanna say thank you for allowing me the opportunity to do that. Thank you very much. Thank you, ma'am. And Senator Chesterfield, you're recognized, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I too want to praise you. As I said, I'm a fan because I know that um when folks had to miss school because of COVID. They had to do professional development in order to get a salary. You guys had that stuff ready for them. You had the chest ready. Not only did you have the material ready, you had to test for them to take. And you show them whether or not they passed the test or failed the test. All of that was a part of the the process, and I thought it was so neat that people instead of, especially our support staff, having to lose so many days because teachers are on a different kind of contract, but they too needed your services so that they did not lose salary, and because you were able to provide that online training and not only That, but the testing to determine whether or not the the individuals had grasped the knowledge that was available. It made a huge difference and I got so many positive comments from folks that I represent, especially in the education field saying thank you for providing us that opportunity so that we did not have to lose our salary, but we could continue also growing in our profession by learning more about it. And so I just want to say that publicly because I don't, I don't think people realize sometimes. That you do a great job on many things. And we have these findings and I don't like the $2,019,000,990 and stuff like that. That gets to be a problem, but you have a quality product. That has served a number of folks, which is why the Department of Ed, I believe, has partnered with you over the years. Plus, you were in every household. Because you had students across this state who did not have access. To, um, internet. But they could go on PBS. And get lessons that help them continue to grow. And I think in this conversation we lose some of that, that knowledge about what you do well and we can't just, in my opinion, we can't just deal with what you do poorly. We must also deal with things that you do well. Would you agree? And since I'm supposed to ask a question. I think I would agree. Thank you, Senator. So And Senator Sullivan, you'll recognize her. I appreciate the comments that were made. Do you know how many students actually watch the programs? Which programs are are you about the rise grant. So we did a lot of that and I think that's what the Questioners previous to me were talking about, so they said we have access to TV, um, they may not have the internet, they have access to TV. Do you know how many children actually watched? We have digital figures. We know digital numbers in terms of cause it didn't just go out on linear television, uh, linear television, you know, in that respect is, is really about access for people who don't have internet. I mean, they can get us over the air without any internet Uh, those we do not have measurements for, uh, I know that we have something, uh, on offer from PBS, which is, um, some access to Nielsen ratings, but we're having a little bit of a go round, uh, because, uh, Nielsen requires that, uh, only certain aspects of their reports are are made public and that would be for us a violation of, of, of FOIA. uh, law, so, so we're, we're in a little bit of a, a thing trying to make that happen. I'm not asking for confidential information. I'm just asking if the, if the question is we're we're reaching all these kids or, or how many are we reaching? You have a measurable data that says we're reaching 1% of the number of students in Arkansas. We have that data. We have measurable data for the the the components that go out digitally. We have digital platforms. We also have, uh, data on, uh, the, the learning packets because we, you know, basically hand delivered, uh, to, you know, hundreds of kids across the state. We know who received those. OK, so you know we terminated uh Solution tree and part of the, the contract there changed it, sent the money back to the the state. So solution tree, part of the problem we were having is they didn't have necessarily measurable to show schools were improving. Some cases they did, some cases they didn't. So the measurable data wasn't about how many participated. It was a learning improved. So just the question, if we look at whether or not learning improved through the programs of uh PBS. Do you have that data? you refer to, um, Arkansas ideas. Uh, we have a lot of data on the, the, the teacher learners because That's our major effort is Arkansas ideas. So as, uh, Senator Chesterfield mentioned, we, we do measure, uh, in, in, in many of the law-based courses, we measure what the teachers know coming in, and we measure what they know, uh, after they've taken the course. How about students? I mean, we, we're, I'm glad we're, I'm glad teachers are getting better, but the question is whether learners are getting better. So as a result of the millions of dollars that was put in and most of it was federal money, I think, but the millions of dollars that we spent on programming, do we know that students improved. The work that was done during COVID is supplementary work. So That's of a certain nature. If then you that's separate from Arkansas ideas. So Arkansas ideas is specifically for training the teachers, I'm, that's not the question you've answered that question a couple of times. I mean, we, we don't, we measure what we do, which is what we do for the teachers programming for students to supplement their learning. True True. OK, do we know that that supplemental learning improved the learning of our students. Did students get better at the test scores improve? Did schools improve because of the supplemental programs that PBS provided? Do we have data to show that? I don't know that you can go from supplemental programs directly draw that line to the to that to that sort of and that's reasonable. I get it, but the answer would be no, we don't have the data. No, we don't. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Centra Sullivan and the chair recognizes Senator Chesterfield. Let me be clear, mine was not about rising whatever Let me be clear, mine was not about rise and whatever. we can measure How many support professionals took it. We can measure how many teachers had to go through this and take those tests. We have that measurement, don't we? Yes, we do. It's very difficult when you are dealing with supplemental. Education to determine that that has a direct impact on whether or not great improvement is taking place. We know that Arkansas students still have a long way to go, and PBS is not the reason. Um, So we have to work in the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in order to improve the literacy, that's where the that primarily rests in the Department of Education. Is that correct? I'm, I'm looking at you. I'm not gonna look at Greg cause we, we snicker too much, um, yes, ma'am, that would be our responsibility responsibility. Yes, OK. Yours is to get it out. There's is to is to measure what whether it's utilized well, we do that through testing and that sort of thing, is that correct? All right, I, I just want to be sure because I do know if we measured, for instance, every person who is a support professional in the Pulaski County Special School District. We know how many people that is. So we can measure that. We know how many were able to get it because if they didn't get they didn't get paid if they couldn't pass those tests. So we know that we, that's measurable, but to indicate that because we put a program together that supplemented it, eventually, the supplemental has got to go to the classroom and it is in the classroom with the measurement takes place. Am I correct? Yes, that's correct. Thank you so much. Thank you, Senator Chesterfield and representative Gonzalez, you'll recognize her? Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, I make a motion that we file the two annual reports and send the special report back to the state agencies committee for further review, saying that there were, uh, several repeat findings and new findings as well so that we can further review those and I ask that, uh, legislative audit invite the Department of Education to be there to report on some of the questions that, uh, Senator Sullivan was asking as far as. results of these programs. Members, I have a motion to, I have a second. I have a second. Is there any discussion? Senator Chesfield, you recognized, ma'am. uh Representative Gonzalez to repeat what he's saying and the rationale. OK. I'd appreciate it. Yeah, so the motion was to file the two annual reports and send the special report to the state agencies Committee of Legislative audit for further review due to the repeat and new findings. correct to the audit audit subcommittee. Yes, state agencies, audit subcommittee, yes. That answer your question, uh, thank you, ma'am. Members, I have a motion? Do I have a second? I have a second All in favor say aye. Any opposed? And that report will be filed. Thank you, members. Thank you for coming here today. I appreciate it. Thank you. Uh, one last issue, Senator Hammer, sir, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to make a point of clarification, uh, that my motion to file the bauxite report a while ago, but asked staff to report back to us. That was on the investigative report that was given, there was also a special report, uh, and I want to make sure that, uh, my motion separates out that we go ahead and file the special report that held over from last month. It, it is, is it the special report? Kevin, make sure I get the right one. Senator, I'm making sure, are your concerns in relation to the district court and what we had discussion today are those discussions from the previous. Committee. There's the report that was held over from last month and referred to the committee today. That one. I want to make sure it's separated out and that we go ahead and just file it and that completes all actions that we would need to take as a committee on it. Yes, sir. So the investigative report is what we reviewed for the most part, last committee meeting, special report related to district court, I think is your concern that you would like for us to report back on an understanding that you want to clarify that the motion is to file both and us to report back on the special report in regards to the district court. That is correct, that, that we are going to file both reports. But that the special report is one that uh uh staff will report back to us on the progress of how the judge and the city are, uh, the progress they're making. That way we get them both filed. So my emotion be to file, go ahead and file the investigative report that was held over from last month because I didn't put that in my motion a while ago, so I want to make sure it's filed and out of here. That's my motion. Members, we, we have a motion. Do I have a second on that? I have a second, all in favor say aye. Any opposed? Seeing none. Uh, that, that is stands corrected and is filed. Members I E and other business, the next meeting of the legislative Joint Audit Committee will be held Thursday, October 10th, and Friday, October 11th, 2024 or at the call of the chairs. Is there any new business? Members saying none, thank you for being here today, and we are adjourned.