Legislative Joint Auditing

This meeting of the legislative joint auditing committee is here by call to order chair sees a corum. The first item of business I believe is everyone knows is a review of the special report. Of the arkansas government's office related to selected transactions and procurements. For the period of may win twenty twenty three through december tenth twenty twenty three which was early released april fifteenth twenty twenty four. This time I would recognize legislative audit staff to introduce themselves and to present the report. The. Thank you mister chair my name is danny late and i'm with organization legislative audit. This report is issued in response to a request approved by this committee for legislative audit to review the transactions of the associated with the purchase of a custom podium by the governor's office a timeline of events surrounding the purchase is provided in appendix a this review was conducted primarily for the period of may first through december tenth two thousand twenty three additional field work was performed through february eighth two thousand twenty four and although the terms podium and lecture are often used interchangeably this report refers to the item as a podium because this term was used by vendors and on invoices in other supporting documentation. A road case was also purchased and is included in this review. This. The objectives of this review were to establish events surrounding the procurement of delivery of in reimbursement for the podium as well as a road case determined the entity with ownership of the podium and road case determined a market value for related goods and services based on specifications included on vendors invoices and identified during the review. And to review transactions in events related to the podium and roadcase purchase for propriety and compliance with applicable arkansas laws. On january seventeenth two thousand twenty three the governor's office requested additional appropriation of over four hundred and forty seven thousand for fiscal year two thousand twenty three. For the purchase of necessary computer equipment and maintenance services these funds were tracked in as transition funds in asus the states accounting system this request was approved by the joint budget committee on january twenty sixth. For the governor's inauguration ceremony a falcon style podium was provided by sale strategies and outstate vendor that the republican party of arkansas contracted with to coordinate inaugural events. After the inauguration the governor's office staff contacted hanistone representing salem strategies for information on portable podiums. And on february twenty second requested a quote for a customer similar to the one used in the inauguration. The. The. In early march misstone provided a computer draft of a falcon staff podium and estimated the hospital to be between ten and fifteen thousand dollars depending on any upgrades or customization selected with a turnaround time of thirty to sixty days between order and delivery. During interviews with legislative audit governors office staff could not recall any other quotes being obtained however our review revealed that on march twenty fourth a governor's office staff member contacted an arkansas based audio and visual equipment dealer and received quotes for various styles of portable podiums lighting systems and sound systems. On april twelfth governor's office staff communicated to mistone that the purchase of the custom podium had been approved at this time virginia back it was added to the conversations about moving forward with the podium purchase later miss backett would be involved in the purchase as a representative of because events and out of state vendor. Miss down a miss back it had email accounts associated with both sale strategies and back in events therefore it appears they work for both companies. The. The. Because the podium was being made to custom specifications governors office death indicated that the vendor required payment for production could begin. In late may of two thousand twenty three staff of the department of transformation and search shared services DTSS. Which records the financial transactions for the governor's office in asus explained to the governor's office staff that state purchasing regulations do not allow for prepayment instead a purchase order could be issued but payment could not be released until the item was delivered. To use transition funds allocated to the governor's office the podium had to be ordered. Paid for and received by june thirtieth two thousand twenty three the end of the state fiscal year through discussions with DTSS governor staff determined that a purchasing card or p card. Would be utilized to pay for the podium rather than a purchase order. To conduct this review legislative audit staff reviewed certain sections of arkansas code and argued and arkansas attorney general opinions related to procurement law disposal state property recording a transactions in asus creation and retention of purchasing documentation. Use of peacords expenditure of public funds and certain provisions the freedom of information act. The. Additionally legislative audit maintains that the governor's office is an agency for the purposes of the general accounting in budgetary procedures law as discussed on pages two and three of this report. The first objective of this review was established events surrounding the procurement of delivery of and reimbursement for the podium as well as a road case. The governor's office received an invoice on may twenty third two thousand twenty three for misdown representing sales strategies. For thirty nine inch custom falcon podium custom podium road case and taxes and shipping. Totalling twenty one thousand four hundred and seventy five dollars. This invoice is provided in appendix g of the report. Shortly thereafter governor's office staff contacted mistone due to the increased cost from the original estimate of ten to fifteen thousand. Miss down sent a second invoice dated may thirtieth that shows a preferred customer discount of three thousand dollars. Making the total now eighteen thousand four hundred and seventy five. This invoice is provided in appendix h. Yeah. On june first at the request of the governor's office staff DTSS authorized the purchase to be made on a peak card which did not allow for tracking and asus. The following day DTSS also authorized in increase and the credit limit of the peak card from five thousand to twenty five thousand to allow for the purchase. The governor's office received the final invoice totalling nineteen thousand and twenty nine dollars by email on june eighth the invoice states that this amount included the cost of the podium in road case as well as taxes and shipping and a three percent credit card transaction fee. While previous invoices were provided by mistone as a representative of salem strategies. The final invoice was sent by miss representing back in events therefore this report will refer to the final invoice as the becket events invoice. During interviews with legislative audit governor's office death indicated the governor questioned the increased cost and was told by her staff the increase was based on the inclusion of a road case shipping cost and taxes which were not part of the original quote. The back of events invoice was approved by the governor and paid on june twelfth two thousand twenty three. Using a p card issue to the executive assistant to the governor's office deputy chief of staff. The beginning of its invoice and a quick book receipt. Are provided in appendix r of the report. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The financial transaction for the purchase of the podium in road case was recorded in assist by dtss staff. On june twenty eighth with the transaction date of june fifteenth. The peak or balance was paid electronically on june twenty ninth using part of the transition funds requested by the governor's office and appropriated by the general assembly for fiscal year two thousand twenty three. Legislative auto staff reviewed selected governors office expenditures during the primary review period for any additional purchases of podiums or road cases and I don't know additional related expenditures. A business expense just to pay justification statement which should have been completed by the governor's office staff on the day of the purchase was completed after the podium delivery. This form which is provided in appendix j states that the expense was incurred for equipment to assist in communication for state employees as they conduct stateme. In late july miss beck and inform governor's office staff by email that the podium was completed and requested a shipping instruction form to for the manufacturer. Later identified as millions of presentation furniture. On august second governor's office staff completed and returned the shipping instruction form and requested assistance from the secretary of state's office regarding the delivery. On august ninth. The podium was delivered in a wooden politics create and final delivery was made to the governor's office suite. About staff of the secretary of state's office. The. On the day of the delivery government's office death discovered that the height of the podium did not meet order specifications and inquired with the secretary of state's office about the location of the delivery crate. Additionally the governor's office failed to notify dtss of the delivery of the podium until DTSS inquired about its status on september eleventh. Legislative audit made multiple attempts through direct communication and through the generous office to confirm specific customisations of the podium with millions presentation furniture salem strategies and because events and received no responses. Timelines regarding these communications with these vendors as well as question submitted by legislative audit to each vendor are provided in appendices bc and d respectably. Additionally the governor's office was unable to provide formal purchasing documents or a detailed invoice indicating the podium customers stations requested at the time of order. The. The bill waiting which contains details of the podium shipment is provided in a pindics k was attached to the delivery great. And was straightened by a member of the government's office staff. During interviews with the governor's office staff it was stated that the shredding of this bill voiding was in advertise. A replacement quote or replacement coffee was acquired. By the governor's office staff on october eighteenth. The. According to rpa representatives and governors office death the reimbursement to the state for the podium and road case was initiated by a phone call. To the rpa from the governor's office staff on september fourteenth two thousand twenty three. The payment was authorized by the rpa on the same day and a check for nineteen thousand twenty nine dollars as shown in appendix l. Was hand delivered to DTSS by the executive assistant to the governor's office deputy chief of staff. Legislative audit was informed during interviews that the executive assistant was asked by the deputy chief of staff to write to be reimbursed on the back of events invoice and quickbook receipt as shown in appendix m. These documents were then attached to the treasury receipt documentation in asus. When the check was deposited to the state treasury on september fifteenth. The. Prior to a for your request made on september eleventh related to the podium purchase there was no indication the governor's office was seeking reimbursement for the cost of the podium in road case. It should also be noted that during the review of documents legislative audit discovered three versions of the back revenge invoice. Two of the three versions included the notation to be reimbursed lh while one did not. This matter will be discussed later in the presentation. The. The second objective. What's it determined the entity with ownership of the podium in road case. When the rpa reimbursed the state for the podium and related cost on september fourteenth. The podium did not exist as a state asset in asis. According to interviews conducted by legislative audit staff of d t s and effect concluded that an asset would need to be created in asis and subsequently removed from the governor's office asset listing to account for the reimbursement from the rpa. On september twenty fifth d t s created the asset in asis with a zero dollar value and a capitalisation date of june eighth the date of the back of events invoice. On september twenty seventh a governor's office employee ran an asset report in asus. And at that time the podium was still included on the governor's office asset listing. On october third ds with the assistance from dfa removed the asset using a date of september fourteenth two thousand twenty three the date of the payment from the rpa. Dispose all the podium in case was not processed through marketing redistribution. Which is where a change of ownership could have occurred. As discussed on pages six and seven of the report the governor's office is exempt from procurement law for purchasing however legislative audit maintains that the office is not exempt from redistribution requirements of arkansas occurred. It should be noted that the governor's office utilized imminor in august of twenty three to dispose of other surplus state property. The. The podium in road case were initially paid for with funds appropriate by the general assembly to the governor's office. The governor's office did not follow arkansas code requirements for disposal state property but instead sought full payment directly from the rpa therefore legislative audit maintains that the podium in the road case remains state property. On october thirteenth two thousand three or two thousand twenty three the day this committee approved the request for this review. Legislative audit staff cited and measured the podium in the governor's office suite of the capital. A photograph of the podium and measurements taken by legislative audit are provided on the side and in exhibit one on page five of the report. According to governor's office death the podium was manufactured with customizations related to the governor governors elbow resting height and and included light but do not include a microphone or any electronic components. However legislative audit was unable to confirm whether the podium contained all custom features requested due to lack of documentation. As previously mentioned none of the three vendors responded to our attempted communication. According to the rpa representative the road case which was shipped separately from the podium was delivered in early october to the rpa headquarters in literacy. Legislative audit requested shipping document shipping documentation from the road case it from both the governor's office and rpa but neither was able to provide any documentation of an exact delivery date. Our follow up communication attempts with an RPA representative we're unanswered. Legislative auto staff cited photographed in measured the road case at the rpa headquarters on october thirteenth as shown and on this slide and an exhibit too on a page six. The. The third objective was to determine a market value for related goods and services based on specifications included on the vendors invoice and identified during the review. To determine the fair market value of the podium road case in other services purchased from beckett events legislate about it relied on two documents first was the back event invoice breakdown which was provided to the governor's office by back at events on october ninth two thousand twenty three. As shown in the in a pindics in on this and on the slide. The breakdown document list automats cost for the podium road case podium shipping and delivery roadcase delivery and a credit card processing fee. The breakdown document also includes a consulting fee not previously disclosed on the back of events invoice. The other document on which allegedly bought it relied on was the bill of letting. Legislative audit was unable to determine the reasonableness of the cost of the podium due to a customer specifications and could not determine the reasonableness of the consulting fee. As already noted legislate about it made numerous attempts via telephone certified mail and email to obtain specific custom features of the podium directly from melish presentation furniture salem strategies and because events. When these attempts were unsuccessful. Legislate about it requested the assistance from the governor's office in communicating with the vendors. Ultimately. None of the three vendors responded to legislative audits attempted communications. Based on our review. The cost for the road case as well as shipping at the road case and podium appear reasonable. The. The fourth objective. What's your review transactions in events related to the podium in roadcase purchase for propriety and compliance with applicable arkansas loss. First legillate about it examined compliance with certain provisions of for you. Legislative audit understanding of the procedures used by the governor's office and dts is based on interviews with staff from these two officers. Financial transactions for the governor's office are recorded in asus by dts employees and supporting documentation is to be provided by the governor's office and retain by dtss. When DTSS receives a four year request related to financial transactions of the governor's office the requested information is compiled and reviewed by dtss. And the protected information is redacted. Once further review by the governor's office is complete the information is returned to DTSS and provided to the four year requester. It should be noted that unpublished memoranda working papers and correspondents of the governor are not open to the public under arkansas law. Under arkansas code. The custodian of the record for the purposes of foyer is defined as the person having administrative control of that record. Castodian does not mean a person who holds public records solely for the purposes of storage safekeeping or data processing. For others based on interviews with the staff at etss and the governor's office DTSS was considered the castodian of the record for the financial transactions of the governor's office by both the governor's office staff and dets death. And both were directly involved in responding to four year request for documents. Clarification may be necessary from the general assembly in determining the castodian of record for the governor's office. Legislative audit staff selected for review a for your request related to the podium as well as two additional for your request for information not related to the podium. The first request reviewed was made on september eleventh two thousand twenty three and is related to the podium purchase as well has selected expenditure as other selected expenditures. Legislate about it determined that dts compiled a hundred and fifty one pages of documentation for review and subsequently excluded aid invoices related to expenses incurred for events held at the governor's mansion and paid for with governor of mentioned funds. Two invoices related to postage fees. Two invoices related to custom braming and glass purchases. One duplicated invoice. And one invoice outside of the time frame of the four year request this is totalling a hundred and thirty seven documents. The. Yeah. Dts provided to the request a total of a hundred forty pages of documents on september fifteenth which included a hundred and thirty seven documents originally compiled by dts as referred to in the previous slide. Two documents related to the travel expenses of the governor's office staff. And one invoice from because events with the notation to be reimbursed late this is referred to his version b are the backed events invoice in the report. Yeah. Our review of the documents compiled compared to the documents provided to the request revealed the dts excluded invoices related to postage custom framing and glass or paid with the governor's office peak card and potential noncompliance with arkansas code. During this review ledge led water staff identified three different versions of the same because events invoice. For the podium in road case as described on page eleven of the report. On september fourteenth the executive assistant to the governor's office deputy chief of staff delivered the check from the rpa to the DTSS office and asked for a printer coffee from asus of the documentation related to the podium and roadcase purchase the invoice and the quick book receipts were then printed in the executive assistant then made the notation to be reimbursed lh on both documents. This version of the back of events invoice referred to in the report as version a and the quickbooks receipt or attached to the treasury deposit of the rpa payment to the state. The. This line discusses with the report reversed to as version b of the invoice on the morning of september fifteenth the governor's office requested from DTSS and emailed copy of the back of events invoice with the added handwritten notation. Dts responded that the invoice would be attached to the treasurers receipt to be sent later that afternoon. Yeah. As previously mentioned this version of the backed events invoice sent from dtss to the governor's office is referred to as version a. Version a also includes included the handwritten notation to be reimbursed lh but the notation is different in appearance. From the notation on version b. Version b are the back of events invoice was not attached to the treasury deposit of the rpa payment to the state. Version a and b the beginner bands are shown above on the slide and are also available in appendix o on pages o one and o two of the r. Yeah. Version c and the because events. At the beginner bands invoice was included in supporting documentation for the transaction and asus and is a provided in appendix on page I won and in appendix o. On page o three. This version appears to be a copy of virgin a the original invoice sent by back in events to the governor's office staff on june. Yeah. The. Version b at the beginner bents invoice. With handwritten notation emergency without handwritten notation or provided to the request of documents under for you. Version a and the quickbook receipt both containing the handwritten notation. Attached to the treasury receipt were not provided to the requester of documents under for you. During interviews with the west staff of DTSS and governor's office legislative audit established that the executive assistant to the governor's office deputy chief of staff made the handwritten notation to the public record after it was entered into asus on june twenty eight two thousand twenty three legislative audit maintains that this handwritten notation which altered the public record potentially conflicts with arkansas code. The. Staff gathered and provided a hundred ninety seven and twenty nine pages of documents in response to the second and third for your request respectively. Legislative audit reviewed the hundred ninety seven and twenty nine pages of documents and other than redactions of selected information by DTSS legislative audit concluded to gathered information was provided to the request. Legislative **** legislative audit also reviewed the transactions in events related to the podium and road case for compliance with financial management law. Prepayment for the podium prior to the delivery resulted in a potential violation of arkansas code by the bonded dispersing officer. The governor's office potentially failed to meet code requirements but issuing payment prior to the podium being delivered. Failing to notify dts of the delivery of the podium which prohibited the transaction from being properly recorded in capitalizing asus. And not having any formal purchasing documents or detailed invoice priorities payment to ensure the podium met specifications. Regarding the responsibility for insuring delivery of goods prior to payment. Clarification may be necessary from the general assembly and it definitely the dispersing officer for the governor's office. The. Yeah. Next legislative audit reviewed the use of appropriate refunds. As previously discussed the governor's office requested in received additional appropriations of over four hundred forty seven thousand for used here in fiscal year twenty three. The increase appropriation was allocated a month operating expenses professional fees and capitality. As shown on the slide in the podium purchase was applied to operating expenses. Arkansas code defined operating expenses as including but not limited to equipment not capitalized in legislative audit maintains that the code does not allow for purchases of equipment subject to capitalization. Yeah. As previously established legislate about it maintains that the governor's office is a state agency for the purposes of the general accounting in budgetary procedures law. Part of this law is an obligation upon the cfo of the state. To prescribe and establish a uniform system of perpetual immatory for property and equipment with a central control being established and maintained in the face. The fa established capital as a guidelines which outline a standard capitalisation threshold for equipment and added or for equipment added to the state agencies asset list again. Equipment to be classified as an operating expense the equipment may not be capable of. Yeah. Legislative article was unable to locate. Any statutory provisions exempting the governor's office from the provisions governing capital asset guidelines for property and the other to financial statements of the governor's office have historically included the same threshold for according capital assets for financial statement purposes. Communication between the governor's office staff and ets revealed the transaction was to be error corrected to capital outline however no documentation has been provided to verify the air correction occurred. Legislative audit also questions whether the custom podium in roadcase meet the definition of computer equipment or maintenance services for which the additional appropriation was authorized. Legislative legislative audit also reviewed arkansas code requirements for disposal of state property as previously mentioned legislative audit maintains the podium and road case or state property and should have been disposed of pursuant to arkansas code. The governor's office did not request an exemption from state procurement director for disposal state property or request credit for state property from dfa in potential noncompliance with code. Instead the governor's office directly sought full payment for the podium in case from the rpa. The. This. Lastly legislative audit reviewed architect code requirements for documentation retention and arkansas code mandates retention of original evidences of indebtedness. In the business office of the state agency. The government's office potentially violated arkansas code requirements when the governor's office death shredded the bill of waiting. Arkansas code states no dispersing officer of state funds shall approve any expenditure from maintenance in operation for funds. For expenses of a constitutional officer or an employee of a constitutional officer. Unless the request of the expenditure is accompanied by required documentation. Legislative audit maintains that the delayed creation at the business expense justification form after the delivery of the podium rather than on the day of the purchase is a potential violation of code this form is provided in a pinnix jay. The. Clarification may be necessary from the general assembly in determining the business office and dispersing officer of the gunner's office. As provided on pages sixteen and seventeen and the fourth. Legislator audit makes the following recommendations. We recommend their dts and its staff comply with four year regarding the provisions of public information to requesters. We recommend the governor's office established adequate internal controls to ensure that payment for purchases is not issued prior to delivery and that all purchases are properly counted for inaces. We recommend they retain all original documentation related to purchases. And delivery of goods. Insure timely completion of required forms related to expenditures. Dispose of state property using methods prescribed by arkansas code. And sure the public record is not altered. And comply with four year regard and comply with foya regarding provisions a public information to requesters. We recommend the general simply consider defining the dispersing officer in business office at the governor's office especially regarding the responsibility for insuring delivery of the goods prior to payment. Clarifying the custodian of record for the governor's office for the purposes of four year. In adding language to restrict appropriations provided under the various temporary approaching appropriation for state agencies and institutions appropriation in the annual appropriations of the diversing officer of the effect. The. This report has been forwarded in its entirety to the six judicial district prosecuting attorney and the arkansas attorney general. Management's response to the report is provided in its entirety in a pinnix p legislative audits remarks regarding the management's response or provided in a pinnix cube. Mrperiod chair this concludes my presentation representatives from the governor's office or present to respond to committee questions. Thank you thank you mister leethem. So at this time believe they remember from the governor's office here to answer questions so if you would please come forward. This. If you weren't each identify yourselves for the record please get afternoon courtney kennedy chief legal council for the governor good afternoon judia deputy chief of staff to the governor. All right miss kennedy mr dear we appreciate you being here today as is the custom in this committee we swear witnesses ann so if each of you would stand in raise your right hand. Repeat after me do you solemnly square firm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You didn't have to repeat after me. Thank you very much you can take your seat. Is it marriage bells. Yeah. So what how i'd like to begin this part of the hearing is recognized you to make an opening statement and then after you major opening statement will open it up to member questions so you're recognized to make an opening statement thank you very much mister chair. German wallace in german gasway vice jersey and walmart in members of the committee thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak on this report. Since the beginning the governor's office has welcomed this audit and encouraged the general simply to complete it quickly. Throughout the process we were cooperative and accommodating to the auditors request. We are pleased that the final audit report proves that we what we have said all along. That our office lawfully purchased a podium and travel case in the state was fully reimbursed with private funds for the podium at no cost to the taxpayers ultimately the audit wasted significant taxpayer resources just to come to the conclusion that no laws were broken and no fraud was committed. Even so we are glad this report dispells all of the ridiculous twitter conspiracy theories that had been generated online. It shows that the podium and travel case are real that their cost was not unreasonable that the podium was built to specific height requirements that the purchase was not part of some quote payment scheme. Or quote wirefried did the items were lawfully transferred to the republican party of arkansas and at the governor's office has taken steps to improve its internal purchasing procedures even before the audit began. Still there areas that the audit gets wrong as arkansas law has long held and as the attorney general reiterated last week the governor's office is not a state agency. Whether it is a constitutional office example for the majority of agency accounting and budgetary procedures statutory capitalization requirements and procurement rules for disposing of assets. The auditors misapplication of arkansas law on this subject underpins most of their allegations against our office. Additionally the governor's office was laughingly allowed to use state fines appropriated by this body to purchase these items. A copy of the bill of lading was provided to the auditors in prior to the audit the governor's office had already improved its internal procedures including completing all business expense justification statements. Finally we would like to emphasize that a handwritten note on an invoice absent a false alteration is not a violation of arkansas law. Our office is response to the article contains expanded justifications for all of our statements which we would be happy to describe and more detail. We welcome this opportunity to continue our office is record of transparency on this topic and look forward to today's hearing on the issue. Thank you. Thank you mister dear miskennedy do you have any remarks in effort okay thank you very much this time will open it to member questions looks like first in the have senator petty senator petty recognized thank you mister chair and and I don't know if it's appropriate but I had questions for legislative audit or should I amend to pull it down and ask somebody but I did not apologize is it appropriate to ask those questions at this point or should I go back in the queue for later. No it's appropriate to ask those questions at this time so you're recognized to ask questions to stay out if you have a ok thank you mister chair and I asked for just a little bit of a later two uh as as some of you may or may not know I am AC PA although i've not done an audit in over thirty years I keep my license current which concludes forty hours of continuing education each year and so I felt like from my background as a freshman I might actually have an area where I have some subject matter knowledge that could be helpful to the group and and so first of all I want to say thank you to the legislative audit staff and the governor staff for for cooperating in this matter in and and first I want to call out the the significance of the integrity and the independence of legislative audit. To me as it is a as AC PA it may require an in and some of you may not realize this it may require a different threshold due to professional standards that are not even that not within our control as it legislature or even legislative staff control because of these professional standards and and and quite frankly not within our controllers as legislative body and that's outside of legislative audit control i'm not saying that that is in the situation in every case but that is a potential do the professional standards but I do think it's important that that uh independence in integrity of legislative audit and and clap frankly it's important to all ever since in state government and so I understand that as a cpa probably better than anyone in here are having done a few audits in my time and and served on a few of the the audit committees up to this point in my short crook career down here so with that I wanted to prefer that and and say that please governor staffer or legislative audit don't read anything into my questions i'm just reading these questions that I had in in reviewing this report they're not to be a personal attack intended to be a personal attack and certainly not mentor criticize anybody on on either side and and as such you know I have a few. Questions and so i'll go there but one that I think probably has been asked in the media or maybe ask in the media that I think i'm just going to go ahead and knock it out because of the integrity and independence of a staff. Did you have you or have you ever felt that there was any bias towards the governor's staff by anybody and legislative audit top to bottom any any bias towards the governor staff or towards legislative audit within our the legislature within the legislative audit. Just. In in any regard any felt any bias. Towards the governor or governors staff or legislatures so senator petty I appreciate that are you asking that question of the chair yes in that question of star of staff okay since they were conducting the audit I want to make sure that they didn't feel like you know legislative audit had a bias towards her against the governor or torture against the legislative body. No no sir wait we'd had no bias against the the governor of the governor staff the the legislature anyone we'd have been doing this. I've since nineteen fifty three and we've tried to be independent none by nonpartisan and everything that we do just set out to get the facts in and II appreciate that in respect that and wanted to ask that and a lot of some things that have happened at the federal level I figured somebody would have that question I wanted to ask that and so with with that out of the way do you feel like there was any independence violated by anybody and we'll legislate a staff or or anybody by the the audit in terms of trying to influence your outcome on your report. Not talking about disagreements as to law click ability but just. Under course. I think again of the legislative audit sorry. I'm not for sure I understand your question you're talking about anyone on staff trying to influence no did staff experience any of that in this process as far as could you repeat your question do you feel like any undo influence that would have impaired independence was presented to legislative at a staff are our report is unbiased in in we I feel like that we have presented a good report sir thank you and again I expected that would have been shocked if if it was anything other than that so so thank you in that hated even asked that but I thought we would get that out of the way so nobody else had to to wander or read in between the lines so on the objectives uh who establish those objectives just just real brief was that you or the legislator or legislative audit that that requested that. Based upon the request that was presented at the meeting and approved by the legislative audit staff basically as as you are aware we we bring storm so we have we have a project to do we set down and we determine how do we approach this what what are the important issues that need to be addressed okay. And again thank you mister chair getting into kind of the the the meat of the the results in the review legislative audit referred to several attorney general's opinions I think there's tanner or maybe eleven in there and and only one attorney general opinion number two oh one one dash o four actually called out specific language I actually went back and and reviewed all them I did not have time to read every word of every page but based on made review last night the those were all dealing with other agencies there was nothing specific on any of those dealing with the governor's office correct. I'm on a similarly planner attorney dancing. That's correct representative. Okay thank you in specific to the two thousand and eleven why did you call this when out specifically as opposed to maybe for example two thousand fourteen two thousand sixteen maybe the more current one was there something that stuck out in in that one more or had more than the others. Without having can you give me the number again representative petty i'm sorry m so that is two oh one I just made one at two oh one one oh four is one US but I just said two or one four one thirty two or two oh one six o one six were more current these are all very specific fact based opinions and none of a more specific to the governor's office especially specific to this issue but but why why the one two or one one oh four o which is thirteen or fourteen years old that's reference in your report I believe it's. Starting on page three years thank you for that. That. Overall representative petty when we were evaluating these specific attorney general opinions as you so clearly were able to put none of them specifically related to the governor's office however they did take different subchapters in different code sections and the general accounting and budgetary procedures law and related those two different agencies such as the one with higher education I think that may be the one you're referencing where there was an ag opinion that spoke about how it can't be a truly comprehensive act for a purposes of application if we don't consider institutions of higher education as part of those institutions covered in that specific code section and it in addition to that we spent some time examining ninety one dash four sixteen which was not about the governor's office but was about a constitutional officer so it is another constitutional officer it was a prosecuting attorney and in that opinion that opinion said that nineteen four subchapter fifteen was applicable to a constitutional officer a prosecuting attorney and for purposes of marketing and redistribution of state property that was in the hands of a constitutional officer a prosecuting attorney that constitutional officer had to about by the provisions of the gable and so we we took a broad spectrum approach to analyzing different code sections of the gabl to coming to our opinion that for these particular code sections if there was not a specific exclusion exempting the the governor's office then we applied the logic from ninety one four sixteen or from eighty nine oh nine eight and opened that if it did not specifically exclude them though it was applicable to them okay thank you and and so i'm certainly not an attorney and and I like I said I reviewed those. There were others that they might have been to me again i'm AC PA or actually some might say across over to the dark side and i'm a recovering CPA but some of those were less clear to me than and some of the others that you're referring to so absolute so there was there was some dialogue about the gaple and that two hundred and forty two page document and I won't ask you i'm just going to refer to that document and it was created by. Statute that the chief fiscal officer would create that document in and and define her described in that in that financial management guide how those accounting procedures are are operating and and so my question is in your audit were there any conversations with the chief fiscal officer about their thoughts on these issues as the chief fiscal officer since you're referring to the god that they're basically over creating at least and and and implementing did was there any conversation with the chief fiscal officer about their opinion on applicability or not applicability. If you'll give me one moment representative petty I want to make sure that I get the title ride of the person that we did speak to at the fna I believe it was the uh controller of the state but I want to clarify that with our audit staff I did not actually take that interview. In response to that question representative petty it was the deputy director in controller of arkansas department of finance and administration mr any babbit okay it was that refresh referenced in the report and I just overlooked it it was in apologize I can't recall the exact page but we did reference that conversation or that interview and then directly below it we reference to conversation with the director of office of state procurementals okay and I probably was looking for chief fiscal officer and and overlooked that so so thank you so so in in looking at that document last night and in looking at that uh it it specific to certain areas in in beginning and at least in in by this time it was late last night paid one nineteen is list. Departments or agencies the first time I start seeing what what is an agency uh in general and it does not list on page one nineteen it does not list the governor's office in this general listing of of agencies and and departments and and commissions and in the so so there was no work specific reference to the governor's office there but on page one ninety one of that document the governor's office is listed and it starts out by saying for purposes of this subchapter again talking about that financial financial management god and in the from the governor's office on h two thirty three it says dealing with discretionary grants again the the governor's office and other constitutional office are specifically referenced and then lastly talking about the arkansas financial transparency act they is two thirty nine dealing with. Electronic filing of reports and then that financial transparency they they do specifically call and so to a say all that to say to me you you kind of conclude your report about uh in and and I understand why one of the first questions that I ask in one of my early legislative audit committees was from made days and again it was a long time ago is there not a such thing as materiality and the answer from the legislative auditor was no that's not for our judgment we have to turn it over are we chose to turn it over to the prosecution attorney as a matter of violation for them to determine if it's a matter of violation and so I understand I understand that but. In in all of those others use specifically say potential violation potential violation potential violation but specific to the agency it seems that there is a more concrete absolute. This is an agency at and at least in a layman's first review of the documents that I have it. At least questioned the it appears that are lease a question of whether or not it is an agency or not the governor's office is an agency or not so can you comment on why the potential while the you know in in most of the language until you get to that in its absolute concrete without a doubt and and at least in mar reviewing i'll be it late at night it appeared that there's some question maybe left for the attorney general or some other you know hire authority. Representative petty would you point me in the report to that concrete section that yours you spoke yes ma'am. The. So in your somewhere near to the conclude in in the in the areas areas of potential non compliance we talk about the seven or eight bullet points there but before in the report it it is clear. On several pages that you've you've reached the conclusion that that law does apply potentially apply but does apply. In again representative there are many different code sections. Many different avenues of law in the general accounting and budgetary procedures law. That that act when it was created in in night spirit nineteen seventy three that was an expensive and comprehensive act that took up in excess of two hundred pages our arkansas supreme court has only opened on one provision of that act and they did it one year after that act was passed it's not an act that's been litigated it's been heavily left up to administrative interpretation of those different subsections of that act and so in our opinion we were very concrete based on the gammit of the attorney general opinions that we had reviewed going back to seventy nine. That sore purposes of some of the subchapters in the gable that the governor's office as a constitutional officer would be subject to certain codes sections just like the prosecuting attorney's war in opinion ninety one four sixteen just like the institutions of higher education were in eleven oh four o and so we made that decision and it it did seem to be a little more concrete on the definition of state agency but the definition of state agency if you read attorney general opinion eighty nine oh nine eight there is no general definition for state agency. It to encompass the entirety of the gabl that attorney general opinion says that the definition of state agency is less left to the individual subchapters and if our understand correctly what you were asking me to a partner that's that's our response to that and how we came to that more concrete and determination that we believed the governor's office was a state agency for purposes of those specific subchapters and and where did the financial management god come in in the evaluation of of this. Because in it again in that document it is very specific talking about the administratively administering these laws at it talk specifically about agency or not you know government office I mean governor's office so may out of change yes one moment senator petty I just want to say that i've allowed to some attitude here if we take this approach with every witness from this point forward we're going to be here until midnight. And so i'm gonna recognize that question allow staff to answer it but they were going to move on if you want to get back in the queue i'm happy to come back to you and I would just encourage members to try to make your questions more concise get back in the queue so that we give everybody the opportunity to ask the questions that they need to II appreciate your questions again and again i'm trying to allow you some attitude here but we need got several members in the queue at this point absolutely I appreciate it. Representative to answer your question we did we did consider those rules that were enacted based on statues and we even in in the course of our evaluation of the communications if you refer to page seven of our report middle of the page in the in the fourth paragraph there's a sentence that reads in the middle of that paragraph DTSS and d fna also concluded that turning documents could be submitted to mnr to utilize that that process did facilitate redistribution of this item of property and so we did discuss that and we did rely on the rules but those were rules and those were rules that were promotated based on statue in the statute trops a rules interpretation in our opinion so that's why we sell heavily relied on those attorney general opinions that interpreted the statute. All right thank you and i'll get back in the queue okay thank you and let me just say it you know we've already delled off into the fighter points of of law related to the interpretation of whether or not the governor's office is a state agency a sea mister ousley here from the attorney general's office I think if we're going to have this debate and they're going to be continued questions about. The attorney general's opinions and references the attorney general's opinions it would be helpful if mister household would join the witnesses of the tables at this time mister elsewhere i'd invite you to join those those witnesses at the table. The tube you would please identify yourselves for the record thank you mister chair so co chair members of the committee right now see deputy attorney general. Thank you miss sharon and members of the committee i'm nor watson and deputy attorney general of opinions appreciate you both being here once again if you're down at the end of that table we're going to do as we customarily do which is where you answer each of you would stand and raise your right hands to be sworn. Do each of you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter will be the truth the whole treat that nothing but the truth. Thank you. All right senator hammer you're recognized they can assume the first questions to staff if you would please in the report I think it the statement was made or verbally it was stated that certain individuals refused to respond to legislative audit could could we have those identified I think where they the vendors or could you qualify that that's correct senator hammer they were the three vendors that was miller's mill work or miller's presentation furniture hannah stone was saying i'm strategies in virginia back yet with back in advance none of the three responded okay they didn't just say we don't want participate they just appeal didn't respond correct that's correct all right thank you and then i'd like to address some questions to the governor's office preficit by same very proud of legislative audit have you been down here as long as i've been as house chair when i'm also very proud of our governor and the job that she's doing I think there are some questions that need to be presented in order to have an opportunity to respond first of all why on the report it shares that the governor declined to offer to speak with her provider statement to ala would you address why it was that the governor's office refused to decline or declined to speak. Yes I am the governor was giving the opportunity to provide a statement to legislative audit the governor has given multiple public statements about the podium and the purchase at this point and did not feel there was a need to give any further statements alright thank you and then the second question is and it may have been spoken to another four match with this legislative article the cost difference that the podium of which its reference that the governor even questioned from the original price that was given to what it actually ended up costing what was the rationale behind going with the higher cost politician versus what would have been a lower option. We requested quotations for a customised podium based on the wine used an inauguration which was a falcon podium the original quotes were between 10-15 thousand dollars once we got the first uh invoice in it was over that that's the point the governor question why it was over the ten to fifteen thousand and that point the vendor lowered the price by three thousand dollars with the next invoice. The. Okay the then the next one he is on the report on page two doubt about paragraph four. It mentions that the governor staff indicated the vendor required payment before production could begin may thirty first department of transplantion shared services staff explained to the governor's office staff that say personally were primary should not be prepayment instead so my questions who initiate the conversation between the governor's office and the department transformation shared services was it them or was a chill. Believe our office manager reached out indicating that we wanted to make this purchase and asking for their advice on how to do it why would you ask for their advice if you felt that you were not a state agency that your constitutional offers why would you reach out to them tss is the governor's office business office so they handle all the financial transactions for the governor's office did they ever raise the question with you that this may become an issue that's before us today or was there any conversations about you know the the difference maybe of opinions between state agency versus constitutional offers. No there was some question about p card usage and they were able to work through how that was used but it was never in light of I don't think anyone could have interested hated being here today. Uh it it has reached an issue that'll have to be address so for that it'll be a good you know a good discussion for that but but there was never in conversation between you and them as far as you were you advised that you were state agency or constitutional offers. By them and you could procure under different expectations and state agencies there was no conversation to my knowledge regarding the distinctions between agency and constitutional officer. With our office manager okay and of your question for attorney general then i'll you mister chairman thank you. The turn general has rendered an opinion on this matter I presume i'm just for the record it was initiated by the governor's request that the opinion be offered a rendered. Center that's correct okay and so if this goes into litigation just helped me as a non lawyer helped me understand how it would be that the attorney general could. The. As a constitutional officer in this case himself be able to go in and to argue without having a degree of bios being a constitutional officer and I would presume that he would take the same position that the governor is taking when it comes to procurement is that fair could you respond to that thank you for the question so the the conclusions that we have in the turn general opinion go to whether the governor's office is an agency in general for purposes of the general accounting budgetary procedures law for all the subchapters our conclusion that was no in some chapters they are in some subchapters they're not and that conclusion is consistent with. At least three prior attorneys general opinions so we view that as giving this basically the receipt report those attorney general opinions are cited in the opinion that we published none of those opinions are reference in the leg auto report and when you say there's you know in some cases this in some cases that is that reference to how the procurement procedures are applied based on whether it's an interpretation constitutional situation is a state agency I mean it would seem like there would be a consistency in it throughout the time that we've been you know using this practice so just help me understand that statement thank you mister chairman and thank you for the question I think no it may be the best way to to answer that question having written the the opinion itself thank you for the question and. Where is based on is the language of that is used in how agency is defined in separate first subjectors and generally also for the gable I understand that uhm miss white earlier testified resting to a regional opinion that did in fact say there's no general definition and then you know and not if you're saying that. Any of the position that they've taken that. Well sorry. II think that the language of the search is very clear that there is a definition for agencies and that is at a aca section nineteen four one o two in there it says a four this chapter unless otherwise necessary agency means agencies boards commission's departments and institutions and the way we've interpreted that and the text is clear that. Some subject clearly change the definition as they say interested for the subject of includes offices for example that's such approved twenty two twenty one and so the opinion like mr alzheimer saying based on opinions going back three decades and bipartisan attorney generals saying when there's list like that that does not include the current officers then the customers officers are not regulated. You think there ought to be something done in order to clear up that confusion or do you think it's confusing at all cause that was counter like you pick when you want to play it when you deal with or do you think that we need to look at bringing some clarity to that thank you massum of. Senator the the opinions and and the our position is that. When the language is expressed that way and explicitly does not include offices that the plane language of that is clear and that's enough obviously we leave to the the general assembly if it wants to change the way those are defined or bring any additional clarity that there is in your. Thanks in a hammer i'm gonna chairman real quick so. Where it appears to me with regard to the general accounting law is that we have a disputed question of law. Legislative audit takes a specific position and and the way that I understand their position is that. When you look at the general accounting law it says that it applies to the state and then a laundry list of other entities state agencies board's commission so on and so for there's a laundry list of agencies that applies to. Or entities that it applies to. And so their argument is that in other parts in other statutes that fall under the general accounting law. The governor's office is specifically exempted from complying with those and so their argument is that by implication. Because the governor's office has to be specifically exempted. That all the rest of it must apply to them and then they of course reference the fact that it's referred to as comprehensive and it is in fact the general accounting law which would mean that it would apply to everyone in their argument would be it would apply to constitutional officers as well. The way I understand the attorney general's argument is that to be retextual supproach which is. If the general accounting law were meant to apply to the governor's office or to constitutional offices it would have specifically said so and we're not going to imply that it does if the legislature met for it to include the governor's office constitutional officers they would have specifically said constitutional office and the fact that they exempted it in some areas does not mean that they intended to include it in others. And so that is the way that I understand the attorney general's opinion which both seemed to me to be valid legal arguments that ultimately would have to be decided by court. So mrperiod ousley I want to give you the opportunity miss white has I think barely thoroughly explain legislative audits legal position here I want to give you the opportunity to explain the attorney general's legal position here thank you miss a chair I would I would agree with the characterization that you just gave up the sort of state of play in terms of the arguments there and I want to start by saying that there are many many people in and let us audit who might have great respect for and who are my friends and I consider this to be a straight ahead legal legal question on these these questions about whether the constitutional officers are in all the subchapters are considerable agencies so in addition to the inference that you just that you'd escape I would have a few more that are also outlined in our opinion the first is. There are some tight sometimes within the general accounting budgetary procedures law this was title nineteen chapter four and all the subchapters there's a lot of subchapters there are some times in those in that in that chapter where a constitutional authors are expressly included. In the general role so it's not just that there are some times where they're expressly excluded and someone might say oh well they're they must have we can add an inference that they were already included in the general rule it sometimes more than that it's sometimes that the uh the general rule expressly includes offices or office servers are constitutional officers well if if by virtue of a very early provision in the general accounting budget procedures constitutional officers were just by by default already included in the general rule there be no reason why they should be added later to those other subsections so what we have basically is some some provisions of the law that expressly exclude constitutional officers and so one might say oh that raises an inference maybe they were already included but we also have some provisions of the general accounting budgetary procedures law where they're expressly included in the general rule which then raises the the idea while I guess they weren't included already and so we have these two different sort of arguments. How do we weigh that out well that the answer the way that we have have waited out in the opinion that we just published the way that the previous attorney general waited out and the way that three attorneys generally ago waited out and these are all cited in our opinions is that first to make for example the governor's office subject to the chief fiscal officers determinations about how to dispose of property could raise some some separation of power's concerns so that tips in favor the of their sort of receive you so there are several their several lines of argument that are outlined in our opinion not just the the inferences there and I would say to the the point earlier and in reference to the nineteen ninety one AG opinion we found that that's one that we found and we talk about that and the opinion that we just published and there's no reasoning provided for that conclusion it's just a set the conclusion is just stated in in law conclusions are obviously very important but the reasoning is even more important because it's the reasoning that you then extrapolate to new cases and we heard earlier that none of the age opinions that are cited of the bottom of page two of the report reference the governor's office but they give certain principles that one might argue would apply in the situation well to the agree that those apply it's entirely based on the reasoning provided in those opinions and the closest uh opinion that the is the one that's been referenced to the ninety one opinion there is no reason provided for that conclusion and we found several other age opinions in the past that provide the conclusion that we've arrived at and that provide the reasoning that we're applying here as well. Thank you mister house in overfollow up so. The way I understand the argument is you the the attorney general's office has opaned that the general accounting law does not apply for the reasons that you just said. But then the opinion makes the argument essentially that even assuming that legislative audit is right in the general accounting law does apply to a constitutional office. It would be suspect constitutionally because it would violate the separation of powers and so and you give some specific reasons about why you believe the general accounting law if it were interpreted to include a constitutional office would violate separation of powers i'd like to hear a more thorough explanation of that if you would. Yeah thank you for the question and just to be clear about before I give some examples and I think no one may be the best one to give some examples which he elicitates in the opinion in itself but before before we give those examples I just want to make clear our position is not that consultant officers are exempt from every part of the general accounting budget procedures law there are some parts that clearly do include constitutional offices how do we know that because they say officers constitutional officers they clearly include them in the general rule so our position is not their entirely example our position is if they're if constitutional office are included we'll know that because the term that used as offices or officers and i'll if it's okay mister chair i'll ask no to follow up with some of the examples they're in the separate break it does mister watson. Thank you. So if you a few of the examples here specifically were talking about the one mentioned in this on page five and six of the opinion if if anyone is taking a look at that there are certain provisions that. Put budget classification transfers of state agencies at the almost complete discretion of the chief fiscal officer of the state and you know our constitution gives the governor of the supreme executive power and if the governor required to. Essentially reports to her own appointee because that's the sector of the fa is the cheap physical officer then that would violate that principle of the separation of powers there also a couple other examples and this is in a foot note thirty two of the opinion so another provision for example requires that each executive head of state agencies follow procedure start service again by the chief fiscal officer. Yeah. And again one of the visions relevant to to this section nineteen four fifteen oh three gives the chief fiscal sir unilateral authority to transfer and sell state agencies property and equipment and again as misrously mentioned it has been the position to be trained on his office going back to nineteen ninety one that such an inversion of the constitutional hire he raises constitutional concerns and again as much as he said that's not to say that no set up uh that regulates the costume slashes of the governor's office like every set up not every setup would violate the separate powers but how these specific ones are raises that was concerns. Mister house even asked one more question i'm going to come back to you and then i'm gonna go back to members but it sounds like to me and again I i'd like to hear you open on this you mentioned specifically that some of the general accounting laws do indeed apply to the governor's office because they specifically say so one of those that's very clear from the report this is mentioned in the report is the business expense justification form. Specifically says that the governor's office must complete one of those we know there's an issue about it was completed in this case but it was completed at a time later a later day maybe before it should have been completed but we know that that applies to the governor's office because it's specifically says so. And so I guess. There two things that I would ask one how do you how do you. Make the argument essentially that legislative audit's argument is one from implication. Whereas the attorney general's opinion seems to be wine that's very textuous that if it was meant to apply to the a constitutional office it would say so in some places it says so. And in other places it doesn't so we should not presume and cannot presume that it would apply there because they would have said so i'd like to hear your explanation on that and in the second thing is as with many of these questions with regard to how we interpret statutes it's a statistical reconstruction analysis I haven't reviewed the the rules of statury construction in a while but if you'd like to talk about those that I think that would be helpful to this committee also. Thank you mister chair so yes the the business expense justification statement that subchapter does apply to constitutional offices again how do we know that because the tech says it includes offices in the the list of entity subject to the law so that's why I wanted to be careful earlier when I was said we're not that the position is the agent's office is not that no provision within the general accounting budget their procedures law applies to offices it's their only some do so there's not a default rule that says they always apply to constitutional offices unless otherwise stated so that we're push back on the that idea that there's a default rule and we're also trying to make clear that what we're saying here is it is what previous attorneys general have said so from our perspective this is not a new statement this is this is as sort of delivering those sort of received opinion on that in terms of the rules of a statutory construction. I really enjoy the stuff I could talk for a long time about that I really enjoy it but so what i'll just start i'll be very brief so the the gest is what you all put in writing matters. The the language that you all decide on makes a difference and that language is what moves from one chamber to the next chamber and as you know perhaps better than anybody you individually but also collectively your language it may get over two different to a different chamber and somebody may someone else may look at it and they may have a different sense of what. That language means what it is what you intend by it for example. You may read the same language and II intend x somebody else reset the well looks like senator sonso intense why. But at at the root of it what that language with the statute means is what what you all vote on the language and ultimately that's what is goes to the governor for signature or veto it's the language and so the principle the cardinal rule of statistical interpretation is to look at the text of the statute and allowed that text to start the process into guided all the way through and if the legislature wants every sub chapter in the general counting budget here procedures law deployed a constitutional officers they can make that the case by including the term officer officers in each of those subchapters as they have done for a certain subset of those chapter subjects i'll stop there because I could say a lot more. All right thank you very much last thing so when you look at the report and we see all of these violations that are noted of the general accounting law I mean it seems to me what we clearly have here is a disputed question of law as to whether or not those applause some of them clearly do the business justification expense form for instance. But with regard to many of the others it is a disputed question of law as to whether it applies that may ultimately have to be resolved by a court would you agree with that. I do I do agree with that okay all right that's all at this time i'd recognize my coach here singer walls thank you sir and thank you mister houseway for for being here today. The. I found that as close as they could but are you are you saying that. Legislative article should not have conducted an audit of. What we're starting right now. Thank you center i'm not saying that at all legislative audit works at the behalf of this committee my understanding is the committee asked him to conduct that audit legislative audit has to take the the active determined what the facts are through the mechanisms that they have in statute to get to ascertain those facts in the net and they're very good at that and they have to apply those facts as they understand them to the law what what i'm here today to talk about is the law part and to the greater which to the findings that they've made render certain legal conclusions and there's an in the report itself on page sixteen there are seven bullets that I take to be essentially the summary of what our friend said earlier as he was going through the power point and of those seven bullets the first five depend entirely on whether the governor's office is an agency for purposes of those subchapters our opinion and said no we don't think so and we're and furthermore we're just reporting the received opinion on that the the sex bullet is the business expense justification statement that does apply that subchapter does the last one is a is a is a provision that applies to every public official so what we're saying is those first five bullets they found certain facts based on their investigation that's fine we haven't conducted investigation we're not looking behind that are saying anything about those facts that they have found or we're saying is that as a matter of law those sub chapters don't apply those first five bullets that are subchapters that are reference there in the first five bullets don't apply thank you sir appreciate it. Representative maybe you're recognized. Thank you mister chair i'm was really hoping that you all would have brought the lecture and with you today so we could see it I mean quite honestly regardless of what's in this audit report and i'm going to let others sort out the accounting and there legal issues behind it we all can agree that nineteen thousand dollars was spent on an item and no one has really seen it and II do know that the press has asked numerous times when will this be used when quite we see it when will it publicly be available available to be used because otherwise. It was a complete waste of money because no one choosing it so my question is when will it be available for people to see it when will it be available you know when was when is the governor going to start using it where is it where is it physically sitting right now. Thank you for the question. It's physically sitting in the governor's office where it always has been since it was delivered in august uh. Any of you are welcome to come see it when we're finished here we would welcome the opportunity to show it just as we have showed it to members of the press who have asked to see it the arkansas democrat gazette photographer took a picture of it uh sometime in september and then online accused him that it was still not real and he was there taking a picture of it it exist it's real the governor fully intends to begin using it as soon as this audit was completed but she recognizes that it's been a distraction at the moment and she wasn't going to allow her use of a podium while the audit was was being conducted to distract from other work that she was doing uh the podium is going to be used as I think is evident by the video that she put out last night. Representative mccallah you're recognized thank you mister I find it disappointing that the podium vendors did not respond to repeated questions from legislative audit. It seemed that this information might help to fill in some of the blanks and the report so I can have a three part question do you guys to the governor's office did the governor's office make a good faith effort to get them to respond to possibly queer up some of these matters do you know why they chose not to respond and do you wish they would have. Yes may and the governor's office did make a good faith effort to add the request of legislative audit I sent to emails personally to the vendors with a list of questions attached to one of those emails and and asked that they respond to those and soon those answers directly back to legislative audit certainly it would have allowed language to answer some questions that remained unanswered in the audit and as to your third question. I think I answer I just sit yeah and I think you do misfollow up mr. You're recognized continuing in the vain of vendors can you also explain the twenty five hundred dollars consulting fee for the on the invoice and who was consulted in what the what consultation was provided. Yeah I think it's important to remember and thank you for the question I think it's important to remember that hannah stone and virginia back or two talented individuals who i've worked with not only here local ebid in washington DC as well as around the world on event planning operations you name that there's some of the best in the business it's already been referenced by leg audit that hanner virginia were heavily involved in the planning of the governor's inauguration they procured the podium that was used for that we liked that podium we felt that we were in the market for a similar model and we have a long standing relationship with hannah in virginia and know their work and their competency to get things done it wouldn't be any different than any of you in your relationship with a personal doctor or a family account it you don't ask those people not to charge you they're still in the interest of their running a business so the consultant fee is the is the fee that hannah in virginia uh took from the work that they did to complete the purchase of the podium thank you mister chair i'll get back in q. Thank you senator days you're recognized thank you mister chair just wanted it quickly touch on uhm a line of question from center hammer about i'm appreciative of the work done on getting quotes and finding the range of the market value for the podiums and i'm i'm curious about the conversations with the timing with the private funds to win when they quote started getting higher than the market value of the problem that you all were looking at when were the when were the conversations had with the private funds to help pay for for the product I do I thank you for the question I do want to make one thing clear the podium itself is approximately eleven thousand five hundred dollars. There's been a lot of talk about how we purchased a nineteen thousand we did not purchase a nineteen thousand it is eleven thousand five hundred dollars which the report found is within market value for a similar model podium I don't remember specifically when the decision was made for private funds to be used but I do think we would acknowledge that it was preferable or is preferable that private funds should have been used all along but II was part of a conversation in late august where the discussion began about having private funds reimbursed the state for the cost of the podium in in a quick follow up on that just to confirm who who do you believe owns the podium today the republican party of arkansas owns the podium thank you. Singer flipper your recognized. Well actually do have one to run thank you so the you're right i'm looking at the report right here judging it does say eleven thousand five hundred seventy five dollars for the program. Can you give me break down the twenty five hundred for the consulting. Yeah I mean II thank you for the question I explain this just as many are to go II don't have a breakdown of how it you know what the fees were for that but twenty five hundred was the cost that hannah in virginia charged for their consulting work to ensure that the customisations for the podium including the height were provided to the manufacturer or those that was when the podium was delivered. Poetriperiod to it. When it was delivered did it meet the specifications that that that was requested all the government's office hype with I mean we're all those specifications met you have just read the report that it would say like there is the dimensions were not what was ordered or so sure there's it is referenced in the report and we do acknowledge that the height specifications were not exactly met but I want to be clear that we're talking about a matter of inches uh it's not a huge discrepancy and we have explored a ways to ensure that it's modified to meet what we wanted so in in the funds are paid for this so those who request for four hundred and forty six thousand dollars in january of twenty three I believe for computer software is that correct. Is it that's getting the word these bonds were used to pay for the electron though yes thank you for the question the like turn of the podium was paid for out of the maintenance find it is the appropriation that you referred to historically that's been called the transition find the intercoming governors are provided through this body to help build the equipment furniture anything that an incoming governor needs in their office to run the office through their ten year so something like a podium is has historically been purchased out of that phone even with that language that you quoted okay how was it classified as far as expense. It's night are you talking about the classification yeah it was never classified with asus because it was reinversed by a private party uh before any of that was done so. There was never classified or capitalised by the state so was like correct and just hearing mr dear earlier like. It wasn't the intent at the beginning of this for to purchase this. It was not the intent from the beginning but as i've said it was I think we would acknowledge preferred that private phones would have been used all along why the preference for private funds to be used or that's just what we've acknowledged that private funds would have been the better way to have purchased this item right thank you mister chairman the key. Senator bright oregonist thank you mister chair and II don't want to. Go backwards too far but maybe just to the deputy attorney generals is as you said i'm looking at subject at chapter four dealing with the state county budgetary procedures there's multiple subchapters some have exemption provisions some do not there's obviously a dispute of law if it doesn't say explicitly does that mean their end is I mean they're out I noticed the recommendations from the legace leg audit says hey we need to look at this as a general assembly can you definitely say it's better to go into the general provisions of such after one of chapter four and expressly say one way or the other two consider them a constitution officer and exempt from state agency provisions or. As leg out of infer maybe go to as their state agency and less explicitly exact thank you for the question the. This question has undoubtedly come up in prior general assemblies. And it seems like. The answer to that question was it's better to go by subchapter than to go by the entire chapter. Yeah. This is i'm saying it seems like just because I looking at the amendatory history of the various sections of the law here and perhaps one of the reasons why that decision was made is the concern that that we were discussing earlier about a separation of powers concerned for certain constitutional officers given some of the subchapters within the overall title nineteen chapter four so the short answer the question is to me it seems preferable to go by subchapter which has been the practice of this body for. At least thirty years. Senator chesterfield you're recognized. Thank you message here I am wrapped in the legalese and accountant seized that inundated us today so mine is very simple questions to some just a country of mobile concern. It is the opinion of the ag's office let me first state what I do believe article is saying it is saying that. You don't have to have free approval for procurement. Is there one order to see. That the ages are that will just say the ages office missing it off the government's office that constitutional officers don't have to have pre approval for procurement. However. They do need to have to follow the rules of marketing and redistribution for the purposes of removing something that they have purchased so let me just ask you this if the age of the state of arkansas uses to buy a twenty thousand dollars car. You don't have to go through procurement. But you can then turn around and sell it for five hundred dollars and that's okay is that which I was saying to them. The. So what we're doing is responding to the question that we're asking the opinion about whether the constitutional officers are agencies for purposes of every subchapter within the general accounting budgetary procedures law and the answer to that from a legal perspective is no my understanding is that previous constitutional officers and in different indifferent constitutional officers have voluntarily complied with some of the procurement rules to avoid concerns like you're described that the crux of the issue is. In the. A selling of the of the part of the polion. This. This. Regard it is saying that is still belongs to the state of arkansas because you did not follow the rules that have been in place. I'm gonna ask my my question is not a difficult one out of requires a simple yes or now. And that is if a constitutional office uses to purchase an automobile for twenty thous. What i'm hearing you site years. That they made distributes there for any price they choose. Now is that what i'm hearing. What what i'm trying to get to my answer to your question is that that is up to this body and this body can send this instance we're not talking about some we have a podium that has been sent someplace else. If if the issue was a twenty thousand dollar car. And a constitutional officer chose to send it some place to resell it without going through what we have traditionally gone through they could sell that car for five hundred dollars and because it is a constitutional office this body lay guard has no controller but is that what you're saying to me today what i'm saying is that the law is up to this body and what i'm saying and and that answer has been the answer given since nineteen ninety one. Senator patent your recognized thank you mister chair and santo chesterfield stole my example so but she does a great job asking the question. The. I didn't go to college to be a lawyer or an account neither one. But i've paid for my education in business. Bah making mistakes trolling error in my dad taught me something they're very young age you can not correct a mistake until you admit you made one. And what troubles me most about this whole situation. Is that don't really hear the governor's officer governor staff saying we should have done it a different way instead they're trying to justify how they did it so. I don't think the lecture and toward nineteen thousand dollars. Or eleven five. But I do think the lesson learned could be worth far more than that. If we were just except the fact that the the it was bad judge videos carelessness I mean when you are ordering something. And there's no evidence it's been uncovered by the audit. That we nailed down a firm price on the front end. Where the ten to fifteen thousand dollar range give them. And nothing beyond that has been. Revealed to audit as a fan of this is what's going cost we're going to build it to these specifications a moment ago mr leader said that the specs were provided to the manufacturer. So while wouldn't that documentation have been given the legislative audit because it's not part of this packet. The where we specified to the manufacturer what we were ordering. And then according to the report. When it arrived it did not fit this specifications that we ordered unless the whole idea of behind a custom. Anything is that it would fit the specifications and that brings us the good practices which is that we don't pay for something up front. Where we have no leverage over the vendor when they don't supply what we ordered. And this is all things that I think whoever was involved in the ordering this lecton needs to learn. Before they purchase more stuff so my question to the governor's office I was going to ask. If the governor's office would have preferred. The three vendors cooperate but that has already been shelled out you all said that you tried to compel them to cooperate and that you would have preferred that they cooperate so on that basis. Is the governor's office willing. To. Not used these three vendors in the future because I do not appreciate the fact that just because they were out of state that they were exempted. From cooperation with legislative audit. The. And we may be limited on jurisdiction on what we can do without a state vendors and obviously you didn't have a good enough relationship with them. To compel them to cooperate. Even though you seem to admire their abilities. They evidently did not respect your request to cooperate. So is the governor's office willing to say we will not use these vendors in the future there was nothing in the original quote of ten to fifteen thousand dollars it said we're going to charge you consulting fee there is nothing about shipping a handling. While you would have a crate. Oh case designed and purchased to ship the volume and then ship on separate. It makes no sense to me I mean why wouldn't you put the body a minute and and ship them together and save some freight but none of that as far as the evidence bears out. Was done on the front end ok that shame owners for not doing a thorough job of ordinary ordering it. But it's shame on the vendors for not providing what we ordered the size we ordered. And. The. Not disclosing what all their fees would be. In the final cost. So is the governor's office willing. The bar these three vendors. And not use them in the future. The governor's office has no plans to use these three vendors in the future. And hell and have not used them since this. Okay so no plans at this time. Can we plan on not using them again we're talking about two we're talking about two individuals hannastone in virginia back who i've already expressed that I have great respect for even though they refused to cooperate again we we made every effort that ala asked us to do to ensure their cooperation but it was we also felt that it was important that the governor's office not unduly influence this audit and in the work that was being done by allay so we simply did what was asked of us I could have just a little more like a dude. How in it naive. To have great respect for their ability when they failed to provide the product. That was ordered. The product it was ordered was provided again we ordered a customer. To certain specs. And. From what I can tell from from what they're proposed in the beginning it's just the standard lecturer that is not a service thank you for the question it is not a standard lecture lecture it is a custom built though custom to a specific height if you turn on any national news channel right now this is a very common falcon branded podium it's used all over the world it's I i'm quite familiar with it it's used almost daily at white house events it it it is a custom built podion to a specific hype. So how many of these products exist if they're used around the world and are they built to the. That specific hate that we received or that specific height that we requested I don't know the answer to that question were there about what I can't tell you it is a custom built podium two eight specific height so there may be another one out there that is of similar height. But there's also ones out there that are standard that are taller this one is is shorter because the governor's height is shorter perceived your response but do we know what hide it was supposed to be and what height it is yes and if I may up senator and you asked how we know that the specs were provided to the manufacturers legislative audit was provided dozens of text messages and emails that outlined the specific customisation request of the governor's office multiple heights of the governor were sent measuring from you'll see the phrase in the report elbow to the ground that freeze came out of a text message that was sent from an employee of the governor's office two back at events stating that we wanted the height to be with the governor wearing to which hells a certain distance from her elbow resting on the podium to the ground there were significant detail put into what that height would be you raise a good question why that information wasn't fleshed out in the report why it wasn't stated that the government is offers per provided dozens of documents detailing the specification I can't answer that you also asked why there was why they weren't shipped together there was documentation provided that there was a back order on the case it took an additional amount of time to get that sent so they were unable to be sent together because the podium was completed significantly before the case was available itself well thank you thank you misgetting for that I guess there are text messages that were not included in the report if I could ask staff or the chair then maybe for bad. The all those documents that the governor's office provided I think that could be very informative and not appreciate it thank you. The. Mr chair with your permission I can address concerns senator patent we consider those but there's a statutory provision in in legislative audits governing statues that talk about communication that is privileged in confidential or working papers of the governors in the governor's hands it would be confidential in our hands and so we considered those text messages those inner text messages as part of those working papers of the governor and we took the liberty pursue to our bill statutory to do that and we did not include those for those reasons but we did examine those in we consider those uhm aren't on the page that had been discusses the height of the podium that I believe misconnecting actually spoke on when she talked about the about a length of the podium we did address that we just didn't specifically reference those out of consideration for the governor's office and that that being part of their working papers. Thank you for that and so in the report I do have access to. The measurements that legislated bought it made of the podium that arrived here. But I don't have anything that I can see myself. Of what the measurements would have been if it had met the order so. Do both sides here are both entities the governor's office and legislative audit both agree that what we received was not the says in specifications that we ordered. The governor's office would agree to that okay and I think it was in the report so thank you. Thank you mister chair yes sir. In central johnson you are recognizer. Thank you mister chairman. Ah i'm not quite sure who to begin i'll just jump in the middle of it. While out to the side of. First quick question for mr and mister watson. That's why it said that prosecuting attorneys are constitutional officers new agree with that in this constant context. This. It depends on the definition of the constitutional officer that status start to find that but black slow dictionary which is the standard definition you know place to go for definition says a constitutional officer if someone whose office who's office is created in the constitution and prosecuting attorneys I think would fit that bill so if we were going with that definition yes based on the line of questioning before I think the whole issue is how the legislature has there's more specific definitions of the legislature as provided throughout the gabl and those definitions would control over any black sale dictionary issue so basically what you said is not as simple answer because we're looking at for example the county judges are mentioned in the constitution I guess their constitutional officers senators are mentioned in the constitution I guess we're all constitutional after I don't I used to think we had seven. And we had I used to think we had three branches of government and then we were told will we have a legislative executive injuries oh but then we've got highway and we've got gaming fish then we got lottery and now we've got racing which course means the gambling commition I don't i'm not sure I know where that land that ought to be pretty clear it was clear back in that grade civic but it's not clear to me now but I appreciate your answer and I think it was a good answer the thing that i'm i'm trying to do here where is this committee. Generally our job is to make sure that the tax payers money is spant category for properly. And our secondary responsibility. Is that we as is committee. Discover discrepancies that need to be addressed in the law including as you mister properly pointed out the bullet points on page sixteen which you agree with some of them and you could disagree with another the one thing it jumped out at me is that an and I want to say how much I appreciate are stay and i've served on this committee for a while and II think there are some of the finest people i've ever worked with in my whole life but they may get it wrong sometimes just like you know all of it might get it wrong sometimes but it appears to me that if. A constitutional offshore and then my context I mean the seven. The ones we think every server are exempt from the procurement law. It's a ludicrous to say that they're not exempt from a using him and RN m and r exist to facilitate proper reuse of states. Oh assets are if i've got a a computer that on my desk that I don't need any more as another agency that could pop process possibly use it even ours there too market or redistribute those things but that is part of it until recently I guess it was part of the the office of procurement I think now it's been transformed into something else but at one point it was under the director of a state procurement but where i'm trying to do here is find out one where the tax payers. Robbed where the tax payers defrauded. And I don't see anything in the report that the taxpayers were defraud and I also I don't see. Anything other than some legal things and I trust you good lawyers and the attorney general and the the people they'll serve argued issue committee in january to help come up with some ways to clarify this and I think we probably need to but but are our seek your guidance in there but the reason we're here and if we all candidate with each other is that this process which I consider sacred because i've been a part of it for that two three sessions now has been politicised and it bothers me to know hand to see this being used political like now can you take general assembly completely out of politics of course I would never think that can take a governor out of politics of course not that would be naive but this particular procedure should not be politicized and I won't apologize to not to use specifically but I will include you but certainly to the governor for having to be put through this and I think she handled it just perfectly in saying this would be reimbursed this can be done out of out of the the party finds and I and i'm grateful that it was done now. If she had asked me they want how should I do this I say you need to call certain ways and talk to them about chairman would and maybe let let's let them write the cheque and we wouldn't have wasted the kind of time that we could use working on a protecting our citizens from the crypto miners or or all the other things that we need to get done but I just want to say that thank you for your candor in your cooperation our staff leg their fact finders they're going to present us with facts some facts may be deemed some day by a price to be very relevant and some may have no relevance whatsoever but they do a thorough job of providing the facts i've specially appreciated was quite common about why the emails weren't included because they know that's a privileged communication and and that shows the professionalism that they do but but again I don't like seeing something like this we've seen at all across the country proper legal legislative procedures being being politicized and weaponized and and please accept my apology that to you into the governor for being in this particular case victims of there that's all I have mister chairman thank you. Senator hickey you're recognized thank you sir three questions first I was wondering if this general minds herself my intention is they asked the third question to the ag what he might scooting over just a little bit. And first mister chair could I ask you a question. Representatives away yes sir okay what kind of based on your tone here not heard what representative period ask our staff about some influence. But it was my understanding that during a meeting with governor's office in the since you're of this committee last week and i'd like to know did you make a statement in a more paraphrase that this legislative all right that we have is out of control and needs to be rained in. It again i'm not saying I never worked that's right but that's I need to know that question based on the start of this conversation in some of the tone upherd in this committee well so senator wallace and i. We're in a meeting I don't recall the exact date of it. The. With legislative audit it included the. Ah. The cold the arkansas a police the attorney for the arkansas state police cfote for the state police. Trying to think mr norman mister kevin white. Emily and some staff members whose names I don't recall with regard to making a statement like that I don't recall saying that in any committee meeting or any meeting of of. The specific meeting that you refer to I do not recall making a statement like that I have heard. Other members outside of. This process make statements along those lines. And you know whether or not that's true or not is a question for this body to ultimately determine. Since the reports been released but I don't I don't call making that statement now well I appreciate your answer of course we've got another conflict now but my as I said my third question is going to be to the age ages office and i'd like to go back to this this idea what is the agency if you don't mister are you yesterday and I don't care who answers this but so and it was kind of hard to day even with the senate's appropriation that came through that we passed. But I did take the liberty after you all released the ag's opinion to kind of look into the agency port i've kept my fingers out of this because I thought that's what was appropriate from the from the get go is what I wanted to do was let us be a fair process and i'd ask for any at all they're they just like to do the same of course we each are owned person down here but I do think we have some. At a minimal some ethical stuff whenever it comes to the white legislative audience. But within the appropriation bill of even the senate and I did look at the governors within that appropriation bill it it defines. Them is an agency in there as it relates to that. Have you all looked at there also whenever you've been going through this. Thank you center for the the question yeah we're aware of that the the the. The appropriations bills speak user term agency in reference to constitutional officers that's in our view it's not despositive the question that it issue here is is and how the term agency is being used for purposes at the general accountability and budgeting procedures law. My my understanding is that their standard language there is included and all the appropriations basically that they get run all the way through and so it wouldn't surprise me if that's the same language that's used in all of the appropriations without regard to where you say insist of standard line languages and in statute that is really done count. No what i'm saying is when you have when you have two statutes and you're asking a specific question whether this particular statute applies to a certain office the most relevant question is how that statute defines those terms have you looked at for it since you've down here and heavy inserted yourself. And it's my understanding that you were in in or attempted to be in some other meetings maybe the exit interviewer thanks to that nature prior to the day's meeting which was very eye to me that. That branch of the us constitutional through our your office or whatever would do that so but I do s this have you looked at your appropriation bill also to see if that sign language is in there or do you know. My understanding is that that language is common to all the appropriations bills again the question is what does the general accountability and budgetary procedures law mean when it uses that term it's very common for these general terms like this like the question earlier from singer johnson about constitutional officers or officers that are very broad like that they're often used in different ways across different statutes so the most relevant question is was what it means in that specific subchapter and I would like to respond to the the statement that was just made there we reference me personally I suspect I am your office if I did apologize for so our office was asked to be in a meeting with the governor's office and legislative audit my understanding is that that legislative audit the process is for legislative audit to have an exit interview in which they sit down with with the agency that's had the the the audit and they go through the draft of that audit uh my understanding is and the governor's office is it's better position that to answer this but II do think I need to respond to that what you said there my understanding is that legislative audit presented the governor's office with the draft audit report is their normal process is and then when a few hours of providing at seventy plus page report had so down for the that exit interview that was sort of called off either at at the moment or shortly before because there wasn't enough time for the governor's folks to read and prepare for that it was rescheduled we were invited to be there and we we sent someone from our office the meeting was eight minutes are our representatives said nothing in the meeting and our understanding of the purpose of that meeting was to talk about. The draft itself whether they're any legal concerns or from the governor's perspective whether they're any factual concerns and as I said I represented it who was there didn't say anything in the meeting and it was about eight minutes so back to the thing with the the appropriation I guess my my question is this you know we're down here talking about this stuff that it doesn't apply to the cost to swallow again soon it's in the senate also that we're word of phone is an agency I guess from my standpoint is heaven one vote down here that if we're trying to allude that leg audit does not have the the power to go in and provide transparency on old animals which were doing right here. Then i'm not willing to vote for the appropriation so I guess I need a clear direction since especially we're in fiscal session right now if that if that is what we're alluding to. Then I need to know that before these votes are taken or at least we need to try to do some clean up language before we get out of here so could you answer that for me sir thank you for the question I believe you'll recall last year that legislative audit flag the previous attorney general for a problem with paying a certain number of employees at the attorney general's office in excess of their line out of maximums this was the previous administration that has nothing to do with the general accounting budgetary procedures law so the question that we're talking about here is this very restricted question about procurement in imminent not for all purposes of legislative audit and I think you'll recall that our office even though we didn't make that mess we showed up at that at the audit we said yes we wrote an opinion we wrote an opinion saying legislative is audit is correct on this and and there's an interest fair it's fair but just with what you just said so if you're trying to say that. That the constitutional office in our could use your office you get the governor's office if we're not subject to him and r which is what I think i'm hearing or what you're trying to say then that's what i'm saying I don't know at this point since i'm hearing that and if that would be correct which I have a problem with it whether it is but I don't want to vote on any of these appropriations because athlete there at the very least you know we're sitting down here talking this stuff but what it work what my opinion is is that the constituents of the state of arkansas right here they don't care. And I don't get me wrong accurate about the rule of wall and I think it's important of all the details where I promise you right now what they're worried about is that they're just this transparency is here and that things have done correct as far as the governor's office you know and there's been some people's this week or this week and you all looked at that i'm disrespectful to them I have never knowledge anybody to put that out been disrespectful to this this is all just business to me to to provide those checks and balances nothing more nothing less so again I guess that and the clear direction from you all before we get out of this session at least as it relates to my vote thank you sir. Representative once from your recognized thank you chairman i'm over here. A little bit of confusion II completely agree that the governor's office has allowed to use state funds for the podium. I'm a little confused why we went ahead and had the repair pay for it when it's perfectly within the governor's perview to have a podium. Thanks for the question. It is pretty is a perfectly legal purchase it was a perfectly legal purchase it was something that the governor's office had identified early on that we needed so again there was nothing wrong with the purchase we just decided that it was performable that private funds pay for it. Okay another question on the processor of purchasing that type of purchase it seems like there should have been a beard with an outline a drawing sales tax shipping everything from guts to feathers so that. If there if it wasn't right first of all you could get a discount or whatever but it just seems like there should have been a bit I don't think we need the text of the emails the governor has an entitled it has a privilege to have private text and but a beard would have solved all of this. Thank you in two senator repeaters question from earlier as to what the governor's office acknowledges could be done differently that is one thing that we have changed with our in office policies and procedures to ensure a situation like this does not happen again last question could this just be a simple honest mistake and need your reaction in an effort to try to make everything right that just went a little too far and they perfection of just wanting to do everything right maybe they could have just made a mistake it's a new governor's name staff. New people coming into office could just be an honest mistake and we don't recognize the this is not a mistake again the podium was a legitimate purchase one that the office had identified that we needed this body appropriate money that was available to us to use to purchase items one of them we identified was a podium later on we determined that it was preferable the private finds that the governor raised through the state republican party be used to reimburse the state no tax payer money has been used to purchase this this item and they the item is owned by the state republican party it is not owned by the state anymore and no taxpayer money was you so we do not view it as a mistake okay what are we using as a podium now. There is a podium that was that remained in the office from the previous administration as I indicated earlier to represent it maybe II fully expect the governor to begin using uh this new podium we were just waiting on the audit to be completed okay thank you. Senator hammer you're recognized they can share i'd like to ask mr norman a question first and go to the ag's office please. Miss norman how long we've been down here. Forty seven years I want to ask if you're ready to get out of here but don't know they'd be appropriate but. My my question is and i'm trying remember in the term that i've been down here has the ag's office ever said in exit interview with anyone or any agency. Regarding the contents of an extra interview. Well I haven't set it on all exit interviews but none that i'm aware. In your forty seven years yesterday now that you're aware of so to the age on assist questioning age statement that you said in on a meeting who invited you into that meeting. To be clear what I said is I myself was not part of that meeting we had a representative in our office who the governor's office asked us to return that our representative went for about eight minutes are understanding was not that it was AAA an exit interview in the sense of it was a final interview I understanding was it was a an opportunity to talk with legislative audit lawyers not auditors about that law from our perspective or the facts from their perspective ultimately are representative didn't say anything okay thanks for clarifying that then also to the ag opinion what is the was this opinion handled let's see in accordance with standard practices and procedures of the ag when it comes to handling AG opinions yes sir okay then. The. How long did it take you to turn around the cg opinion from the time it was asked to the time it was turned out thing that's about a week. Is that standard practices because i'm I think i'm still waiting on a couple of standard practices fair as fair so I believe our no it can speak to this better but I believe our average turn around time or average turnaround time it's about forty days right now so summer much faster some of three days some or one day some are seven days somewhere ten days somewhere much longer than thirty days that's the average so the answer is yes where you as to explain this was a given special treatment we were asked to expedite and they're often members who also ask for their opinion to be expedited and that's a question that we run up the check but in other issue before for the record of asked for next direct one I did get it as quick as this one but was it was it asked for to get out ahead of this meeting was that what was the stated purpose for it being expedited there was no stated purpose there was just a request that would be expedited and we we tried to expedite all right thank you please. Representative of color you're recognized. The. Thank you mister I have a lot just one quick follow up to rub to represent lunch strim's question why does the like turn not live with rpa. The latter and was where the podium was delivered to the office at the state had been the one it had purchased it at that point in the process of the state of the RPA reimbursing the state for it shortly thereafter is when this article began we felt that it was in the interest of the audit occurring uh that the podium not be moved in risk something happening to it so it has remained where it was delivered just as the travel case has remained at the RPA where it was delivered I we have acknowledged previously I believe the governor has said when asked it it may be an our office it may be stored with the rpa it's available to other constitutional officers as well as the state republican party to use because the party owns it. And just one other quick question I am i'm taking this report meeting everything very seriously and I read the governors officers response to the report findings in the report and but it seems that there was further response office response on social media last night I probably received more questions about this response than anything in the report do you believe the social media response was appropriate at light of the seriousness of this matter and also wanted to ask if any tax payer money was used or was it produced during the work day. Thanks for the question at just to confirm you're talking about the video correct yes okay the video yes it was part of the governor's response to this audit I want to be very clear I think the governor has been her actions in word since the beginning of this had made it clear that this was a priority for us we welcomed the audit as I said at the beginning of this hearing we were transparent we were cooperative but for six months we have allowed this audit to occur and tried not to unduly influence it in any way that would be seen as an appropriate. The governor put out a response last night now that the audit is complete it's a tongue and cheap video that's all it is she believes that uh we have been cooperative in this process but it's also time that her along with members of this body move on to the important issues that the people of arkansas elected all of you to to be here to handle uhm she she was just making that point clear as far as your second question it was produced by a member of the governor's office staff but it was done during his personal time his personal capacity he used his own personal assets there were no taxpayer funds used to produce edit or or post that video I mean I understand everything you're saying but we hadn't been through this process yet today and so it kind of felt like spagging the football before you know. We'd been through the whole process so thank you. Representative matter recognized thank you mister chair first of all i'd like to just make a statement down it's been a while but I want to commend representative gas away for what he did is a very suingly laid out what we have here today is it is a pretty complex legal issue and we have a disagreement and that legal issue no matter how much longer we stay is not gonna be decided to not in my opinion the reps of gas way that a good job of just bringing that home it seems like it was hours ago but I do have a question for the governor's office what would I have what I like about this it seems to me that the facts are basically agreed upon them in the facts here or agreed upon I think and I want to know if you agree with me that what needs to headline from this will need to be taken out of this as there was nothing whatsoever there was known a fairiest internet there was nothing that was fraudulent all of the things we've read all of the theories and I guess it's my fault for reading some of them the tax payer in the arcans need to know that none of that occurred we have some technical issues you've already alluded to that and you've already cleaned them up as my understanding so I guess my question is. You agree with it yes absolutely. Representative maybe you're recognized thank you mister chair earlier you had made it statement and I just want to clarify give you an opportunity to declare if I cause we're we're just talking about the facts here today we just want to make sure that the facts are are out there and I think you may have reference and I might be paraphrasing a little bit I wasn't taking notes at the time that you said it but that the lecture was available for the media to see and we do know that the democrat gazette took a picture of it but to my knowledge that is the only media that has seen it but I do know that other media has asked to see it and they have been told now so I don't expect you mister deer to know every single request that comes forward but I just wanted to make it really clear because you said that it has been available to the media and in speaking to the media it hasn't been available so just wanted to clear that up if I recall correctly it was available before the audit began it hasn't been available since the audit started okay thank you for clarifying thank you. Senator letting your recognized thank you mister charlin thank you miss kennedy and mister dear for being here today in the discussion about the customisation and the cost of the lecture and one thing is kept tugging at me this afternoon and it's that back in october in justifying the unusual cost of electronic governor told the press that the electron also incorporates sound components meant to allow multiple media outlets to plug in and yet the electron that was presented to state auditors according to the report did not include a microphone or any electronic components i'm just wondering how do we reconcile the discrepancy there between what was described in october and what was presented to the auditors thanks for the question I will the governor statement is is accurate it's a custom bill podium that has a microphone capability it has a reading light that's on the top panel and it allows for wiring to be run through it in a discrete process so that it looks clean from a public facing perspective again if it was procured there were a process of people who helped put one of that there I described earlier some of the best in the world at doing it part of that is making it look good okay so when she said it incorporates sound components were basically just talking about holds the which wires could have been allowed to run that would be a component of the podium but to be clear it also has microphone capability what this can you elaborate then on the the capability since the auditors say that there are no electronic components it just has like a holder for a microphone there's electronic hook up for the microphone to be able for wires to be able to run through it to connect to a microphone thank you thank you mister chair. Representative right you're recognized thanks miss chairman just a question for your. Dears was basically started early last year in that road okay the folks that were handling this claim that's what we will call the claim that was coming through. Oh what can they ever worked with the governor's officer any as our office handling the expenditure of the cost I just wonder about this because you never ever pay for any saying before you get it in in government and I just wonder if if you could give me a natural mail. Yeah. I'll take his when representative right so as to our staff the were involved in the process of this like you mentioned it started early next last year really in our ten year in office and for the large majority of not all of us this is our first time working for a governor's office there may be a few exceptions. So. And like any custom item that you order customization requires up front payment for the item or a manufacturer vendor would not make that item they couldn't take the risk of making a custom item that they did not receive payment for that part of the procurement and purchasing law that's reference that does not allow up front payment is part of that gable that does not apply to the constitutional offers in this case. The. Absolutely dolby you're recognized thank you mr chairman why ever hear to your right. I just have a a couple of questions in its regarding some of the exhibits. Or the appendix it pinics jay which is stated june the twelfth someone checked the box of the expenses incurred for equipment to assist communication per state employees as they conduct stated business who who did that particular document that would have been our office manager at the governor's office who are disbursing officer in what is that individual's name. If it's a miss hamilton. Is she also the same one that would have put lh one I believe it's appendix an o. Yes ma'am and who directed her to put that on there her supervisor would have and who is her supervisor mysterious year here that's present with us today and my question is which one of these documents is accurate is the june twelfth one corrector is that a lie or is the appendix that has been altered a government record being altered as that one is that one a corrector is that a lie they can't both be the same so what was the interest it's all I need to know. All of the documents in front of you are correct. Even the one it's an altered government document is that correct. It is an altered government document correct it's a common government practice to write on receipts and invoices to document certain business procedures within the government I think we can disagree the second question I hear of his regard to work representing my colour esk earlier about the video response you set an individual of the governor's office produced it who was that individual. His name is mister davis he's when is his first name keyton. And how long has he been an employee of the governor's office. Approximately a year. I had another question I believe and I think you've answered this but I want to know has the government's governor's office changed any of its policies procedures that relates to purchasing and procurement since the purchase of electron if so which ones have changed yes may I am the governor's office constantly as reviewing and refining our policy is the best serve the citizens of the state the one specifically mentioned in the audit is the timing of when the business justification statement is completed it was completed after the purchase of the podium but before the audit started as a result of the idea findings the governor's office now completes that document prior to approval for purchases so you may I have just a couple of more follows mister chair recommends so you are to some external following. A per procurement and purchase procedure is that correct as explained earlier in the public finance section there are some statutes that explicitly apply to constitutional offer I understand that you don't have to explain it to me believe it or not I can read the law and I have a law degree that says I can read it my question was just what hit you done the second thing is that the last question I have was any personal personal action taken against any member of the governor's staff related to this purchase and if so white and who. No and nor should there be I think we can disagree thank you mister chair. Senator flipo your recognized thing was chair just question for staffing as for roger I believe several year. Two were maybe three parts center to your auto request one was regarding the point bill that we'd also passed last september and I guess I just want to know you know this is regarding the electron portion of the auto request but you know there was one or two her parts so I just wanna know where we at in relation to that. We have we have been brainstorming on that we are in the early processes of gathering information on that so we spent most her resources trying to get this out of the way first of course and this is a very busy time for audit because we're trying to get the the afford the statewide financial statements together and then also the federal complaints audits there's certain time limitations on that so we're getting freed up from that and focusing on the other one and I guess my mark you know we always like to make it easy on staff roger you know that. But the motion to you know you know the the the most that was voted on in and audit legal and executive committee I believe you know to move forward with this audit all that was included in original report so we are still moving forward with the other two portions of the okay yes thank you thank you mister. Senator remark johnson you're recognized thank you mister chairman this is a response to the comment by representative dollar specifically as stepped provide me with the aca five fifty four one twenty one tampering with a public record it is a person commits the offense of tampering with a public record if with the purpose of impairing the verities legibility or availability of a public record here she knowingly makes a false entry in our falsely alters any public record or erices obliterates removes destroys are conceals a public record and that's that's not the same is altered that's what said word is tampering and I don't see any case where if someone makes a notation for internal counting reasons it would be considered tampering with a public record if you altered it for example changed an amount or white out something and type something on it probably one could make that her butter will presumption but I don't think this anywhere came close to this but simply someone making a notation for someone else in the office to know that it is a particular case as soon speaking of the fact that it was to be reimbursed. I just want to make that clear the committee thank you mister thanks johnson I do want to follow up on that quickly. Because this was a point of contention that was in the audit there are these three documents. They're all the same invoice. But two of one were written on and they have the same note on them I mean it says to be reimbursed but it's not the same note. And at tried to follow the timeline as to when those were created. Why they were created because I think all of these become relevant questions can someone explain exactly how that happened certainly mr chairman once it was determined that this podium would be reinversed the office manager we discussed earlier retrieved a check from the republican party and took it to tss who's our business office to provide that check for reimbursement once she got there she asked he asss to print a copy of the original invoice that was submitted into asus so that she could steep with two were attached to that check for reinversement right to be reinversed on it and create an additional documentation explaining what item it was being reinversed with that check which was the podium she did that she submitted all of the paperwork to tss to be then entered into asus once you returned back to the governor's office she realized she had neglected forgotten to make a copy of the new public document she had created so instead of waiting for that to be uploaded and available which could take hours to days she could created the second version for her own internal office keeping records that said to be reinversed to be clear there was in no way and attempt to not be a transparent by her where the governor's office and in fact the fact that we have all of these receipts are because they were released in either a four year request or two legislative audit at their request okay and so I was trying to once again I was trying to understand this as I was reading the report because the four year request came in and then they're basically were three versions of this documents which ones of those were provided in for you in which ones if they're one if there was one that was not. Means there they said the same thing but can you explain what was provided to the for your request and what was not the the original document that was signed and handed to tss was the one that was not provided in the four year it was still processing in their system at the time the four year was responded to it was the one in the possession of the governor's office that ended up being turned over in that for your request. So you're saying the first one the claim what I would call the clean copy when was that entered into asus days previously and that one was also turned over in response to the four year okay and then the third one that one was turned over in response to the boy request was the second whenever turned over night during the four year request that specifically mentioned but it was turned over in subsequent point for your request and you know to follow up on senator johnson's question about the tampering. You look at that statute and is that as I recall it you have to prove at the outset. And it's my understanding that legislative audit does not make a determination of intent but of course with every criminal effect you have to prove intent so from the outset of that statute you have to prove that the purpose the person acted with the purpose to impair and the only one that really fits as I recall I think legibilities won obviously writing to be reimbursed is not interfered with a legibility of the document. The only one of those that would possibly apply was that it would impair the verity of the document or the truthfulness of the document. And so was. Can you see an argument where writing to be reimbursed on the document with somehow impair of the truthfulness of the document I can't because that document in that note would submitted it the exact same time of a check that was intended to reimburse this podium in case. The reinversement would not occur until that check clear the bank which happened the next day or two days later so at the time that that invoice was written nine to be reinversed it was a clear and accurate representation of that financial proceeding which was for that rpa check to reinverse the state's purchase and fully fully reimbursed the state okay i'm looking and i'm looking at it now it's with the purpose to impair the verity of the truthfulness. The eligibility obviously this was not with the purpose to impair the legibility of the document or the purpose to impair the availability of the document riding to be reimbursed making these markings on it was not too impaired the availability of it so the only one of those that seems to possibly fit would be very truthfulness. But that's not the only thing you have to prove under that statute you have to prove that the person then made a false entry. Or falsely alters the public record so I think the question would be dead and I believe this was laura hamilton is that right did lower hamilton at the time that she made those markings fastly alternate the document. And can you explain what it what you believe about whether or not that was a false alteration mister chairman I would argue that that's a very true alteration it truly reflected what was going on with that check it was to reinverse this purchase and the purchase was indeed reimbursed correct. Okay so your argument is is that it reflects the reality of the situation it's not false didn't impair the truthfulness if anything it enhanced the truthfulness because it reflected the reality of the situation is that fair thank you. Representative shepherd you're recognized thank you mister chairman and I guess i'd like to go back to kind of where senator petty started. Uhm. I think it's important for the public to know when I guess this is directed to staff that while the legislature provides oversight. To add it. And audit exists as. Uh I guess essentially a creature of the legislature when it comes to the audit itself and they are in the independence of the audit this audit has been done independently correct. Yes sir and in fact. One of the things and actually as we've gotten into this this this is a unique situation I mean in my time here I don't know that we've had and an audit that his heads garnered the attention and it's taken the time in his certainly certainly just from the attention to him point we're all here there's plenty of media attention but even among membership I know when we were getting questions about well why is it taking so long it's just an audit it's just checking the numbers and I think that that staff would agree actually when you're talking about an audit that has been approved by legislative audit. Despite what I lay person might be leave and add it to be this was that this was a full fledged investigation would that be correct mr norman yes or well financial audit would be the purpose of that would be your render an opinion on the financial statements and that this was is not what that is in our in our statutes nodded is definitely very broadly and can include an investigation and it would be references that are a special okay and in this audit I think it's fair to say it's exhaustive and while there may be information that. The. Audit would like to have had particularly with regard out of state vendors this would be considered to be an an exhaustive and complete audit is that correct. The reason it took a lot of time is because we were trying to fulfil our responsibilities to to get information and present that in a in a factual way and that that is clear and concise and unbiased and the point of this audit was to ultimately reveal those facts whatever they may be good or bad are indifferent and is that what in fact is happened here with this particular audit. We believe it is and if that was not the case if there was anything that had been done or any impropriety in the audit process then staff would not put there would not have issued this would not have put it out there is that correct that this is our report and we stand by okay and end up believed that obviously most of the questions have been directed it legal opinions and other things and we properly all need to go back and look what it means to be a state agency but I do believe it's important particularly with the amount of attention that it's been garnered by the sought it and the questions that were raised some believe that the audit was to take all this time because it was too linger over the governor's head and then others say it was till it took this time because there were some kind of elaborate cover up and that it neither of those is the case what we have here is an audit that was prepared prepared by our professional staff and for which they have put and it verified the veracity the exhaustiveness and that is what is being presented today is that correct mr norman yes and you would also agree that when it comes to about because I don't want to show away from our responsibility when it comes to other items with regard to audit I mean ultimately we have the audit committee we have these various subcommittees other items outside the per view of this particular individual audit from which at the legislative auditor has a quite a bit of leeway and conducting those audits and investigations correct. Yes sir ok and so I just think it's important for the membership to know and the public to know that while we provide oversight and we will never shot away from our responsibilities in that regard when it comes to this audit that has been presented today this has been this is been presented in an unbiased and uninfluenced manner and for which good battery indifferent there are things that that those on the right will agree or disagree with their things that those on the left will agree or disagree with but ultimately audit's charge was to reveal those facts and that is an essence what's occurred to this point. Yes sir that's all I have. Representative landing fight your recognized thank you very sure this is from the ag historically the ag would not pan oh no case it was in medication or if it was in conversation like this particular one is as that policy changed or was i'm mistaken about the policy thank you for the question that the historic policy is the attorney journalist office will not open on matters that are in pending litigation or that are in litigation now this leg auto report is not in litigation the the questions that we were asked are were not specifically about the leg out of report so this is very far from that traditional rule which is still in place. Representative dollar but you're recognized thank you mister chair the good thing about being attorneys is one and a town will start to death too will make a living so we can always disagree on how we interpret the law but I do want to make one point I think that we can certainly agree as to as to how that laws interpreted I appreciate the chairs prosecutorial history as he likes to remind us he was a prosecutor at some point in time but once again like I say one lawyer in a town will start off to death to make a living but I think we can agree that that first document the reference to appendix j that did that lecturing purchases a public or government asset that was what was checked and it was being viewed as a government or public asset which it was in the second one when the notation was made that was changed to to be reimbursed were then changing with that electron was to a private one enter that was a significant change in my mind so if I used the word tampering in a rather loose way it certainly changed the nature of that of that particular item that was purchased was state phones and so I want to make that point there that is a significant change and one that I appreciated added pointing out thank you. Representative painter you're right now sorry I couldn't tell who who's mine that's alright thank you chair judge did you say in your opening remarks that this audit you believed was a waste of tax pair money in time yes okay do you not would you agree though that it's the legislature that controls the person rings in its our job to make sure that agencies are constitutional officers or spinning money appropriately. Yes okay my last question mister chair was your ever any discussion since we ordered something and we didn't get what we ordered. Discussions are maybe trying to return that and get exactly what we are ordering. There were discussions we ultimately decided that that was. Not preferable and and so we chose night to do that. I guess one more follow up mr chair can you explain to why you just young you guys didn't want to a little bit more detail than just preferably night to sure I mean it took several minutes for the the podium to arrive once the podium did arrive there was discussion about the state party reimbursing it as i've said it it then became the subject of and legislative audit and again as these factors have come into play we we determine that we just it was not preparable to ship it back that we would just look for a way to uh modify it if we chose to do that. I appreciate mr chair I just think it's kind of concerning that. It's meat we're being accused of wasting taxpayer time when we're actually doing our job it's all thank you mr chairman if I could respond to that I just want to to note again that no taxpayer funds have been expended on this podium because the state was fully reimbursed for the cost of everything that was expended originally all nineteen thousand dollars of the total cost of the invoice the state was fully reimbursed for and no taxpayer money was used to to make this purchase. This. Sender hammer your recognized thank you miss shared like to direct question is normal and then to the chair please. Miss norman as as you were originally charged here's like audit was originally charged by center hickey's request and approved. You are still there you are still actively and I think senator flip ohio on this will go you are still actively. Pursuing the rest of what you are charged to do in your duties as like it is that correct yes sir miss share like you're a question you. In order for us not to interfere with them continuing. In what they are charged with doing. Please give us guidance as to how we need to handle the matter in approving or not approving this report and what are going be the the effects of that decision so everybody has clear guidance about when we vote we don't want to cut leg out of all from being able to continue what they were charged to do so could you give us clear guidance please. Well II can give you one which is. The approval of this report would be the report that's presently before us as mrperiod norman stated this this is an ongoing process with respect to the second part of the. Audit at that senator hicky requested and so my personal opinions I don't feel like if we. Vote that this report stand presented. That that would in any way affect them continuing to be able to do the second part of the audit now that's just my opinion and what I would ask is that if audit staff has a different opinion than that that they give it necessarily I agree with you that they are separate and they will be two different reports obviously we've released this one and there there is nothing that I know of that would prevent us from completing the second report so for clarification for the record so there's no confusion moving forward or somebody doesn't try to alter what we're and decide to do here today it is the chairs position and miss norman it is your understanding that if we approve this report today it will not prohibit from moving for with what with the rest of what you have been charged to do that i'd like to hear an affirmative from the chair for mr norman please yes sir that's my understanding that they were going to be in at the time it was discussed it's my understanding that they would be too different reports and so I do not believe that approving this report would have any impact on our subsequent report. I agree with mr norman. The. Center petty you're recognized. Thank you mister chair and I promise I will not feel like i'm the only one asking questions this time have two quick questions I think is relevant because it's basically the end of the conclusion of the report and as I mentioned earlier early on in one of my committees I asked the question on a very insignificant dollar amount why refer to the prosecuting attorney and and and while mr norman was not the respond to I think he might be able to share light on on why and and his answer to that and in the last question is is that typical and I remember that from that meeting being that that is generally typical that they refer that but i'll let you answer that. I'll let emily answer them senator petty in response to your question and I thank you for that there are four areas noted on page sixteen of our report that give the legislative auditor calls to refer this to a prosecuting attorney and or the attorney general the first senator petty is the four year non compliance section er when the number of documents that could have been provided in response to four year was not thoroughly provided in response to four year that statutory provision calls for a if it's found to be an a negligent violation that's a misdemeanor a criminal misdemeanor and so that would trigger mr norman's responsibility to refer that to the prosecutor the second provision is the provision on page sixteen that notes nineteen four eleven oh three to be consistent in audits past when we have found violations for non compliance with nineteen four eleven oh three we have also referred those to prosecuting attorneys. The third reason that we would refer to a prosecuting attorney is the allegation listed in violation of nineteen four eleven o seven and eleven oh eight and while this report does not mention the falsifying business record criminal statute the shredding of the bill of lighting could technically qualify as that and that is another independent evaluation that needs to be made by prosecuting attorney and finally in response to your question the fourth statutory obligation of the legislative auditor to refort to refer to a prosecuting attorney would be the tampering allegation that there is many host of discussion about today. Senator petty you're recognized thank you and and that was the more of a legal response than I got in the audit from the auditors that day the the response that day was pretty much what you referred to when you talking about best for a prosecutor to determine materiality or relevance and and so that was what I was thinking that that may be that was policy that that you just took that decision completely out of the auditors per view for their response and referred virtually everything that have seen so far and and leg audit to a prosecutor for them to determine violations or not that's right senator petty we don't make what's called the mins right or criminal intent evaluation and the auditors responsibility pertune to pursue it to statute is to send anything that here she thinks even may appear that way that's his statutory obligation it is a weird reporting entity and that girls to we can't take independent action just refer it to appropriate officials. Sooner or in your recognized thank you mister chair just quickly. When was the age opinion issued what date. The question is april tenth. Alright as far as the response that was developed the governor's office response to arkansas legislative auto report who who worked on that response or who who developed that. And by team at the governor's office has the staff of four attorneys three of us devoted all of our time to that we consulted with attorneys that have worked and state government before we consulted with secretary hudson at DFA and a babbitt who was mentioned earlier some of the experts and finding it in the state we consulted in making sure that our legal reasoning was correct in that response did you have communications with the attorneys at the attorney general's office in developing your response certainly after we wrote the response we set down with them and talked through our reasoning to see if they thought that we were all faced the attorney general's office is the biggest law firm in the state and has some of the greatest legal minds in arkansas further more they are the representatives for constitutional officers in the governor's office so I certainly did not want to go out in this agree with legislative idea if I was wrong I wanted to make sure that my legal reasoning in my team's legal reasoning was sound so after we completed our response we did talk to the attorney general's office about it they did not edit or change it in any way. So questioned to the attorney general first your opinion that you issued on april tenth would have been after. March twenty ninth. Which was the response so did. Did the desk response and that's communications and working alter or a fact you're opinions. Thank you the the answers know what we did on this we have a multi level review process and we had each person in that review process independently work at the legal arguments that are that are at issue here and independently do the research and all three of those people came back with the same conclusion so it's conclusions are reflected in the age opinion we did not sharp the ag opinion anybody before it was published we did the research to senator hammers question earlier this process is the same way we do all the age opinions we do the research we send it up through the review process was approved by the turn and generally published it. Yeah. Okay is it normal practice for and this may be for audit is it normal practice for the eighties offers to be. Ah I guess a legal representative or legal representation for an agency. I mean during an audit process. I don't know the answer that question I don't. I'm sorry centre could you ask that again I was i'm just i'm just curious because they sight legal advice from the ages office as they were forming the response to your to agent management response and so is that typical that the eighties offers kind of acts as legal advisors and representatives or agencies through this audit process and develop meat and management response again whether they do or not I do not know I know that we had a it was a meeting subscript to the exit conference where the ag was present that was not normal and I refuse to we were going to go over. The report and I refuse to do that with the ag present. Okay because it was not normal practice that none are normal process they they we were told that the attorney general was representing them. Representing them and you you understood that as representing them and illegal yes. Okay and and then II think in the last question and I apologize but your response and II do appreciate the acknowledgment of you know III call them mistakes you may column oversight but I appreciate the acknowledgment that was found and the audit report about how you know getting a bid and purchased and and have been a purchase order wasn't really flushed out so I do appreciate that acknowledgment and I think changing your practices with an internally it's a good acknowledgement of you know acknowledging that this part portion of what this audit brings a lie and I think that's consistent with anything that's auditors in this manner whether it be municipality or whether it be as educational institutional or state agency those of us that have served on audit for many many many years you know generally real appreciate those types of responses from those that are being audited and fully you know working partnership with the suggestions that are provided in the audit report so do you see that as kind of a good thing from the audit report that gives you a little bit more detail about changing your practices with them the governor's office to to be a little bit to be more I guess solid in your accounting practices. Absolutely one of the governors missions is to save the state money and part of that is having responsible fiscal practices within her own office and we're certainly committed to having the best practices for the best benefit of the state I appreciate it and thank you for the the questions and II would just consistently you know I think it's important. Um as we go forward to understand roles and how those roles are in future audits and what that's going to look like if. We have legal representation as a process of that and I don't know the answer is that question but that's something I think that's body might need a consider in the future thank you mister chair mountmer may I make a common about the legal representation aspect. Go ahead thank you as I mentioned earlier we had sent a representative there based on to be an observer essentially and and that representative didn't say anything in the meeting I understanding of our the asked for us to be there was from a legal perspective up clearly they're legislate about report relies extensively on attorney general opinions and we've reviewed every single attorney general opinion cited anywhere in the report and so our view of our about role in this process is essentially just saying what we think the lawyers and it just so happens that what we're reporting that we think the lawyers is what previous attorneys channel have also reported is the law at no time in this process have had we tried to defend anything about facts have we tried to ask anybody any questions on that we are solely been about the law what is our view on that we put it in writing and we published it. The. Send urban did you have a follow up question. You're right now. Thank you and and I appreciate that I think what. What i'm trying to understand in my mind as there's a lot of similarities between the management response and their legal arguments and then what was subsequently issued as an attorney general. And i'm trying to understand that time and those levels of communications and then what that relationship is and how existed thank you. Are our analysis was independent of what the governor's office did we did not we didn't see there I don't think we've seen their we saw their report their response before we issued our opinion and we certainly didn't share with them our draft of our opinion before we publish it they sought the same time anybody else here. The. Yeah. Center urban in and not for sure if the center's part of your question but I think it's the thing is brought out today is is that they're probably needs to be some clarification in the laws as it relates to the accounting and budgetary laws of the state of arkansas. Uh we have operated for some fifty years and under the assumption that constitutional offices are considered state agencies unless they're specifically exampled under those laws. And if if that is not the case then. We believe that the general samly should clarify what accounting and budgetary laws elected officials need to be held to do they need to be held to the same budgetary and accounting laws is all other employees or is there a difference. And I think that would make we try to add it to the laws and that would make our job a lot easier and avoid some of this. Senator hammer your recognized one quick question for AG and a just help me get my mind around something so because they has inserted itself and has setting on these meetings and it's the same ended up in litigation where legislative audit had been called into court represented would the ag now be precluded from being able to assist late safe audit and we'd have to get outside council because you'd be representing the governor's office on this or play that out for me just trying to get my mind round it it depends on how that case progresses whether we would have a conflict if we did have a conflict and of course we would we would not continue in any kind of representation in that case it's hard to see how that conflict would arise it depends on who would who would be to play and if it would be the defendant what the claims would be so it's it's a target me to answer that without any more facts and and you wouldn't be able to represent the governor or seed one. In a lawsuit about the if this and gets drug into court somehow you know through going to prosecuting attorney just any possibility of that. I don't think so guard thanks. Sandra chesterfield write animals immediate consideration. The. There's there's not a motion on the floor to be immediately considered so I think she said hurry up bartender one so but but we actually before we go there. And. The. Alright. S- speaker shepherd are recognized I would make a motion and i'm not sure what the proper terminology is but I believe normally it's just to receive the report but whatever our are normal practices that's what I would move. This. So my understanding from speaking with staff is that the typical motion for the proper motion in this instance is that the report stand presented that my motion okay speaker shepherd has made a speaker shepherd has made a motion that the hang on hang on everybody likes speaker separate his senator hammer recognize. Mr chairman yield center hickey now get back to sender hickey you're recognized I want to own it I want to make sure because there's been some rumor going around there. It since i've been down here as long as I have that the motion is always been out out to foul of the report. So it was my understanding that and I guess uh maybe mister norman may be missing with you could answer this whatever that if we use the work presented here as as if the report was presented or not presented that there was a way that that could actually keep the work in papers maybe from going to the prosecuting attorney or anything are there any fact details that we did at all with that and again then I want to go back to mr norman as far as this this little world about foul the reporter presents the report or whatever senator hiki that's a wonderful question and for clarification and masons manual which is what we would refer to in these kind of situations refers to a motion of file receive a dark exet or present are really all very similar in our particular statutes however that government legislative ten four four twenty two cause the legislative auditors obligation to be to present it to this committee and that is the subparagraph c too so we do prefer the terminology present if that's acceptable with the. Yeah will I appreciate but I would appreciate the speaker for his knowledge in there so thank you well I would like to i'd like to point out that i'm to add deferred to staff as to what what the nature and specifics of the motion is my intent is that it be handled consistently with what has been the past practice and I think that's important again going back to my earlier comments about how this audit has been presented and that's why I asked staff as to the as to the terminology and that's why that's my motion if I may mister chair in brief response to that speaker so in accordance with that statutory obligation that i'd just stressed for you all once a report is presented to this party by the auditor. At that point our working papers become subject to for you. So that's why it's important in our opinion and mine is legal council for this this agency the terminology be correct because this is such a highly regarded report in that regard as far as the no variety attached to it so at the point that it is presented and either accepted filed adopted received or president you are acknowledged presentment at that point are working papers are subject to for you. The. So that once again that was my understanding is that the proper motion here would be that the report stand presented. Speaker shepherd has made a motion that the report stand presented. Is there a second hat and senator chesterfield actually I want to make sure everybody is recognized as senator chesterfield immediate consideration all right that's a proper motion undebatable there was a second I want to make sure that we had a second second senator history motions meet immediate consideration it's non debatable all those in favor that the port stand presented say I all those opposed. The motion stands with the report stands president thank you very much this meeting is adjourned.