Legislative Joint Auditing-Counties and Municipalities
Video
Transcript
1 document
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 8, 2026
Speaker 1
0:00
All right, first item is to adoption of the minutes of the September 12th meeting. Do I hear a motion for that? I have a motion and second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Item C would be, Mr. Co-Chair, I didn't give you the opportunity to make any statements, if you have anything to say.
Speaker 6
0:35
Okay. Special reports, item C. Okay, as we normally do, we'll
Speaker 8
0:44
go over the reports first that we have visitors for. And the first one would be the city of Falk. This is on page three. The repeat finding under the mayor, an audit or agreed upon procedures compilation report was not obtained for the Falk Water and Sewer System as required by code.
A similar finding was issued in the prior two reports dating back to 2015. And Mayor Purvis
Speaker 2
1:12
is here to address this. Good morning. Okay, if you would identify yourself for the record, please. And you're recognized to make
Terry Purvis
Unverified
1:22
your statement. I'm Terry Purvis, Mayor of Falk, Arkansas. We've contracted with Rogers, Manning, and I hope I pronounce this right, Plyler in Arkadelphia. Jake, the gentleman's going to be performing it.
We're scheduled one day next week, he's coming up to Fox. So we're finally found somebody that we could afford to get this
Speaker 15
1:59
seeing me. Okay. Any questions from the committee?
Speaker 2
2:22
So is that all to your statement? Yes, sir. We're fixing to have it get
Terry Purvis
Unverified
2:28
caught back up. We've got an auditor coming next week. He gave us a grocery list. Hopefully we've got everything, which I'm sure we do. And we'll get this thing started and get caught up.
Speaker 1
2:46
Okay. Okay. All right. Without objection, we'll file that report. And we thank you for your presence here today.
Speaker 8
2:53
Thank you very much. Okay. Our next report is also on page 3, Clark County. We have repeat findings under the sheriff. Prenumbered checks were not used for drug enforcement fund disbursements to designated officer for cash on hand in noncompliance with code. A similar finding was noted in the previous three reports dating back to 14. The sheriff's office was not in substantial compliance with 1425, 107, and 112, and if the commissary account was not properly reconciled to the journal for receipts and ending balance.
Additionally, ending balances were not identified with inmate account balances. A similar finding was noted in the previous full report studying back to 2013. The sheriff's office did not pay over to the county treasurer on the first of each month or within 10 working days thereafter, all funds belonging to the county from the commissary account in noncompliance with code. A similar finding was noted for the previous two reports dating back to 15. Sheriff Watson is here to address
Speaker 5
3:55
his findings. Okay. Sheriff, would you identify yourself for the record, please,
Speaker 24
3:58
and you're recognized for the statement? Yes, sir. Jason Watson,
Speaker 26
4:06
sheriff in Clark County. Okay. In reference to our number one complaint on the pre-numbered checks, I believe when I was here last time, we had dealt with an issue with our drug task force on having secondary information for our auditors to look at, which were basically index cards that we had began to fill out. Basically, it was the same information that's in our receipt books. It was our understanding
in that if we had our receipt books and those type of information available any time the auditors come by, that that was working instead of the pre-numbered checks. I think there was just a misunderstanding because I talk to our auditors all the time and I've never really discussed the pre-numbered checks. We have ordered them and they will be used along with the other measures that we've taken over the years. So we do have that in place. We have not actually used one yet, but we do have the checks ordered. and they hopefully will be at the sheriff's office before the end of the month.
Speaker 1
5:04
Okay. How were you tracking funds if you weren't tracking it by numbered checks? How were you? Basically
Speaker 26
5:12
what happens, we're given a check from the county. We budget for it each year for our drug enforcement buy funds, and they're placed into a bank account there in Arkadelphia. It requires two signatures, and when we withdraw funds, We will give you an example. If we know that we have an operation that's going to take $300 this week, we'll withdraw that.
It requires the two signatures. It's receded into a book along with the receipt from the bank, and then the agent signs out for the money along with my signature and our secretary's signature that's on the information for the county, and all that is available to our auditors. That's how we do it. We've never used a pre-numbered check in over 20 years that I can ever remember previous administrations. I can't find where any of that had ever been done.
We have excellent paperwork tracking system of the funds and where it goes and where the CI forms are kept, but just had never used the actual check where we took a check to the bank and withdrew that money. It was always done by
Speaker 1
6:28
two signatures. So you weren't audited, you didn't have an audit finding on this prior to this time? I assume
Speaker 26
6:34
I did. When I received this information, I talked to the auditor,
and I just don't remember any sitting and
Speaker 36
6:42
visiting about a pre-numbered check system, but
Speaker 1
6:48
obviously there was. It says it dates back to 2015? Correct. Okay. Okay. But you're going to start using this in the future? Absolutely.
Speaker 26
6:57
Along with what we had changed up a few years back for the auditors that thought it would be extra information to have
Speaker 29
7:05
when we deal with funds. We've also added that, too. So this will actually be a third measure in place that's just additional tracking.
Speaker 1
7:12
Okay. This is a process that's pretty ripe for abuse if somebody was a man to do that. Oh, absolutely. We're very
Speaker 36
7:22
fortunate. We never had those issues, and we have an excellent tracking system of our
Speaker 26
7:28
funds, and we only allow so many funds out at a time. It's not a blanket amount. You see what
Speaker 2
7:38
I'm saying? Yeah. Any other questions from the committee?
Speaker 1
7:42
Without objection, we'll file it. Thank you,
Speaker 26
7:53
to complaint number two, this is an issue that we're working with Tiger Commissary. We've been working with them, and they have a tech services unit that has advised us that they're going to create basically a new account, not a bank account, but there's a small amount of money and i'm not wording this right on the computer lingo and things of that nature
that has been there for several years and we can't write a disbursement check to me we we have no one that we can write this check to
Speaker 29
8:28
for these funds so that their commissary tiger commissary has a one of their computer services is helping us try to
Speaker 26
8:37
fix this problem and get and get this out of our actual commissary system, where it's not showing up, it's the Tigers' funds.
We cannot find where it's any inmate that had been in Clark County. So it's a computer issue that we've been working on, and it's still not correct. Okay, I'm not sure if I
Speaker 5
9:02
know, if I understand why that's happening, but. I know I'm not explaining it right. Yeah,
Speaker 47
9:14
go ahead. My understanding of this finding is basically it's an unidentified ending balance, that
Speaker 8
9:18
there's money in the account that we don't know which inmate it belongs to, and at the end of the day, if we can come back and reconcile this to the
Speaker 50
9:28
same amount for several months in a row, then we could probably get a
Speaker 44
9:33
court order to distribute this money where it needs to go. Correct. that kind of
Speaker 26
9:38
falls into line three that our complaint number three that our turnover has been great with everyone that we've assigned it's usually the gel administrator that's been assigned to sign over commissary money to our treasurer first of each month we've had a great turnover in
that we've actually assigned those duties to someone else and we haven't had any issues in in the last nine to ten months not unless something happens today and they leave we haven't had any issues there. Now, we still have not identified any inmate from previous years that this money belongs to. So in our next move, if they cannot, if Tiger cannot track this down from when this system first was implemented at the sheriff's office, then we'll have to get a court order to do something with these funds, turn them into state or whatever the proper measure is for that.
Okay. But I believe this is going to date back to when we actually had Tiger Commissary come into our jail for the first time and set up a commissary account. How long has that been? I believe 2012 or 2013. I don't know exactly how long before they identified a problem. I wouldn't be telling you accurately, but this has gone back for a little while on number two of trying to, we dealt with Tiger on several
Chair
Unverified
10:55
different computer issues. Okay. Any other questions from
the committee. Senator Tietam, you're recognized.
Speaker 56
11:04
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Marty, maybe it's
Speaker 58
11:06
for you. I'm assuming this is, there's money left in the account from previous inmates that are no longer incarcerated? Yes,
Speaker 59
11:15
sir. That's my understanding. If it's actually an inmate's funds. I don't know
Speaker 44
11:20
any other way it could have got in there had it not been, unless it's a counting area on Tiger's behalf.
Speaker 62
11:28
Marty, to you, I guess, at some point, can they, if they
Speaker 66
11:34
figure out, at some point they're going to figure out, we've got money that we don't know who it belongs to, is there something they do to start over, do something with that money so we can start off fresh and we'll know exactly where we're at with him? Yes, what
Speaker 50
11:52
we'd like to see is for the same amount that's not identified to be the same for
Speaker 8
11:57
several months in a row so that we know that's the old and will never probably be identified with a person.
And then from there, there are measures we can
Speaker 47
12:05
take to get that money out, as the sheriff said, to where he can know what's identified in his
Speaker 44
12:12
account. Sheriff, do you think you... Yes, sir. And we've never had a complaint of someone that didn't receive
Speaker 26
12:19
their funds, and that's not normal. If someone is transferred to Department of Corrections, you know, normally they're calling just as soon as they get access to a phone to release those funds to a family member, to forward with a check to Department of Corrections, and we've searched and we've went through and we haven't had any complaints.
So, why it shows to be an inmate X amount of money, it's still a possibility that there is some type of computer program malfunction or problem that showed this in our account. We just can't find where this goes. I guess my question to you
Speaker 63
12:50
is, after the next three months, you're going to have the same, you'll know they're the same amount as unidentified money in there. Correct. Yes, sir. Okay. That's kind of what I'll, so at that point, you're going to contact your auditor, or are you all going to look at it again?
Speaker 8
13:06
Do we have names associated with it, and we just don't know who the names are, or do we just
Speaker 26
13:12
not know? We have names. Nothing's associated with this amount. And I may be wrong, and please don't hold me to this, but I believe we're dealing with $35 to $40, and I could be wrong on the amount. The total is $35 to $40? I believe. It's not a large amount of money, and I may be wrong on that. But we have no name of an inmate. And I may be. But it was not a substantial amount of money. I mean, there was no name that we can trace back to when this was done.
Speaker 21
13:41
Well, if we have names, the proper disposition would probably be to send it
Speaker 26
13:48
to the treasure hunt? Correct. But ultimately, once we reconcile for three months, what we can do is notify our auditors, get a court order, and then decide
Speaker 6
14:00
where it needs to go to properly. Yes, normally these inmate accounts are usually less than
Speaker 1
14:06
$100. Yes, sir. Very seldom do I have many that. It's miscellaneous items. It's small, small miscellaneous items, toothbrushes and stuff like that.
So, okay. Anything else? Okay, without objection, we'll file it. And thank
Speaker 17
14:20
you, sir. Thank you, guys. Okay. The next report is Drew County, and
Speaker 21
14:28
this is on page five. We have a finding here that
Speaker 8
14:34
was referred to the prosecuting attorney, and one that was under the county judge, and we have a repeat finding for the sheriff. The one referred to the prosecuting attorney,
in 2018, the county disbursed funds totaling $20,850, as noted below in apparent conflict with the Public Purpose Doctrine in Article 12, Section 5, as interpreted by Attorney General Opinion No. 9114 and 92099. There were 7,600 to the Monticello Senior Citizens, 6,500 to Boys and Girls Club of Drew County, 3,500 to Options Domestic Shelter, 3,000 to the Arkansas State Court Appointed Special Advocates Association, and 250 to the Area Agency on Aging in Southeast Arkansas.
And then the repeat finding on the sheriff, deposits were not made in a timely manner for fingerprinting receipts, which are made up solely of cash. A similar finding was issued in the prior report, and the sheriff is here to address his finding. Okay. Are you the sheriff? Yes, sir. My
Speaker 1
15:39
name is Mark. Okay. You're recognized. State your name for the record, please. Yes, sir. My
Mark Goldberg
Unverified
15:42
name is Mark Goldberg, Drew County Sheriff. And you have a statement to make? I'm here today on a repeat finding with the fingerprint money.
I believe in my written statement the last time I said I was going to do it myself and be involved in it, I started off like that, and then, as usual, I delegated. We had some personnel issues. I'm fixing to fix that. I also think that the jail administrator is now on board with me, how important it is to come up here and waste your time about something so small. And I also insert myself back in being a supervisor of making sure it gets done
Speaker 1
16:23
and not delegate again. Okay, any questions from the committee? Don't see any, so. Okay, thank you for your statement and appearance today. Thank you, sir,
Speaker 8
16:49
ladies and gentlemen. The next report that we'll review is the city of Horatio.
Speaker 5
16:53
This is on page 10. What about these other two that's on this? Didn't we say we were following it? Yeah, what about the
Speaker 8
17:11
county judge report? We just have to read that because it was a further process. Okay, all right. Okay, proceed. Okay, on the City of Horatio, we have a repeat finding on the recorder treasurer. This is on page 10. Cash receipts and disbursements, journals for the general fund, contain numerous posting and classification errors and noncompliance with 14, 59, 110, and 111.
A similar finding was issued in the prior report. And the recorder treasurer is here to address
Speaker 1
17:34
this. OK. Good afternoon. State your name, please, and you're recognized.
Speaker 88
17:39
I'm Deborah Neal from Horatio, Arkansas. I'm the recorder treasurer. I have the report on the findings with me. Go ahead and read that. Which one do you want? Do you want it on the general fund first? Yeah, that'll be fine.
Okay. The general fund, the discrepancies on that, the posting errors. I've been in contact with CSA, who is our tech support. They came in and cleaned up every bit of it. It was errors that were mostly from the computer. So we were doing our job, but we weren't following through. So I've already been in contact with CSA. and I've actually talked to them yesterday and had them go in and look at it and everything is up to date and correct.
Chair
Unverified
18:30
Okay. And anything else on the next one? Which one
Speaker 88
18:37
do you want? The water revenue account? Okay. We only had
Speaker 6
18:45
the general fund finding. Okay. Well, I have taken
Speaker 88
18:47
care of that, and like I say, I was in contact with them again yesterday and had them go in and check and make sure that everything was up to date and correct, and it is for 2019. Okay.
Chair
Unverified
19:00
Any questions from the committee? Seeing none. Thank you for the report. Thank
Speaker 8
19:16
you. Okay. Without objection, we'll file it. Next item. Is there anyone else here who is here to address findings? That's
Speaker 21
19:22
all I had noted. If not, we'll go back to page one and we'll catch up
Speaker 8
19:29
with the others. The Ouachita County Sheriff was supposed to be here.
I have not heard from him. This was first presented in May of 2019, and he hasn't been here. May, June,
Speaker 97
19:42
September, now October. Any questions from the
Speaker 17
19:55
committee? Representative Hillman. Everybody's trying to demote me today.
Speaker 102
20:03
What's the procedure of the committee in cases like this where somebody repeatedly doesn't come and we don't
Speaker 50
20:12
hear from them? What we have been doing, we have this standing committee implemented a policy
Speaker 8
20:18
a few years ago that I send an email to the appropriate representative and senator to let them know that the report has been deferred. And then we send them a letter and a certified letter each time asking them to come.
But other than that, since I've been here, that's all we've done. Okay, at what
Representative David Hillman
Unverified
20:39
point do we subpoena these people to show up? That would be at
Speaker 50
20:43
the committee's discretion. So, Mr. Chairman, how many times are we
Representative David Hillman
Unverified
20:47
going to have to do this until they realize that we're serious about this? They've missed three times. Is it? May, June, September, this is the
Speaker 1
21:06
fourth. This is the fourth time. Have we had any telephone contact with him other than written?
Speaker 21
21:12
Do you know? He called me after the first meeting or before the first meeting to
Speaker 8
21:20
say that he had a message from the bank. His finding is that his deposits were under-collateralized by $4.2 million, which would have been when taxes came in in October. But the note he sent me from the bank just was the standard $250,000 that FDIC covers.
Speaker 21
21:42
And so I let him know that that didn't address the finding, but then that's the last contact I've had with
Speaker 1
21:49
him. We're seeing this is a significant amount of money.
Representative David Hillman
Unverified
21:54
Yeah, so Mr. Chairman, I hate to be strong armed or whatever. But I think it's time that we subpoenaed this person and got him in here and let him explain to us that we are serious about what we're doing. So I would move that we do that
Speaker 1
22:09
for the next meeting. Receive that motion, do I hear a second?
I'll say second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that motion? All
Speaker 34
22:25
in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That was
Speaker 6
22:29
kind of weak. Let's do that again. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any
Speaker 8
22:37
opposed? Motion's carried. So would the committee be in favor of me contacting him by telephone and letting him know that
before we just send a subpoena or ... Okay.
Speaker 1
22:48
I think I'm good with that. If the committee is without objection, well, we'll allow that to happen. Okay? Okay. Okay, so
Speaker 8
23:05
that one will be deferred. The next one is Columbia County, which is on page four. There was a finding that was certified to the bond board. The custodian of the drug buy funds resigned on August 17th of 18.
A cash count conducted on drug buy funds on August 21st of 18 revealed unaccounted for cash, totaling $6,191. The former employee maintained that $4,170 of this amount consisted of payments to confidential informants. However, we could not verify these payments based on the documentation provided. Again, this employee that had custody has resigned, and this has been referred to the prosecutor and certified to the bond board.
Speaker 90
23:47
staff would recommend we file. Okay. Any questions from the
Speaker 21
24:02
committee? Without objection then, we'll file. We'll move then to page five. Van Buren County
Speaker 8
24:07
at the bottom of the page. This is under reports referred to the prosecuting attorney. Under the county judge, The county paid the following without an authorizing ordinance as required by 14-14-1202,
1,086 to a business in which the hospital board of governors chair had ownership interest that was acting as a subcontractor for a company performing emergency repairs to the hospital, and 18,749 to 19 employees of a business in which the chair had ownership interest for emergency repairs and other maintenance to the hospital. Again, this has been referred to the prosecuting
Speaker 73
24:41
attorney and staff would recommend that we file. Any questions from
Speaker 5
24:47
the committee? Without objection, we'll file it.
Speaker 11
24:53
On page six, we have the City of Eudora. Under the mayor, this is
Speaker 8
25:02
still under reports referred to the prosecuting attorney. The city disbursed funds totaling $1,698 in apparent conflict with the Public Purpose Doctrine, and Article 12, Section 5 is interpreted by Attorney General Opinion, numbers 91-14 and 92-099, which would be $1,398 for purchase of fireman gifts and plaques given to service awards, and $300 for a bereavement donation.
Speaker 73
25:26
Again, this has been referred to the prosecuting attorney, and staff would recommend we file. Any questions from
Chair
Unverified
25:35
the committee? If not, without objection, we'll file
Speaker 21
25:46
it. Just below that, on the same page, we have
Speaker 8
25:49
the City of Hampton. They called this morning. The mayor is ill, and he requested to defer this to the November meeting.
Speaker 17
25:56
Has this been deferred before? No. Okay. Okay,
Speaker 1
26:05
any objection to deferring? Without objection, we'll defer this to the next meeting. On page seven,
Speaker 8
26:22
the city of Redfield. This had one of those findings we talked about last month, the fraudulent checks on November
28th of 18, an unidentified individual used the city's bank account information to process an unauthorized withdrawal of 2210. Funds were recovered from the bank on December 20th of 18. And as I said last month, there will be several of these. And if the committee wants me to read each one, I will. but I believe last month you decided that you'd just assume not. Staff would recommend we file. Okay.
Speaker 90
27:00
Anything from the committee? Without objection, we'll
Speaker 8
27:08
file it. Just below that, we have the City of Warren. The city paid $12,341 to the fire chief upon retirement for unused sick leave. Of this amount, $3,428 was paid in excess of the amount allowed by city policy and by Arkansas Code Annotated 1453-108, which states payment for unused sick leave in the case of a firefighter upon retirement or death
shall not exceed three months' salary unless the city, by ordinance, authorizes a greater amount, but in no event to exceed four and one-half months' salary. Staff would recommend
Speaker 5
27:44
we file. Okay. Anything from the committee? Without objection, we'll file
Speaker 21
27:52
it. And below that, still on page 7, under reports referred to the prosecuting attorney, we have
Speaker 8
27:58
Stone County. These findings were referred to the prosecutor under the county judge and county circuit clerk.
The county paid $250 and $7108 to an employee and a business owned by this employee, respectively, and $18 for law enforcement equipment and installation on county vehicles. Although the Quorum Court passed an ordinance allowing the county to do business with the employee as required by 14-14-1202, the ordinance was not passed until April 11th of 19. Then under the Sheriff, we have our review of selected Sheriff's Office expenses from January 1 of 18 through May 1 of 19 reveal the following deficiencies.
$407 to a hotel for a one-night stay for an employee. The date of the stay coincided with dates of a sheriff's conference that other employees attended. However, we were unable to determine if this employee was registered for or attended the conference. $458 for hotel rooms for two employees. The date and location of the stay coincided with the date and location of the high school basketball state tournament finals. An employee informed us that a local school district superintendent requested that the sheriff's office provide security for the local teams.
However, we confirmed with the superintendent that no such request was made and the district's resource officers provided security. Continuing on the next page, still under the sheriff, our review of selected sheriff's office expenses from January 118 to May 19 revealed the following deficiencies continued. An employee submitted an apparently falsified invoice totaling $3,132 to the county clerk to conceal the purchase of an M24 rifle. An employee submitted an apparently altered invoice for payment, a $460 hotel charge that did not agree with the invoice provided by the vendor.
Speaker 11
29:48
However, the total amount paid to the hotel was correct. Furthermore, we noted an
Speaker 5
30:01
undocumented purchase of $134. Any questions from the committee? Without objection, we'll file it.
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
30:14
Yes sir, thank you Mr. Chairman, I only have one question. It says it's falsified invoice totaling 3132, but down at the bottom it says that actually
undocumented purchases was 134. Was the 3132 an actual purchase that was okay? That was actually a falsified invoice to conceal what was purchased.
Speaker 127
30:31
Thank you. Thank you. but this has been referred to the
Speaker 109
30:36
prosecutor okay without objection we'll file it on page
Speaker 8
30:47
nine the city of Bradley this is reports with repeat findings they're a quarter treasurer and district court clerk were invited to come and I
Speaker 90
30:54
have not heard from them staff would recommend we
Speaker 111
31:11
defer this any objection to deferring? Without objection, we'll defer it.
Speaker 8
31:15
On page 10 at the bottom, Hot Spring County, this is under reports with repeat findings. Under the sheriff, the remaining bank balances in the circuit fine and commissary accounts of $5,044 and $8,974 respectively were not
identified with receipts issued, but not yet settled in non-compliance with 1425.116. A similar finding was issued in the prior report. The sheriff did reach out to the supervisor in that area and showed him documentation that this has been corrected. Staff would recommend we file. Okay, any
Speaker 5
31:48
questions from the committee? Without objection, we file. On
Speaker 8
31:56
page 11, there are two reports at the top,
Center Grove Water Users Association and outside Kingsland Rural Water Association. These were done by private auditors, and I have not received a response on these findings yet. Staff would recommend we defer, and I will reach out to them and try to get responses. Okay.
Speaker 5
32:17
Any questions from the committee? Without objection, we'll
Speaker 8
32:26
defer. Okay, then on the rest of page 11 through page 14, there are 17 reports with bindings
that had responses. If anyone has any questions about
Speaker 47
32:35
any of those, we'll be happy to discuss. If not, staff would recommend we file
Speaker 1
32:44
those. I'll give you a couple of minutes to look through those if you'd like and raise any questions that
Chair
Unverified
33:04
you might have. Okay, any questions from the committee?
Speaker 90
33:06
Without objection, we'll file those. Okay, then on page
Speaker 21
33:12
15, there are 35 reports with no findings. Staff would recommend we file those as well. Without objection, we'll file it. Anything
Speaker 6
33:30
committee or anyone else have anything to raise today? Seeing none, we're adjourned.
Agenda
A. Call to Order by Chair
CALL TO ORDER
B. Adoption of Minutes of the September 12, 2019 meeting
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
REVIEW OF REPORTS
C. Review of Reports (Refer to the Synopsis)
D. The next meeting will be November 7, 2019
NEW BUSINESS
E. Adjournment
ADJOURNMENT
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — LEGISLATIVE JOINT AUDITING - COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES, Oct 10, 2019 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 1
Speaker 6
Speaker 8
Speaker 2
Terry Purvis
Unverified
Speaker 15
Speaker 5
Speaker 24
Speaker 26
Speaker 36
Speaker 29
Speaker 41
Speaker 47
Speaker 50
Speaker 44
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 56
Speaker 58
Speaker 59
Speaker 62
Speaker 66
Speaker 63
Speaker 21
Speaker 17
Mark Goldberg
Unverified
Speaker 88
Speaker 97
Speaker 102
Representative David Hillman
Unverified
Speaker 34
Speaker 90
Speaker 73
Speaker 11
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
Speaker 127
Speaker 109
Speaker 111