Legislative Joint Auditing-State Agencies
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 6, 2026
Will Cheatham
Unverified
0:00
so moved uh all those in favor say aye any opposed like sign thank you
the minutes have been approved for december 1st 2022 uh mr burlington thank you
Speaker 3
0:14
mr chair today we're presenting one deferred report four current reports with findings and an end-of-term letter for the treasurer state we also have 18 reports without findings and these are listed beginning on page one of the audit summary.
If I can get a motion to file these
without findings. Thank you, got a motion. All those in favor,
say aye. Any opposed? All right, we'll file
Speaker 12
0:51
the reports. Okay, the first report we have with findings is the Attorney General, June 30, 2021 report, and this report contains one finding.
Speaker 3
0:58
This report was also deferred from our December meeting. Twenty-nine employees were paid in excess
of the line-item salary appropriation by a total of almost $65,000 in conflict with the Arkansas Constitution, which states in part that the General Assembly shall fix the salaries and fees of all officers in the state, and no greater salary or fee than that fixed by law shall be paid to any officer, employee, or other person. And in February of this year, the current AG issued an opinion, which you should have in your packets on this
Speaker 14
1:23
subject, and they reached a similar conclusion as audit did. Mr. Chair, that concludes the finding for the Attorney General. Thank you.
If we can have the Attorney General's office come to the front
Speaker 19
1:34
for any questions the committee may have. Hello, I'm Bob Brooks. I'm Chief Deputy
Will Cheatham
Unverified
1:51
Attorney General. Thank you, Mr. Brooks. Does the committee have any questions for Attorney General's office? I
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:01
think that maybe with the current members here, we need to explain how we got to this point.
I think that might be helpful. So with a little latitude, can I do that? Yes, Senator. Please proceed. Of course, I did request this opinion. What happened last year, of course, is that Leg audit had a finding that said that the payment could not be done the way that it was from the previous Attorney General's office. So whenever we had a meeting in here, of course, the Attorney General at that time, their response was that they could do it.
and from our standpoint the legislature leg audit is that of course the legislature is the one that does the appropriation and because of the way that response was we did not file the report and the reason we didn't file the report because of that office and the weight that it carries we we thought that we'd either probably have the court have the courts to give an opinion on it or to proceed some other way. So before we did that, what I did is ask the incoming Attorney General to look at it
to try to get the opinion, you know, to look through all the law to see how he agreed. And, of course, he agreed with the legislative audit. But he also had went back and done some other opinion or had researched the other opinions that have been done in the past. Those are also included in your package. And the opinions from previous Attorney Generals was is that leg audit would have been correct also. So just to give the committee some background, I know we have some new members in here that probably don't know what's going on,
but that's a little bit of background of how we got here and the reason that the report
Will Cheatham
Unverified
3:51
was deferred. Thank you, Senator Hickey. With that being said, does anybody have any questions for Mr. Brooks? Senator Payton.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
4:03
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm looking at page 3 of 13 here, but it's the agency response. I just want to clarify that that agency response was by the previous Attorney General.
And could you state how the current Attorney General
would agree or disagree with that response? Attorney
Speaker 32
4:24
General Griffin does not agree with that management personnel response. It's listed in the schedule of findings and responses. His position is outlined, as Senator Hickey mentioned, in the opinion that's in your packets today. It was issued on February 15th. And I would say further that Attorney General Griffin knows that the people of Arkansas
have delegated the authority, the power of the purse, to this body, the General Assembly. And he respects that power. and will continue to follow the law in the future. Thank you. If
Senator John Payton
Unverified
5:05
I could have a follow-up. Go ahead. Thank you. I'm remembering in budget committee we had some discussions about this, or one of the committees. Was there any legislative action taken in this past session that would alter the landscape, or is there any legislative action being recommended to try to clarify this?
Speaker 32
5:24
i believe there was a bill that dealt with these lump sum payments that are the underlying uh issue in this in this finding i i don't have that in front of me right now but i do believe there was some action taken in this last session okay others would know i don't i don't know the but i don't we don't have a recommendation on that specifically senator but uh we'll be happy to work with you in the future if you wanted to do something to clean this up. Seems like it might
need cleaned up. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Any other questions, Madam Members? Seeing none, without
Speaker 12
6:10
objection, we'll file it. Thank you, Mr. Brooks. Thank you very much. The next report we have with findings is the Department of Commerce, June 30, 2021 report, and this report
Speaker 3
6:21
contains four findings. The first finding relates to some accounting entries. The state did not have policies and procedures in place to appropriately record the financial effects
of the unemployment insurance pandemic programs. As a result, during our audit, we noted that operating revenues were overstated by $151.3 million when a portion of federal grant receipts was erroneously coded to a general-ledger account related to operating revenues when it should have been to the more appropriate non-operating revenues. expenditures were also overstated by 8.7 million when revenue correcting entries were made against expenditures when they should have been going against non-operating revenues and the net effect of these two is an understatement of non-operating revenues of 142.6 million dollars
in addition federal payables of claimant benefit overpayments due to the federal government were understated by 19.9 million dollars when the state neglected to consider overpayments made out of the legacy unemployment insurance payment system. Upon notification of the potential misstatements, the DFA Office of the County made an entry in ACES to correct the first three amounts that are listed there in the bullets. The remaining misstatement didn't meet their threshold for requiring adjustment. The second finding, the Public Employees Claims Division of the Arkansas
Insurance Department notified us of the loss of one warrant totaling $818 that was improperly redeemed by an individual other than the intending claimant. While investigating a report from a claimant for a bi-weekly payment that had not been received, agency staff discovered that the original warrant had been deposited at First National Bank by another individual. The agency initiated a criminal investigation with the state police and subsequent to that investigation the prosecutor requested that a warrant be issued for the individual for forgery in the first degree. the third finding we noted one instance totaling over three thousand dollars in which the agency
sick leave payout was less than required by office of personnel management policy additionally we noted another instance totaling over twenty five hundred dollars in which the agency sick leave payout was more than required by opm the underpayment was caused by lack of appropriate communication with opm regarding changes to a policy requiring sick leave taken under the Family Medical Leave Act to be added back to an employee's sick leave balance at retirement or death to calculate the incentive percentage. The overpayment was caused by a lack of appropriate training on the methods used to calculate the sick leave payout.
And the fourth finding, annual lump sum career service payments are used to reward state employees for their years of service beginning at 10 years. In our review of 28 career service payments made during the physical year, we noted one payment made by the Division of Aeronautics for $1,000 which is the amount awarded for 15 to 19 years. This employee who received the payment began work with the Division of Aeronautics on January 3rd, 2019 therefore was not entitled to that career service payment. Mr. Chair, that concludes the findings for Department of Commerce.
Thank you. Can members of the Department of Commerce please come to the front and introduce yourself?
Speaker 46
9:34
Good afternoon. My name is Hugh McDonald. Secretary of Commerce, Hugh MacDonald. Good afternoon. I'm Courtney Traylor, Deputy Director at
the Division of Workforce Services. Thank you, Mr. MacDonald. Real quick on the four findings, can you just give a synopsis of what the agency has done to prevent this?
Hugh Mcdonald
Unverified
9:51
ADWS worked with the DF&A to update the non-budget revenue account mapping. And that non-budget revenue account mapping for that account was actually mapped to an expenditure line rather than a revenue line on the financial statements. And so we've updated that mapping to ensure that that doesn't happen again. We've also worked with our UI assistant controller,
periodically performed some analytical reviews to ensure, you know, from one period to the next to make sure there's no major deviations. And if there is, we check on those deviations. So, yeah, also modified our standard operating procedure for year-end federal payables calculation as well. So working with the F&A, we believe we've resolved the issue and have corrective actions going forward.
Okay, thank you. Do any members have any questions for the department?
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
10:58
Senator Hickey? Just one on this finding, number one. If I understand this right, it's
all in the way that we were reporting it on our books. However, was there any payback of federal funds that had to be done, or was there any loss of federal funds that we could have received because of it? I'll let
Speaker 46
11:20
you answer that. No, sir. It was simply a journal entry error for the wrong revenue category from operating to non-operating but this did not
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
11:28
impact cash at all or or the receipt of any type of okay i thought
Senator John Payton
Unverified
11:40
so but i want to make sure thank you any other questions for the committee senator payton thank you mr chair so i'm finding number two the individual that cashed or or deposited the warrant the check uh it
Hugh Mcdonald
Unverified
11:54
doesn't specify whether they were an agency employee or not? My understanding they were not an agency employee but they were convicted and have been sentenced were sentenced on March 6th. Okay so they were
not a they were not an employee. We're not an employee no. Thank
you. Thank you. Any other questions from the committee? See
Speaker 12
12:24
none. Without objection we'll follow that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The next report we have with findings is the Department
Speaker 3
12:29
of Corrections, June 30, 2021 report, and this report contains three findings. The first finding, in accordance with RSLCO, the EAC reported to us a loss of state funds
totaling approximately $8,000. Act 1110 of 2021 allowed the Department of Corrections to use federal stimulus payments received by inmates for their outstanding fines, fees, or court costs owed to local governments. In accordance with the Act, any remaining funds were distributed in equal parts to the Inmate Welfare Fund and the Inmate Care and Custody Fund maintained by corrections. Subsequent to enforcement of this Act, inmates filed paperwork with the United States Department of the Treasury claiming their stimulus payments were lost or stolen.
As a result, Treasury notified the bank, which then reclaimed the total amount of stimulus funds from the inmate bank account. Corrections use state funds to reimburse the inmate bank account, resulting in the $8,000 loss. In response to a lawsuit filed by inmates, the court ruled that stimulus funds in the future can continue to be used to pay outstanding fines, fees, or court costs. However, any remaining funds after such obligations are satisfied must be returned to the inmate. the second finding during our testing of disbursements made by the various inmate
councils within the division of correction reveals six payments to vendors totaling over nine thousand dollars without invoices or other proper proper documentation according to ac management all six purchases originated at the grimes unit and disbursements from their inmate council have been suspended and the third finding as reported in the prior audit the acs in non compliance with DFA's Financial Management Guide rule that requires supervisor approval of the deletion of all cash receipt transactions from the state's accounting system on a weekly basis.
As part of follow-up procedures in our FY21 audit, the one we're talking about today, we requested their documentation supporting compliance with the rule for the 26-week period of July 2021 through December 2021. 22 of the weekly reports during that time period were document is being reviewed and approved on either November 2nd 2021 or January 12th 2022 and four weekly reports could not be provided by the agency also we were unable to determine if the weekly reports included all department divisions as the agency maintained no documentation of the
parameters that they used to create the ACES reports Mr. Chair that concludes
Speaker 41
14:47
the findings for Department of Corrections thank you
will Department of Corrections please come up and Introduce
Speaker 68
15:09
yourself. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members. Joe Perfiri, Secretary of Corrections.
Lamont Wembley, Chief Financial Officer. Thank you, gentlemen. If you could, would you go
Speaker 72
15:22
through some of the corrective actions the agency has taken? Yes, sir, absolutely. And to the point of the three findings, the department accepts the findings and will correct them in progress. With respect to the stimulus funds, the department of corrections, per act 1110 of 2021, the agency continues to use those federal stimulus payments to receive by inmates for outstanding fines, fees, and court costs owed by local governments.
In an effort to recover the lost funds, the 8,000, the agency has implemented liens on inmate accounts found to have fraudulently filed forms to the federal government stating that the stimulus funds were not received, resulting in the reclamation of those funds as deposits are made into those counts with holds on them. You referenced the finding by the court with regards to how those funds can be used, and we're aware of that as well. AND WITH RESPECT TO FINDING NUMBER TWO, WE'VE SHUT DOWN THAT INMATE COUNCIL IN QUESTION.
IT WILL REMAIN SHUT DOWN. THE ORIGINAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION WILL BE RETAINED BY THE AGENCY ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. WE'VE INSTITUTED INTERNAL AUDIT CONTROLS THAT OCCUR NOT ONLY RANDOMLY OF ALL INMATE COUNCILS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, BUT ADDITIONALLY WHENEVER THERE'S a change in leadership at that particular institution to ensure that we find those issues preemptively. And with regards to the third finding on the deleting of cash receipts, the department has instituted controls associated with the avoided transactions being approved and
initiated by the accountant and the assistant chief financial officer. The chief financial officer will be the assistant CFO's backup in the absence of that individual. So it's dual dual authentication signature required for those particular cash receipts. Thank you, Secretary Perferri. In regards to finding
number one, just if there's any money left over, fines fees are satisfied and there's money left over, how does that how does that payment hit the hit the inmate?
Speaker 72
17:28
I'll defer to my CFO to answer that question,
Speaker 69
17:32
Mr. Chairman. We have trust fund inmate banking, so it's actually shown in our EOMIS system. It goes back to their account. Once we receive the funds, we have 90 days to put in the request to see if any fines or fees are going to be collected on it. If it's not received within those 90 days, then those funds go back to the inmate's account. Okay. Thank you. Does any other committee
members have any questions for Department of Corrections? Senator Payton, recognized. My question would actually be for audit.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
18:04
Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I could ask audit. On finding number three, the deletion of the cash receipts, I assume you're talking about electronically in the database? That's correct. So I'd like to know how you were able to discover that, and is there any trail of how many? I know you wouldn't have a dollar amount because they're deleted, but how many transactions were deleted? yeah we don't know
Speaker 4
18:30
exactly the number we can just tell you we can tell from the system there's been
receipts deleted and there's supposed to be a report generated from aces where they a supervisor signs off saying that yeah that's okay to delete them because obviously the control here is you receipt money if you're able to delete it what happens to exactly and we didn't notice any money
Speaker 3
18:49
we haven't noticed any money missing through our procedures but we did notice that these cash receipts had been deleted
Senator John Payton
Unverified
18:57
without the proper approval. So is this handled and generated in one location or multiple locations around the state? If you're able to see that transactions
were deleted, you should have some feeling for the volume and if they were originating
Speaker 84
19:13
from the same location. Some agencies don't use the system to do their cash receipting. It's the ones that do.
Speaker 4
19:18
Some people have a manual system. You'll see that when we get to the inspector general. They have manual receipt books that they keep and if they're delete one then obviously they staple the copies in there but in this case it's it's electronically and we do have other agencies to do that but it's each individual agency has to do that it's not a statewide control it's per agency
Senator John Payton
Unverified
19:37
okay uh if i could direct your question then to department of corrections please i mean obviously you're the department of corrections you understand that not all people are trustworthy that's why you have a job uh are you sure you've got a handle on this now where somebody can't receive a cash payment and then
Speaker 69
20:00
delete the transaction yes sir i'm actually now um as the secretary was saying it's we have multiple levels of of review um what happens is that um if the person is posting it
if they make a deletion then it goes to the accountant one who is their supervisor Then there's the accountant one, then there's the assistant CFO, and then there's me. So
Speaker 89
20:19
there's multiple levels. And just one more question. How long have you had that in place? It's been since the finding. So it's been about close to a year. Okay.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
20:31
So the finding was from a previous audit report. Do we know it's corrected now with their new procedure?
Speaker 82
20:42
We're in the process of doing the FY22 now. so
Speaker 41
20:45
that's part of our procedures. We're doing some follow-up on that at this point when we're doing the FY22, so we will know when we finish that report if it's
Speaker 68
20:54
been corrected completely. All right. Thank you. Thank
Speaker 72
20:57
you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman, if I may? Yes. To your point, sir, having recently taken over the agency under this new administration, I will commit to reviewing best practices and seeing if we can come up with any additional best practices that might relieve your concerns as well as, you know, any concerns for use of taxpayer dollars.
Thank you. I certainly appreciate that. Just a follow-up question to that. What would be the reason to delete a receipt once
Speaker 69
21:24
a cash payment has already been mailed out? Actually, from my understanding, those deletions can happen before it's actually posted. So it could be just a mistake. So like if someone's entering the transaction in, if they put $100 and they meant to put $10, if they go back and delete that, it's counted as a deletion. and that's before it's even posted so that's part of what happens okay thank you any other
Will Cheatham
Unverified
21:50
committee members have any questions or any other members
see none without objection we'll follow that report thank
Speaker 12
22:05
you gentlemen the next report we have with findings is the department of parks Heritage and Tourism June 30, 2021 report, and this report has
Speaker 41
22:13
one finding. DFA's financial management guide requires the ACU to maintain a record of all
Speaker 3
22:18
property. Accession logs are maintained in separate databases for the Arkansas State Archives, as well as the various heritage
museums. These databases are used to track and account for museum collections and are considered the official record for those museum collections. We compared the asset values recorded in the accession logs to the values that are recorded in the state's accounting system ACES at year-end to determine the accuracy and completeness of ACES. Our review revealed that variances still remain between the accession logs and ACES with assets overstated in ACES by approximately $800,000. Mr. Chair, that concludes the finding for Parks, Heritage, and
Speaker 41
22:50
Tourism. Thank you, Mr. Bullington. Would the agency
Speaker 98
22:55
please come forward and introduce yourself? i'm mike mills the secretary of arkansas department of parks heritage and
Speaker 100
23:19
tourism jamie fisher chief financial officer at parks heritage and tourism thank you um
Will Cheatham
Unverified
23:23
i see you got a pretty lengthy response uh could you just go through a synopsis of of what the agency's doing
Speaker 100
23:30
Sure. So that was the previous CFO. I started about three months ago, but we are currently in the process
Speaker 101
23:37
of reconciling those accession logs that are kept at each museum and making corrections to the assets that are recorded in ACES. So we're currently in the process of
making those corrections. Okay. Members, you've heard the agency response. Does anybody have any questions?
all right seeing none without objection we'll follow this report thank you
Speaker 104
24:04
next we have the department inspector general june 30 2021 report and this report contains three findings
Speaker 3
24:13
the first finding arksel code states an employee who meets eligibility requirements shall become eligible for annual career service recognition payments on the anniversary date of the completion of such service. A review of career service payments revealed three instances of incorrectly calculated and issued payments. The first one, an employee's career service date, was incorrectly calculated and used as the basis for four career service payments.
As a result, the employee was overpaid $700 for career service between 2019 and 2022. The second one, an employee's career service date, was incorrectly keyed into ACES and used as a basis for three payments resulting in overpayments totaling $4,500 between fiscal years 2020 and 2022. This employee had only reached nine years of service as of fiscal year 2022 and therefore was not eligible for any career service payment. An employee's prior state service was not completely considered when calculating career service date. As a result, the employee was
underpaid for six career service payments totaling $1,100 between fiscal years 2016 and 2021. The second finding, in accordance with the DFA Financial Management Guide, the agency is required to maintain a log of all checks received in the mail. This log should include sufficient detail to allow an audit trail. The regulation also states that good internal controls dictate daily deposits, but weekly deposits are allowable if an agency receives only minimal amounts of cash or checks. The following deficiencies were noted during our review of cash receipts.
The Arkansas Fair Housing Commission, which is part of the Inspector General, failed to maintain a check log. In addition, our review of checks to determine that they were deposited timely revealed that 21 checks totaling over $6,000 were not deposited timely, and the number of days held ranged from 11 to 131 days. And we were unable to determine if 63 checks totaling over $19,000 were deposited timely because the receipt date was not documented. We were also unable to determine if five checks totaling over $2,000 were deposited timely
because scanned images of the checks were not available for review. The HC also receives Medicaid reimbursement checks resulting from overpayments identified during audits by the Office of Medicaid Inspector General. The HC is responsible for ensuring the checks are transferred timely to the Department of Human Services, which is the one responsible for depositing the checks into the appropriate Medicaid bank account. Our review of 30 checks revealed the agency failed to transfer 22 checks, totaling almost $25,000 to DHS timely. The time period from receipt to transfer of these checks ranged from 8 to 43 days.
And finally, the agency failed to maintain a check log for the Office of Internal Audit. In addition, during our review to determine that checks were deposited timely, revealed that one check, totaling over $8,000, was held for 82 days before being deposited. And our last finding is related to an accounting entry. accounting standards require revenues received from federal awards to be recognized when the entity has met all eligibility requirements and the funds are available to the entity while completing the year-end closing process the agency made an error in recording a prior
year adjustment to correct the federal receivables balance which resulted in an overstatement totaling over four hundred and fifty thousand dollars that concludes the findings for the inspector
Will Cheatham
Unverified
27:30
general thank you will the office of inspector general please come up and introduce
Speaker 108
27:46
yourself. Good afternoon. I'm Allison Bragg. I'm the secretary of the department of
Speaker 110
27:52
inspector general. Elizabeth Smith, Medicaid inspector general.
Thank you. Would you please just go
a little bit through the agency's response to the findings and how you're going to address some of
Speaker 108
28:04
these timing issues? Certainly. As to funding number one, the department has implemented payment plans
Speaker 113
28:09
for those overpayments, and most of that has been repaid and will continue to be repaid through deductions from paychecks to make those payments equal out and to make the state whole again on the proper balance. In addition to correcting the error itself, we also conducted an internal review of everyone in ACES to make sure that their career start date is correct since
that's what led to that error and our internal review indicates to us that now we have everyone on the correct start date and therefore receiving career service payments at the correct time as to finding number
two we yeah senator you got a question for finding one
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
28:50
yes if you don't mind okay I heard what you said on the repayment. How much is left, you said? You said
Speaker 108
28:55
it's a small amount. We're getting close to it. It's deducted each payroll period. And so the exact number, I'm not sure, but the
Speaker 113
29:01
amounts of the payments are just apportioned out to be deducted equally as payroll proceeds. Okay. And did you
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
29:08
actually do an additional contract or something in case an employee were to leave so that they would know that they were still liable for the money? Or what did you do as far as it relates to that what you
just described is what we did yes thank you thank you does that generate
Speaker 114
29:31
any other questions for finding number one if not please proceed with finding number two thank you in regard to finding number two regarding
Speaker 113
29:37
a log of checks we've taken a couple of steps to remedy that one we've just had a department-wide reevaluation of making sure everyone knows
what is required, specifically check logs for each of our four components. We have reiterated the need to deposit daily. Many of our agencies are not high volume cash intake, and so there are several components that would be sufficient to deposit weekly, but we've made it clear that weekly is the absolute longest that we can go without making those deposits. A lot of the issues surrounding check logs as you read came from our fair housing division there's a new
director of fair housing now and so with a change in leadership we hope that will also increase our organizational skills there and to
Speaker 124
30:25
proceed to fighting to finding number three let's go back to finding
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
30:29
number two got a question from representative lady thank you mr chairman when you talk about a small amount of income and you can go weekly is there a number how do you determine what's small and
Speaker 108
30:40
what's not? That's a great question. I asked that question and
Speaker 113
30:43
whether there was a bright line rule of what dollar amount, at what point do we trigger from daily
to weekly. I do not, I am not aware of a dollar figure that means de minimis amount. If there is one, certainly we'll rely on that. I couldn't find one statutorily or recorded anywhere. Our view is that if it's a check you wouldn't want to drive around with in your car for very long, it's a check that needs to go to the bank
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
31:11
that same day. So follow up. So right now you make the determination or the department makes that determination.
Speaker 108
31:17
There's no rule. Yes, sir. Our division
Speaker 113
31:19
heads, our agency heads make that determination. And we mentioned there's a little
bit more intake with fair housing. There's a little bit more intake with Medicaid inspector general. There was that one check from the office of internal audit last time. I feel like that might have been the only check they got all year they just don't have a lot of cash coming in and check form like that so it's something they don't encounter very much but we've increased our protocols on that
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
31:47
senator hickey you recognized yep i got quite a few questions on this okay okay so of course i
could look at the 63 or whatever but maybe the maybe the easiest one to start with
is this $8,226 check. So what was that? I want to make sure that I understand. So there was a check that was written by who that came into the agency? Who was that written by?
Speaker 108
32:10
With your permission, Elizabeth Smith, who was the secretary at that time, I might ask her to answer
Speaker 137
32:17
that question. Thank you. Thank you, Elizabeth Smith. The Department of Internal Audit contracted with other, and still does have contracts or division of internal audit within the Department of Inspector General,
has contracts with other agencies to perform services. And so that's what that payment was from. And the check was, I can't remember exactly which agency it was, but I think it was the only check they had received in the
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
32:45
year. Does that help? Not really.
Okay. No. So we had $8,000. Yes, sir. So the $8,000 check, it was written and signed by another state agency.
Yes, sir. Okay. Was it all during fiscal year 21? Yes. Okay. So it was held for 82 days. So did it go from one fiscal year to the next fiscal year, or did we look at that? No. So it was all within that? It was all within. That's correct. Okay. I'd like to know who that agency was. Okay. Because I want to make sure that it wasn't being held for just an oversight. And I think you all may understand that. Was there a purpose that that was being held for?
Speaker 147
33:29
No, it was an oversight. We had an issue with the intake. Senator
Hickey, we have a ledge. I'll get an answer.
Speaker 4
33:37
Senator Hickey, that check came from the ADFA Development Finance Authority. And the delay on that, ADFA called them. The delay was during COVID. that's why that check sat there
Speaker 12
33:46
for so long without being deposited is my understanding okay were the other checks was that all
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
33:52
during covid time too or do we know the ones up here that told my author's telling me a lot of those were during
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
34:04
other ones up there were those also agency type checks too there was no checks
that were coming from individuals that for any type of fine repayment or something
Speaker 4
34:13
the fair housing ones were from individuals those were not from other agencies the Medicaid Inspector General those are actually overpayments to to providers and so those are coming back from providers I think the only one that's going to be agency is going to be the one for Office of Internal
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
34:32
Audit. So Arkansas Fair Housing those checks that were coming in those were those agency checks or were those those were
checks from individuals just out in the community somewhere and why would they have been why would they have been writing a
Speaker 148
34:50
check to to fair housing if i may answer the question the there are two
Speaker 137
34:56
ways that fair housing receives money from individuals one would have been for payments related to a training that a individual may be attending uh with the fair housing commission And the other would have been potentially for a fine, an issue related to an investigation that occurred by the Fair Housing Commission.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
35:16
Okay. So, and I guess I could ask Legault at this, but I'm going to ask you
all. So, okay, as of a fine or something else, how do we know at this point that if somebody was required to pay a fine that, you know, they paid their fine so that it would show that it was paid on the books, but somebody within your agency was just their friend or something and was keeping that and was, they knew they didn't have the money. Did we research every one of these in detail?
Because, like I said, it's a red flag
Speaker 137
35:50
for me. Yes. So, if I may. Yes. There was an individual who was employed within the Fair Housing Division, and they had a safe that they were placing. There were two different safes within the office, and that person was placing the items, the checks, into one of the safes. The other safe was being checked. That safe was not being checked. That person was terminated for a number of reasons,
one, not keeping track and keeping things organized. And after that person left, we found that safe and found the checks that were in there. And that's why at least one of them was over 100 days. And that was the answer to that issue.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
36:35
That particular safe, and I'm not going to hold you, do you know, did it have four checks in it, eight checks, 12? I'm sorry, I can't remember. Well, this is what I'm wondering. Were they being dropped into that safe for a reason by that person? Was there, I understand what you're saying, there may have been two safes,
but was there an ulterior motive of why those checks were being dropped into that particular safe? Was it being to protect somebody or to allow somebody to have more time or that? I understand. Did you all look
Speaker 165
37:06
at that, or did we turn it over to a prosecutor?
Speaker 137
37:11
So the employee was not performing any, all of the dollars that were, all the checks that were received by that employee that were placed into that location. So we didn't think that there was any issue related to making favoritism.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
37:28
Did you keep a copy of the checks that
Speaker 113
37:33
came out of that particular safe? Yes. And, sir, to speak to the concern about two different safes, my understanding since joining the department is that fair housing in particular has a need to avoid co-mingling federal funds and state funds more so than i observed with other agencies largely due to regulations from hud and that's my belief as to why there were two separate safes was because hud asked us to keep i think because hud asked us to keep fair housing receipts and
deposits separate from the rest of our department if i may
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
38:07
mr chair just question for staff did you all get a do you all have a copy of those checks in that safe that they're referring to since they
Speaker 4
38:19
didn't receive a log when we were doing our testing we looked at copies of checks i don't know that we have copies of those checks in our
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
38:28
work papers okay if yeah mr chair if it wouldn't be too much to ask i
would like to if it's okay with you all uh if we requested those
checks just so leg audit could uh kind of look through those and make sure they don't
see a pattern of any sort or type that
Speaker 14
38:43
would uh uh we didn't when we did our testing we didn't see anything that really uh throwed up a red flag like there's money missing here um but of course without a log
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
38:51
that's not what i'm saying okay those checks that
were in this unknown safe that we're talking about that were then that's where the ones that were held for so many days it appears like i would like to make sure that those were not being put in that safe just for just for the reason of allowing somebody to have a loan for a lack of a better word on some money uh or
something of that nature i'd like to just make sure that we don't see any pattern as far as who the who the payees were uh or if we can see that you know i think y'all have done it long enough that you are better versed than me at it. And that's something
Speaker 171
39:26
that Senator Hickey, when we have findings like this,
Speaker 4
39:28
we'll follow up on it. We'll be there doing that audit again for FY22, and we'll follow up with this finding. That's something that we can add to those procedures without any
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
39:38
problem. Okay, well, I'm talking about these particular checks that are there. Can we request that they send, since they've told me that they've got the checks,
I would like for them to send a copy to leg audit so that you all can go ahead and have those, just the ones that were in this safe that are in question. Sure. So do you mind? You said you had a
Speaker 147
40:05
copy of it. We should. I thought we said we did. You don't know. Well, I think, I mean, I'm pretty sure we have. I mean, we're supposed to maintain a copy of the checks. Yes,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
40:14
ma'am. In our normal course of business, we would have a copy of the check. Do you know that this unknown vault right here or whatever is safe,
I hate to call it that, but do you know the checks that we're talking about whenever that person left and y'all found them, if there was 10 checks, 12
checks, 15, do y'all have a copy of every one of those checks that were in that safe? Like
Speaker 137
40:33
to differentiate between that safe and the other? That's correct. I think we do, but I'm not positive about that. Yeah. I
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
40:38
think that would be prudent, Mr. Chair, if we looked into that. Thank you. Thank
Speaker 176
40:43
you, ma'am. I absolutely understand what you're saying. Thank you. Thank
you. Thank you. Any other questions for finding two?
Senator John Payton
Unverified
40:49
Senator Payton? Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Senator Hickey. You covered most of my ground. My question is, when you let these checks sit around and get old, the likelihood that they're going to come back NSF, you know, returned, goes up. So I'm just wondering, what has the agency experienced in the way of insufficient checks or return checks? Do you have
a collection issue? I mean, what do you have?
Speaker 148
41:21
I don't recall being notified that there was any issue when those checks were
Senator John Payton
Unverified
41:28
deposited. But just on a normal ongoing basis, I mean, do you have any collection issues and don't experience many insufficient checks?
No. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Any other questions for finding two? Please proceed to
Speaker 114
41:49
finding three. Thank you. We have reviewed that finding, and we have, again, just developed new internal
Speaker 113
41:53
controls. That is largely a function of our CFO, and we have made a change at that position as well. So we've beefed up our practices and procedures there and just make sure that these numbers are recorded correctly. A lot of times, and I know internal audit sees this a lot, certainly people can make an accounting error, but we want to make sure we minimize that as much as possible. That's what this appeared to be and so we've made sure that we put more procedures in place to have review and to make sure that it's
correct before it's finalized okay thank you does any member have a any further questions for secretary barrett
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
42:27
just one on this and i think it's one like of
another agency by doing this by y'all having this over and overstatement that was just with y'all's books however did that cause a loss of any other federal funds or anything in any way shape or fashion no like you said just an internal okay thank you sir thank you okay any other questions
all right without objection i'd like to move this to the next month's report um that way we'll get some answers for our members seeing now we'll move this to next month's report all right thank you all for your time
Speaker 12
43:02
okay the last report we have to talk about is the former treasurer state ask us to perform some in-to-term procedures for their office, and you should have copies of that letter
Speaker 3
43:16
with the results of our review in your packets. During our procedures, the only thing that we noticed that warrants any attention was that there were several pieces of equipment that were purchased for over $62,000 that were transferred to the auditor of the state's office when the transition occurred. And we questioned whether these transfers were in accordance with Arkansas Code.
Speaker 41
43:35
Mr. Chair, that concludes our summary of the letter to the
Treasurer of State. Okay, thank you. Members, if you would, you should have
that letter in the back of your packet. What I'd like to do is, since this was requested from the audit by our auditor, Dennis Milligan, while he was still treasurer, I'd like for him and his staff to come up.
Speaker 183
44:09
Afternoon, Mr. Chair. Dennis Milligan, Auditor of State. Jason Brady, Deputy Auditor. Thank
you, gentlemen. Mr. Milligan, you see the 62 items that moved over
from the Treasurer's Office to the Auditor's Office. Can you just go through your rationale for that? Mr.
Speaker 183
44:29
Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to be here before you today and hopefully shed some light on this issue. First, let me say I appreciate the role of legislative audit.
It's for this reason that I asked them to conduct several audits as I was preparing the Treasury for its transition to the Lowry administration, including an audit of all assets. I wanted Treasurer Lowry to have an accurate account of everything when he walked into the door. The asset transfers in question, when originally purchased, amounted to a total of $62,405.63.
That is the cost of each of the 42 items as if they were brand new. According to a document from DF&A dated last December, which I have a copy of here today, if any of you would like to see it, 75% of the items that were transferred have fully depreciated. So if my math is correct, this depreciation document is correct. The total value of assets that we transferred from the Treasury to the Auditor's Office is no more than $15,581.62.
Now, having said that, I'll give you a brief overview of the items that were transferred and my reasoning for doing so. But first, let me say that I believe we followed the intent of the law. For the computers and cell phones, we were told some of the older equipment my team had been using wasn't needed, and thus I asked to transfer it over to the auditor's office. The Income Administration had told my transition team that they intended to cut Treasury staff by 15%,
and it was also my desire to provide the Lowry administration with brand new equipment as they walked in the door. I made sure his team had new equipment that was under warranty in hopes of giving them the best step forward possible. I'll add that the purchase of the new equipment for them was done without going over the 50% spending limit as is required by law. As for the furniture, Treasurer Lowry had informed me, my transition staff, that he had selected a desk he wanted to use in his office, which we purchased for him.
There were also some furniture items that were transferred from Auditor Lee's administration to the Treasury for the incoming Lowry administration. It is for these reasons that the furniture items I transferred to the Auditor's office were not needed by the Treasury. Everything that was transferred is being used by my staff and is accounted for. As for the video equipment, all of it minus one TV is fully depreciated. This equipment is very technical, very high quality, and was used by a very skilled videographer to inform the public about the duties and the happenings of the Treasury.
It also came in extremely useful when COVID hit, and we were required to video and record the meetings of the state's 529 board, the ABLE board, and I'm sorry, the State Board of Finance, so all boards which I sat on, of which are not recorded by any other entity. My transition team asked the incoming administration whether they planned to use the video equipment, and we were told no, that Treasurer Lowry had planned to use AETN for his video production needs.
In learning that he didn't plan to use the equipment and knowing that our videographer had planned to transition with us to the auditor's office, I advised his team that I would like to transfer this equipment, and they can send it. members I'll say it again I believe we followed the intent of the law in making these transfers I followed proper protocol by getting approval of the sitting auditor of state at the time as well as DF&A the items transferred were not needed and with regard to the video equipment were not desired by the new
administration moreover a large majority of the items were fully depreciated and have no value in ACES. I left the incoming administration with newer fully warranted equipment. Nothing, and I mean nothing, was transferred in any way to hinder the Lowry administration in any way. In fact, I dedicated one of my chief deputies to serve as a transition lead for any and all help they needed as Treasurer Lowry formed his new administration. Mr. Chairman, members of
the committee thank you for allowing me to explain these transfers to you i'll certainly be willing to entertain any questions you might have thank you
Senator John Payton
Unverified
49:29
senator payton you had a question thank you mr chair i'm just trying to on one hand you're saying that they were depreciated and had no value but then on the other hand you bought new equipment and left new equipment to replace what you were taking so obviously that was an expense or or a cost to the taxpayer if you're
taking out equipment based on the fact that it's depreciated and then having to repurchase equipment to replace it was the equipment you were taking out functional
was it uh meeting the the needed duties of what of its functionality jason absolutely senator yes was it functioning yes was there some
Speaker 189
50:08
continuity that afforded us to take some of the older equipment since we left brand new equipment yes uh had we turned that equipment over and they sent it over to m&r it probably would have been pennies on the dollar or zero so i get your question was there some value
to it yes we're still using that equipment we're squeezing the best out of it i will tell you some of that equipment is uh failing on us
Senator John Payton
Unverified
50:34
as we speak but that's beside the point well and so my next question would be did you involve the incoming treasurer with
with any options as as to selecting the new equipment being purchased, or you just decided what he needed and supplied it to him?
Speaker 187
50:49
Well, yeah, go ahead. No, absolutely. Of course, the other chief deputy, Grant Wallace, he was head of that transition on that end,
Speaker 189
50:54
and he absolutely, for example, we bought an Apple and a tablet for Treasurer Lowry. I think there was an Apple for the chief staff, but there was a different kind of computer for the incoming chief deputy. We let them select that equipment. Same thing with the iPhones as well. No, we didn't just say, hey, this is what you're going to get. we asked them what they wanted and that's what we replaced it with
Senator John Payton
Unverified
51:14
yes sir okay and so if i could continue yeah carry on so like on iphones you mentioned that first and one of the things you said was we were told it wasn't needed and i i just want to know who told you that uh who was
who was it again what who was it in the incoming administration that was telling you the iphones weren't needed or whatever was being taken was not needed As far
Speaker 189
51:38
as the video equipment, from what I understand, and again, I know Mr. Wallace was more the main contact with him, but on the video equipment, I understand that came directly in a meeting that he had with incoming Treasurer-elect Lowry. As far as the other equipment, you know, asking them if they would like to have upgraded computers,
Speaker 187
51:57
I understand that came from them as well.
Senator John Payton
Unverified
51:59
Okay. All right. And as far as, you know, Treasurer Lowry is copacetic. He doesn't have
Speaker 183
52:09
any complaints with what you took? If there would have been any instance, Representative, where they would have said, hey, hold on a minute, we would have been more than happy to succumb to whatever they wanted. And, again, I was quite surprised to even, I mean, I'm quite surprised to be even sitting here before you today, quite frankly.
but I know of no issue, and certainly I think that someone from the treasurer's staff is here if they like to rebut what I'm saying. And I have one more question. Continue on. We'll bring
up the new treasurer's staff in a moment, but continue with your question. So
Senator John Payton
Unverified
52:47
going into the auditor's office, was something missing in the way of equipment there that you needed to take this? Yeah, they didn't have it. Okay, so it was not, the auditor's office was not up to par as far as the equipment.
Is that because somebody had taken some of it with them or they had just been functioning without it
Speaker 183
53:11
or what? I don't think they've been functioning at all. I mean, with respect, I don't think they had that communication capability or want to be able to do the things that we had accomplished and wanted to move over from the Treasury as far as communicating with the public. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I've generated a couple of questions. the computers that got transferred over to to the auditor's office out of
the treasurer's office was there not information on those hard drives that were vital to the mission at
Speaker 189
53:50
the treasury's office no sir uh particularly for for example the cfo's computer that remained but no as far as any information uh that was transferred during the transition in documents and drives that we handed over them so no sir so if they i
Will Cheatham
Unverified
54:05
guess i'm having trouble following some of the logic
If they weren't really needed because you're
leaving the treasurers going to the auditors, why did we take those that were getting older and starting to have life issues and then buy new for the treasurer? Why not just leave that inside the treasurer's realm? Some of that was
Speaker 189
54:25
continuity, sir. For example, people who have a computer who are used to that computer, even though it's starting to die out, we felt like it would be useful for us to get started into a new administration.
But, again, no, there wasn't any vital information that we retained that we would not have given to the Lowry administration at all. Okay. And
then I'll ask one more question, get back some members' time. But if you took the computer over to the auditor's side, did you replace computers over there, or did you add to your inventory? We added to the inventory, sir. Did you add
Speaker 189
55:03
employees as well? Yes, sir. There was quite a few openings. Yes, sir. Okay.
Any other members have any other questions? Senator
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
55:14
Dawson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just out of curiosity, because there's quite a bit of equipment here, how many new staff did you hire that the previous auditor was running short on staff, or there was openings, or what was the issue? Well, there
Speaker 189
55:32
was openings, sir, so we brought over at least
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
55:35
eight staff members, yes, sir. Eight staff? Yes, sir. Okay. And is that people that had left when Auditor Lee was leaving, or so there was openings,
Speaker 189
55:44
or just she was operating without them?
There was two openings. Excuse me. There was two positions that we did not rehire. There was at least five, six, seven, and I'm just doing this off the cuff of my head. So
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
55:59
I believe the number was about eight, sir. So, okay. So you're running eight staff total
Speaker 189
56:05
more than what the previous auditor? Well, we've had one or two that's left since
Representative David Ray
Unverified
56:10
then, so yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Go
ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm reading the letter here, and the code that it cites says that the only mechanism that allows for the transfer of property from one agency to another is if it's not needed by the agency at the time of the transfer.
I guess I'm wondering who makes the determination on whether it's needed. Is it the agency? Would it be you as the current occupant or the incoming occupant? Who makes that determination? Well, I think, Representative, simply put, we just ask a question.
Speaker 183
56:54
Do you need this? Do you have a desire for it? This is what we used it for. and they said they were going to use AETN to do all their video
and that they didn't have any use for it. So that opened the door for us to be able
Representative David Ray
Unverified
57:15
to ask to get it transferred. Okay, so it sounds like
Speaker 183
57:19
you collaborated with them on determining what was needed and what wasn't. Yeah, if there would have been any question whatsoever, any pushback from the Lowry administration, we would have we never would have forced the issue or anything like that
and we didn't force the issue we thought we were saving the state money quite simply by transferring it rather than go to M&R and get sold as Jason said for nickels on the dollar and it's still being used
today alright thank you any other questions for Honor Milligan Representative Gassaway
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
58:00
thank you mr chairman i guess my concern when i look at this is you know this is a long list of
property a long list of items many of which include electronics and someone already kind of brought it up but we're talking about macbooks apple iMacs another apple iMac another apple iMac I think there was discussion of cell phones, and I think the concern would be that those phones contain information or could contain information that you might not want the next person coming into office to know or to see.
I'm not saying that's the case. I'm saying that could be the perception. And so you want to take them with you so that the new people coming in don't find the information that's on the phone or on the computer. Again, I'm not saying that happened. But do you
Speaker 213
59:02
see the perception and the perception problem there? You know, I suppose, I
Speaker 183
59:08
think, not Mr. Goody two-shoes by any means,
but I don't think that, again, in our interaction with the new administration, anything we had, but I guess I would have to agree with you, there could be that perception. Follow-up. and you know i think one of the one
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
59:36
of the issues that have been raised and it is you know somewhat concerning to me also representative ray mentioned that you know there's a process to be followed if
these items aren't uh needed anymore and the question about whether or not they're truly needed and so when you look at kind of what happened here it my understanding is is that your office took the items but then bought new items to replace these items for the new administration and so the point being if they weren't needed then why did you buy new items for the new administration clearly they must have been needed so how
Speaker 75
1:00:15
do you explain that go ahead so again
Speaker 189
1:00:19
first may I address one of the questions previous uh where the information is we have a server in the Treasury. All information is retained on the server. So there is no, there is no information that they, that we did not leave behind for the last administration. And I do think that's extremely important. As far as, again, wanting to have new computers, you know, good intentions are the pathway to hell, I guess. But the intention was to leave new equipment that had warranties that were better functioning, had longer life into the new administration so that they could
have consistency and not have to replace it in the first six months or nine months was sort of the end goal again we were trying we were trying to do something good for them but unfortunately i i get where you're thinking that there's public perception that we try to keep any information sir i can promise you this there was no nothing that was asked or any information that was needed that we didn't think we
Speaker 187
1:01:17
didn't give to them we went above and beyond in our opinion
Speaker 183
1:01:20
And I will say this, Mr. Representative, I've been brought up in a manner where you leave something better conditioned than what you found it in.
And so our intents, again, was if there would have been, I've said it before, if there would have been any type of pushback, I mean, if asked, do you want a new phone or do you want this old phone, I think the answer is pretty obvious. yeah follow up yeah please continue thank you mr chair so
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:01:50
i see at least four iphones that look like they're listed in a row i mean you talk about all the information was left for the incoming
administration i mean were the text messages and and other items that would have been on these iphones left on the server for the new administration did these iphones link to this
Speaker 187
1:02:10
server that you're talking about the answer to that is a no sir yes sir but i
Speaker 183
1:02:16
can't imagine there being anything on there, but fair enough questions. I mean, we, I'm sorry, we understand that that's FOIable. I mean, so I wouldn't want to leave, I mean, you know, wouldn't do anything that would jeopardize if it wouldn't pass public scrutiny.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:02:34
Yeah, it looks like I see at least five iPhones that were taken. And, you know, just to be clear, all of these items, and I mean, this is an inventory of 46 items that total $62,000. I understand that that may not have been the present value given the depreciation, but those are all items that were purchased with money that was appropriated for the treasurer. Yes. Is that right? Yes. And so, you know, I think the concern is, is that those items, I think it, you know, should likely be clear to anyone who's been involved in government
long is that those items go with the office not the person and so when you transfer items like that or take items from one office to another it just you know whether it was completely legit and it may may absolutely been there's a perception there i think that's at issue and uh you know it would be like if when leslie rutledge became lieutenant governor she brought all of her equipment from when she was attorney general or when tim griffin became attorney general he brought
all of his items from when he was from the lieutenant governor's office i mean you just this is not something that people do and so this is
Speaker 183
1:03:53
a pretty odd scenario i mean wouldn't you agree sir i'm not going to speculate what the ag did or what the former lieutenant governor or anything like that. I mean, again, we thought we went through the proper steps multiple times to interacting with leg audit, with the incoming administration. I mean, if it's determined or
somehow wanted, give every item back that they want. I have no problem with that, if that's your perception the only thing i can say is that in my interaction with people they've they've uh they said we appreciate you continuing to get the most out of of items that were purchased uh uh by the by state dollars and uh and good job and that's that's my would be my comment to you about that one one last comment
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:04:47
i've just one last one last this isn't really a question but really just
more of a comment and i appreciate that and what by my questioning i don't mean to cast any aspersions i don't mean to insinuate that there's been any wrongdoing i certainly don't think i don't want to think that's the case and i don't really think it is but it's the perception issue i think that is probably has people concerned and so i just
Speaker 183
1:05:10
want to make that clear well representative you just said there's a perception i just told you there's a perception that we're doing a great job there's a perception that we're saving arkansans money by doing what we did and and not going to M&R and selling on a uh so uh you know this is your town
we're just passing through but we'll do whatever you want to do or whatever whatever you think is is best sir and whatever the perception you think is best i appreciate that thank
Senator John Payton
Unverified
1:05:43
you senator payton thank you mr chair so obviously there is a procedure for surplus equipment to move from one state agency to the other one office to the other and i would think that when it when you're
dealing with electronic devices that have databases that that procedure if it had been followed normal course of action those databases would
have to be cleaned because i'm you know there's personal and information you know uh citizens information on there i don't know what all might be on the databases in the treasurer's office but did anybody you know take those electronics that were being transferred and eliminate any
data that was on there that
should not leave the treasurer's office go
Speaker 187
1:06:36
ahead there was a lady named stephanie clark she's deceased now unfortunately but yes she was
Speaker 189
1:06:41
in that that she was in that role and computers that would have had treasury information uh access all of that was removed sir okay thank you thank
Speaker 20
1:06:50
you mr chair thank you any other questions
from committee for otter milligan Seeing none, if Treasurer Lowry's staff is available, if there are any questions of the committee.
Will Cheatham
Unverified
1:07:06
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. If you would,
Speaker 221
1:07:18
gentlemen, please introduce yourself. My name is Will Cheatham. I'm
Speaker 222
1:07:23
the Chief of Staff at the State Treasury. Eric Munson.
Will Cheatham
Unverified
1:07:26
I'm the Chief Deputy of the Treasurer's Office. Thank you, gentlemen. I think you heard the testimony of the prior administration. I think most
of us just want to know, was there consent among all of the transfers during the transition period?
Speaker 224
1:07:39
The only negotiations or discussions that I was personally involved with the transition, and representatives of the Milligan transition team, Grant Wallace, went very well. There was discussion of replacing five laptop computers and five cell phones. so so 10 items that i was part of that we were physically in the
Speaker 225
1:08:00
meeting that's correct were there were there other members
of your team uh engaged in other conversations with the transition team not to
my not that we're we're of now okay thank you is any members uh
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:08:17
representative ray thank you mr chair i guess my question would just be of any of the new equipment that was purchased prior to the new administration moving in, how much of that was requested on your end that it be purchased? How much did you ask for versus did they proactively swap out new equipment for? To my
Speaker 228
1:08:47
knowledge, the treasurer asked for a, he did have a desk in mind.
Speaker 221
1:08:51
that he got and then we also there was a discussion on the cell phones and laptops but to my knowledge I believe that's all that was requested would have been the desk and the cell phones and laptops Thank you Representative
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:09:15
Beck Thank you Mr. Chair so the biggest cost item before depreciation because it might be depreciated down, was this video equipment, right?
And what we were told, whatever he was telling us, is that you guys had, I believe that the secretary had decided that he was going to use a different
system to communicate the video. Do you guys know anything
Speaker 224
1:09:43
about that? Yes, sir. Treasury-elect Lowry told us that we were going to use AETN PBS for any video, AV-type work that was necessary for the office.
Speaker 221
1:09:58
And the treasurer did make a statement on that. I have it here. His plans were to use Arkansas PBS instead of the... Okay, so you wouldn't have used the video equipment? I
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:10:08
mean, it would have just gone to scrap or whatever it goes, wherever it goes. Is that correct? That's correct. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions
from the committee? All right, seeing none. Thank you, gentlemen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Emerge the committee. Thank you. Thank you. Since there were no other findings with that report, without an objection, we'll just file that. seeing none
Will Cheatham
Unverified
1:10:40
considerate filed all right thank you committee we are adjourned for the day
Agenda
A. Call to order by Chairman.
B. Adoption of minutes of the December 1, 2023 meeting.
C. Review of reports.(Refer to the Summary)
D. New Business.The next meeting will be held June 1, 2023
E. Adjournment.
500 WOODLANE STREET, SUITE 172 • LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1099 • PHONE: (501) 683-8600 • FAX: (501) 683-8605 www.arklegaudit.gov
LEGISLATIVE JOINT AUDITING COMMITTEE ARKANSAS LEGISLATIVE AUDIT MAY 11, 2023 STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE AGENCIES
Current
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — LEGISLATIVE JOINT AUDITING - STATE AGENCIES, May 11, 2023 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Will Cheatham
Unverified
Senator Joshua Bryant Chair
Unverified
Speaker 3
Speaker 12
Speaker 14
Speaker 19
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
Senator John Payton
Unverified
Speaker 32
Speaker 46
Speaker 50
Hugh Mcdonald
Unverified
Speaker 41
Speaker 68
Speaker 72
Speaker 69
Speaker 4
Speaker 84
Speaker 89
Speaker 82
Speaker 98
Speaker 100
Speaker 101
Speaker 104
Speaker 108
Speaker 110
Speaker 113
Speaker 114
Speaker 124
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Speaker 137
Speaker 147
Speaker 11
Speaker 148
Speaker 165
Speaker 171
Speaker 176
Speaker 183
Speaker 189
Speaker 187
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
Representative David Ray
Unverified
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Speaker 213
Speaker 75
Speaker 20
Speaker 221
Speaker 222
Speaker 224
Speaker 225
Speaker 228
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified