Legislative Joint Auditing
Video
Transcript
1 document
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Speaker 3
0:43
he's asking to test it Please take your seats and let's get started OK, the chair calls the legislative joint committee
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:16
meeting to order. we have the adoption of the minutes from September 12th motion have a
motion and a second who said the motion in the second? all right thank you gentlemen all in favor any opposed? motion adopted Next we have
the adoption of the reports for the executive standing committeetee Senator dotson thank you madam chair the executive committee met Thursday
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:48
October 9,2025 and adopted the minutes from the meeting held September 11th,2025. Staff reported to the committee the audit and special reports scheduled to be presented to the standing committees and the full legislative joint audit auditing committee this monthtaff also noted reports that are anticipated to be completed soon. in new business no action was taken regarding the request for a special report on the conway school district's maintenance department request for a special report on selected procedures
for the hot springs County solid waste Authority was approved in other business the committee reviewed information provided by staff regarding the population of ax with fiscal impact statements passed in the 2021 regular legislative session and the catarrezs categorization of those acts by impact amounts provided the committee voted to approve a special report regarding fiscal impact statements for acts passed in the 2021 regular legislative session the committee directed staff to review for accuracy 9 fiscal
impact statements statement amounts exceeding $10 million provided by the department of finance Administration Bureau of Legislative Research and Arkansas Sentencing Commission. Additionally, the committee moved to send a request to the joint public retirement and socialcial Securitygramsittee to review the contract with Osborne Carrero and associates and a review for accuracy the two fiscal impact statements statement amounts exceeding $10 million prepared by Osborne Carrero and associates. The committee also
approved a calendar for 2026. with no additional business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. The next meeting of the committee is scheduled for Thursday, November 13,2025 or at the call of the chairs. there was also after the meeting was over there was a a we found out that the legislative council is where the referral for that needs to go to
rather than the joint public retirement and social security programs so I move for an amendment to the chair report to substitute the Arkansas Legislative council for this joint public retirement and socialcial Securitygras committeetee within the report and I think we have to adopt that amendment before we adopt the full report. I need
a motion to adopt that amendment Thank you. Second, thank you. all in favor? opposed
Speaker 22
4:24
amendment passes and move for adoption of the chair report as amended.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
4:38
' ll in or excuse me I need a motion a second our discussion excuse me that's
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
4:42
a second on thank you so I guess I just have
some questions so I I heard that that report will then go to ALc and I guess it'll go to the full ALc or go to a subcommittee or I guess we'll figure that out when
it gets there so what is what is the scope of this study audit, whatever it is of may can we have some discussion
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
5:06
on that so madam chair so the the presentation was brought forward a couple of months
ago earlier in the summer to look at fiscal impact statements that are provided to the legislature during sessions and this is a look in arrears right? look in arrears to see what what
statements that became acts and the the accuracy of those statements so you know if the fiscal impact statement said it was3 million dollars and it turned out to be you know $200,000 it'd kind of be good to know the the accuracy or the get a range of how how how well we're actually getting a making our decisions on the front end what what the impact results are on acts that are actually passed
and so we looked at the whole universe for 2021 and saw how many physical impact statements were totally done many of them actually I think the vast majority of them said zero fiscal impact most of them or a lot of them were education they were mandated for K-12 some of them for other committees there are a few that there was only 9 in2021 that exceeded $10 million that were not retirement committee actuarel reports there
were two that were in excess of $2 million that were actuarial reports for the retirement committee. so the referral to ALc is just so so the bureau can talk to our actuarial and have them go back and look at those two reports specifically to say how accurate were were we in our our actuarial statements before these bills were passed and and
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
7:02
and I appreciate that and and I guess I don't know that I even disagree in the sense of sometimes we get fiscal impact statements that are all over the place and I think any of us who served in the legislature understand that and I think we get some that in some regards we we probably think that agencies are maybe not friendly to our legislation and therefore provide fiscal impacts that therefore say that my only concern and and the only reason I I raise it here is my concern is are we asking audit
to get in the business of helping decipher policy if we are asking them to audit fiscal impact statements because fiscal impact statements are based on policy and I feel like you know, from my standpoint, I'm I'm not sure that this is the scope of audit I'm happy to hear chair's thoughts or anyone else that wants to participate in this discussion but that's just a concern I have. well the representative who
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
8:05
originally brought this before the executive subcommittee's no longer a representative so we we can't exactly ask him but umpresentative Lindstrom our chairman chairwoman Leinster might be able to answer I
think the concern is not the policies the politics are irrelevant if
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
8:20
the fiscal impact comes back a million and we're asked to make a monumental decisions on the amount of money did it over the next three years did it end up being 10 million or 20 million that's something we need to know as legislators
so we can make better decisions or ask better questions the politics are irrelevant this
is simply the math and then wherever the math leads that's up to y'all. and appreciate that
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
8:45
and thank you madam chairir. my thought on it is if we disagree with the state
agency we we get to disagree on a state agency and therefore hold them accountable in some way whatever. I just think that oftentimes we do disagree when it comes to fiscal impact statements with an agency are we going to have the same
disagreement with our own staff at audit. I don't think so they're
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
9:10
just reporting the facts and we can decide where that takes us. well
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
9:15
and I think our state agencies would also say that they're reporting the facts when they do a study on a fiscal impact would agree but also think we get
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
9:23
physical impacts that are worst case scenarios sometimes they don't turn out to be that sometimes their best case scenario the bottom line is when you look back you find out what the truth was and I think that's important for us to ask those questions
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
9:38
and one final and I appreciate the latitude, does audit staff have the capacity to do this? Yes they do and in fact they
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
9:45
have done things in the past that have really been useful and I've kept a copy of one of their reports I thought was one of the best ones I've ever seen they was just reporting the numbers where we take it is up to us all right thank you madam chair thank you any other questions Senator English? So I guess one of the same things along with
Senator Jane English
Unverified
10:11
my colleague here is I guess the other thing I've seen too is that sometimes the fiscal impact statements are huge and and it it's almost like an attempt to make sure that we don't pass this legislation and it turns out sometimes I had one with the $20 million fiscal impact statement which would have been if we'd had a less than a million dollars I'd have been surprised so I for me it's kind of looking at both sides of it do we did we pass it or did
we not pass it? what was that fiscal impact statement pro or con it kind of concerns me sometimes when we have just somebody out there deciding on on a figure and it's really not based on anything thank you senator Inglis
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
10:59
I hope this will give us some some truth in that information. any other questions? let's see howard
beatty senator or congress whoever you are over there beatty you're up damn its discussion
I I think just turned him off.ight you back up again sorry. Yeah don't don't give
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
11:30
him any ideas now now we're feeling the love thank you madam chairir. my my concerns are with audit going into I guess audit the fiscal
impact statements a lot of times those fiscal impact statements the assumption that
the agency utilized to prepare those they're there are factors that affect and change over time either through additional legislation that we run and pass through through this body that hasn't a you know that could drastically change those numbers. So I I guess my concern is when you get that fiscal impact statement if you don't agree with it or you think that it's wrong then that's that's on the member and and the legislative body to take those issues up with the preparer of
that fiscal impact statement. I don't know what benefit it provides me after the fact and after we've enacted legislation to know that that estimate and and that analysis was incorrect other than maybe lack of confidence but I I don't vote for legislation strictly based on the price tag of that legislation it's got to be good policy to go with with those numbers so at this point I I mean I think it's a waste of our resources to go back and look at
something that's two or three years after the fact to go back and look at what that agency or or department did to prepare on a fiscal impact statement. we're living with it. we we know the real time a lot of times we know that there are other other areas dynamic scoring. I I thought we spent some money and expended a couple $100,000 on a software that would allow us to do some dynamic scoring are they going to go back and audit those as well
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
13:23
I don't think we should be afraid to audit anything. The fact the
more facts we have the better judgments and and decisions we can make but that's that's an opinion
and you and I can disagree senator by just a follow up
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
13:36
my my comments were not made out of fear of an audit. My, my comments were strictly based on what we're what the entire purpose of this was to look at the the fiscal impact and the cost of of actions we take and I think this would be a waste of our resources of leg audit to go back and look at
something that two or three years down the road
to see what the actual numbers are so with that I thank you for recognizing me in multiple ways this morning you're just
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
14:03
lucky today. Senator Love thank you madam chair I guess I
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
14:11
guess I'm not gonna belabor the point but can I get a clarification of the the actual motion that we're gonna be voting
on because I heard that it was an amendment but but what what actually are we voting
on so that I can speak to just adopt just adopting the
report adopting the report ok so it's the adoption of the report but I thought I heard senator dotson said that there was an amendment in the report and'm I'm asking if if we need to amend it or if the motion is going to be to amend the report and then adopt the report or to
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
14:54
we're done with that yes
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
15:01
we've voted for the amendment to change the name of the committee from joint public retirement and socialcialcuritygrasittee to legislative council that that the request by the executive subcommittee of of the agency for Osborne Carrero and associates the contracts through legislative council not through joint retirement committee.
so legislative council is who actually has to make that that final determination of their contract . OK so Carrero is now going to
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
15:37
audit the impact statements the two impact statements that became law based off their
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
15:42
actuarial report in the 2021 session that exceeded 10 million dollars. their estimation of what it was going to cost they're going to go back and look and see if it actually cost
more than $10 million or less than $10 million that's what we're going to ask them to do which is outside the scope of their current contract with us and so so how
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
16:08
much is how much is this amendment gonna cost? for them to do
for them to do this work I guess retrospect to be
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
16:18
a question they have to they have to talk to legislative can this is just simply authorizing the bureau to go talk to them to see how much it will cost
with its according to my understanding of it it probably won't cost us anything because we we contract with them for a certain dollar amount up to so many hours so it'll probably be included in their scope and but I don't know for sure the the bureau's gonna have to negotiate that with them and then bring it back to council for for final authorization. in in and for them to do this
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
16:52
report I guess what what are we trying to glean from this ir basically did they give us
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
16:59
accurate information how accurate was that it's a chance if they if they're doing their job they can brag all day long. if our actuarial who handles our retirement is off a whole lot we need to know and we need to be able to ask those questions no one ever goes back and says did we get it right? did we get it wrong? Are we good good information to make good decisions this is simply asking did we get good information to make good decisions? From somebody we've contracted with
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
17:29
all right thank you senator Dismain Thank you could someone just state the audit I mean the the the motion that happened in committee in regards to auditing the fiscal impacts what what is how what is the wording of that motion that we're asking legislative audit to undertake
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
18:01
senator dismay I can't remember the exact wording of the motion but the summation of it is there was a a motion to have legislative audit look at the nine fiscal impact statements from the bureau of legislative some of them from DFA some from the bureau of legislative Research and some from the Arkansas Sentencing Commission to look at those nine and then there's a separate motion
that was made to have legislative joint retirement committee talked to our actuary that we contract with about the two that they did and so what we're talking about is after the meeting concluded yesterday the the it was determined that ALc was the appropriate committee to ask that question of our actuary not joint retirement so that was the amendment to the report from the committee but there are two separate motions in the executive subcommittee yesterday
Speaker 90
19:04
with the actual language of that motion
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
19:09
I think matters a lot and and so I would like the actual I think the members need to hear the actual language of the motion because for instance we've said that we would be auditing these physical impact statements well we can't do that physical impact statements are based on assumptions and economic forecast and another a number of items
they're not something that's auditable I mean audits follow standard procedures and processes and are pretty clearly dictated on how we do that and so what what the look at is different than audit and so maybe if it said audit we could you know kind of move along for that but in the in the in this committee today we've mentioned the word audit numerous times and related to these statements I'm a little bit nervous about heading this direction with the audit committee
because I think it's out of their jurisdiction I mean that historically that's what they do is look at historical things that have happened based on you know true hard fast numbers and now we're asking them to look at really policy as much as we are anything else and so again if I could hear that language I think it would be incredibly helpful because if it's worded incorrectly we're going to be asking audit to do something very political which I think we need to steer away from
Bear with us just a second so then my question is to staff how do we see ourselves carrying out reviewing or whatever the word is that's been in this motion for things that are I mean that it's it's policy how things are gonna impact and the number of people participating in a program or taking advantage of a tax cut or moving to the state of Arkansas because of something all of that is I mean
that's economics and that is that that's not a science that is someone making assumptions
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
21:19
and so senator if I could interrupt for just a second they've been asked to take a physical impact statement that's a million dollars and look at it three years later and did it was it3 million million dollars per year or was it 9 million? they're not asked to delve into anything political just apples to apples look at the numbers so if that's not clear then we need to make that clear so that
we have good information so let's read the original legislative audit do that? I mean that that's
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
21:48
a simple request from but again there's lots of things that go into that I mean there's lots of I mean the economy impacts the revenues and we would not have known at the time that an in or they an impact statement was created what the economy was going to do three years later and so I I I don't know
what what why is it audit's role to look at that and maybe not letting DFA present come back and say well this is what happened because again there's lots of factors
that go into changing what we thought on one day to be the impact of
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
22:32
what may actually happen three years later senator dismaying to your original question let
me reread what the committee the executive subcommittee directed staff in their motion
to review for accuracy 9 fiscal impact statements amounts exceeding $10 million provided by DFfablr and Arkansas Sentencing Commission an additionally the committee moved to send the request to the jointublic retirementittee to review the contract with Osbone Carrero and associates and to review for accuracy the two fiscal impact statements that exceeded $10 million the committee report as amended would change that from joint
retirement to ALc to have ALC talk to Osborne Carrero and associates for those two impact statements so those were the two motions that were made as far as the reasoning behind I think part of the reason that audit is the one that is looking at this is obviously the that's where represent former representative wing brought the the motion to audit to look at it could ALc do something like
this withblr potentially as far as what we've learned so far and this has gone on for a few different months within executive subcommittee because when we initially looked at this the universe that we were asking that was being asked of audit to look at was was huge and so trying to get it narrowed down to hey what are we even looking at are we looking at out of 1500 acts during a session are we looking at 1000 of them that
have fiscal impact statements or are we looking at 100 or however many there are and so initially we sent them back to to to do a little bit of research and it came back that let's look at one session a session from a few years back 2021 and see how many fiscal impacts happened at that time and I think the universe was 2 40 ish I can't rememberxxx actually had a fiscal impact
if I recall correctlyblr put together78 of those for education alone,73 of which had zero fiscal impact and so some of them were from DFA some of them were from Arkansas sentencing commission some of them were from a large amount was from retirement the actuarial and so looking at that universe how many of them had zero fiscal impact it was it was a very large number there's only I think50 some odd that had
anything over a million dollars worth of estimated fiscal impact and so we narrowed it down to just those that exceeded $10 million in their estimate to kind of look at those those that had significant fiscal impact and say ok give us a report on did they actually have $10 million plus fiscal impact or not and that's kind of what's led us to where we're at today whether or not we decide to move forward or not that's up to the committee but that's kind of a synopsis in my opinion.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
25:54
So then the question for staff is let's just say I I don't know what we're talking about exactly
but you say we're talking about the income tax cuts that we've done historically if if that's going to be one of the you
know the impact statements that we're going to review to see how accurate they were in that and of course ours don't take into dynamic scoring are we asking I mean but the reality of the world does take into account dynamic scoring
and so when we look at it for accuracy or whatever we're going to call this review how do y'all see that playing out because again if we cut taxes three years ago we have a new president we have tariffs we have economic changes we have growth in the state of Arkansas we have historically low soybean prices we have all of these things that no one could have predicted when they did an impact statement so I
just am trying to understand how what is it y'all are going to do exactly
that you should be doing because that isn't an audit function it's not a review function it's a you know it's a it's a look back on economic analysis I don't I don't know what what it is we're trying to accomplish. So if you could walk me through what you think a report might look like and and what you're going to take into account to determine what's been accurate or inaccurate.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
27:28
I think the report is gonna put a pretty simple report we're not asking for anything political we're simply asking if the fiscal impact was a
million did it did it cost a million or did it cost 10 million and it would cost 10 million then we need to look at what's the soybeam prices what was the economics so this makes lots of sense and we have asked Bureau of Legislative audit to look back at a number of different things over time and and look at costs look at procedures it's not a political look back it just gives us information so that we know if we're making the right
decisions or maybe we should ask other questions that's something the members can take that information and do it as they will. we have a couple of other people actually have5 other people in the queue so we could end with that and go to the next question I can circle back to you senator. oh you're quick
senator deeses madam I think if it's appropriate I I would love to
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
28:30
submit a a substitute motion to take out anything of the report involving fiscal impact statements and send it back to refer it back to executive committee for review after hearing the questions and and conversation today I think gets it's probably wise for us to to chew on this a little bit longer and so I would love to entertain a substitute motion to refer back to executive committee the portions related to fiscal impact studies.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
29:02
need a 2nd 2 all right we'll refer it back and chew on it some more. moving on wait a sec we
need to vote on that. I'm sorry. gott a little ahead of myself. those in favor those opposed ? OK. all right then we send it back thank you we do need to adopt the rest of the report senator
I move with the exception of the part that was taken
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
29:24
out we adopt the remainder of the report those in favor and and oh excuse me I need a second
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
29:34
those in favor those opposed all right moving on Representative Womack, I believe you have a
report for us. Thank you madam
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
29:51
chair the committee adopted the minutes of the meeting held September 11,2025. The committee was updated on the status of the December31st,2022 delinquentrivate water and sewer audits.ive entities turnback
funds have been reinstated after all required reports were submitted. Letters were delivered to the treasurer of state requesting restoration of turnback funds to 24 of the remaining delinquent entities that have filed a December31st,2022 report or have provided an engagement letter stating that the reports for December31st,2022 and2023 will be filed by the end of the 2025 calendar year. motion was approved to recommend the full committee expunge the
action taken at its July meeting to withhold turnback funds from the cities and towns that have not completed their water and sewer audits for 2022 and2023. a motion was approved to recommend the full committee expunge the action taken at a September meeting regarding the43 affected municipalities that had not completed their water and sewer audits for 2022. The committee was notified that letters were sent to 23 entities with delinquent reports for December31st,2023 indicating
that their reports are to be filed before the end of 2025. Officials from the city ofRockport were present to address substantial noncompliance with municipal accounting law The city provided documentation of corrective action and the committee filed this report. The committee approved a motion to notify the state treasurer that the town of Gilmore has complied with Act709 of2021 and to request the release of the town's Egrove Street revenues
the committee reviewed eight deferred reports and 141 current reports. Officials from six entities were present to address repeat findings o previously deferred reports were filed and forward were deferred. Of the141 current reports reviewed 13 were referred to prosecuting attorneys and the attorney general and two were certified to the governmental bonding boardard. The committee filed 134 reports and deferred seven reports to allow officials to answer questions or provide further
information at a future meeting. I move for adoption of this report.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
32:18
I have a second right any discussion Representativeightdymann thank you madamir and this may be a
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
32:26
question for staff but I believe we need a motion to expunge that vote outside of the report is that true that's that depends on the body
Speaker 117
32:34
if you want to leave the report as is that's
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
32:44
what has been recommended or you can make a motion to expunge that's up to this body. So
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
32:49
if we vote that the motion as is then all of everything in the motion is approved everything in the motion is approved Mr White Thank you chair.peaking
Speaker 122
33:03
on the parliamentary thing, the situation here is the recommend that what is in the chair report and what happened in the standing committee yesterday was a recommendation to this full
committee if the desire of the body, so adoption of this report is just the adoption of that there is no action that's taken if this body desires to make that motion then that needs to be taken up separately and be made right
Speaker 123
33:31
if I understand you then we're just approving the recommendation so
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
33:36
a motion would need to be made
separateirpresentativedydyman that's correct ma'am sure I have a motion at the proper time
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
33:47
we we have a motion on the floor. let's get the committee's report accepted and then we can move to your motion. do I have a second on receiving the committee's
report? all in favor? opposed right now we need to accept a motion if we want to senator Love thank you madam chairir. So I thought by I thought by
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
34:19
accepting the committee's recommendation then we we would have already we didn't need a
Speaker 131
34:24
separate motion yes sir we do need a separate motion we're
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
34:29
just accepting the report. The report doesn't have any standing for expungement if we want to expunge then that this body has to decide
that separately. you need to chew on that for a second and then get back in line?
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
34:56
here's the thing is is if if the standing committee is the one that made the initial action in the first place. So if they're expunging if they're expunging that by accepting the report that means by default we expunge it that's accepting the report so there there should not have to be a separate action. sir they
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
35:14
don't have the authority to override what this committee did in the last meeting what did this OK all get the light bulb
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
35:21
just went on I saw it right wait a minute how long
though by accepting the report though we accepted the report by the full committee we did not take an action when
we when we initially accepted the report to to to uphold the the taking of the turn back we did not we did not make an act we just made the action of accepting the report so now they're making an action to actually expunge what they did and so by accepting the report then that that should expunge the action hang on just a second
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
35:57
they made a recommendation it has no standing in this committee other than they made a recommendation this committee made the vote last time so it would be this committee that chooses to expunge if they choose to do that if they don't choose to expunge then the turnback funds would stay turned off and the process would keep
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
36:20
working but madam chair it's in the report so by accepting the report then that should that that's the
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
36:27
recommendation in the report it's just a recommendation thank you
Senator Johnson thank you madam chairir
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
36:41
and and senator Love we debate talked about this in in the committee yesterday and our council Miss White explained to us that the the counties and municipalities committee did not have that authority to expunge the action of the
full legislave joint auditing committee that had to be done here today or at another time but today is when we're gonna do it or not do it but it might be if I could ask madam chair to have Miss White sort of repeat her statement yesterday to clarify for sooner Love and others that might because I because I didn't know until she did yesterday what we we
Speaker 146
37:23
can do that thank you senator Johnson and
Speaker 147
37:29
and madam Chair, Senator Love a subcommittee's actions are either accepted, adopted
Speaker 149
37:35
or rejected by the full committee a subcommittee's actions don't become effective until they're adopted by the full committee a subcommittee doesn't have the authority to undo an action of this full body this full body in July took action with regard to these43 municipalities and this full body took action against those43 municipalities in Septemb er therefore in order for this
full body to take action to undo or expunge any of that this body would have to vote the only thing that the subcommittee did yesterday was make a recommendation to the body to do so but it could not act for the full body in that
Speaker 151
38:17
capacity. Senator I'm sorry OK, the initial
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
38:24
action was predicated on a vote taken by the subcommittee. is that not
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
38:30
correct? that's correct but this committee has authority over all
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
38:35
those committees understand that the initial action we
upheld by adopting the report that's what we did. So then we referred it back. The initial action is predicated it's the initial action of the subcommittee and so I I'm I'm by accepting this report then we should be accepting the the action of the subcommittee.'mm I'm confused by the fact that we keep saying that
it's the the body is saying by accepting the report that that
Speaker 154
39:05
is that's the will of the body I understand the confusion unfortunately the motion was made to
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
39:14
recommend it does not it does not dictate whether this body chooses to act or not it just is a
recommendation OK. all right. thank you thank you sir . Senator Gilmore thank you madam chairir and and for staff and council the action
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
39:35
in July was it a recommendation from the subcommittee? in the form of a motion as a report. my
Speaker 148
39:44
recollection Senator Gilmore is that it was a a action actually passed out of the
Speaker 149
39:48
subcommittee and then was adopted by the full committee therefore it became effective at the point of adoption by the
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
39:55
full committee yes sir that action that we're talking about was it similar to the action taken yesterday to use the word quote recommendation my recollection Senator Gilmore
Speaker 148
40:06
from the July meeting, I believe it was Senator Kroll that moved in the subcommittee and and his motion was to withhold the turnback
Speaker 149
40:12
of the44 municipalities at that point in time we believed it to be44 and that that was the nature of his motion almost verbatim if I recall so in the report that was read in
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
40:23
this in this body was that a recommendation he did not say recommend. he said it and neither did and neither did
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
40:36
Representativeladyman I don't believe. Yes sir, I believe he did
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
40:47
specifically say recommendation thank you thank you represent would you would you
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
40:55
turn him on please? he's on thank you madam chair would you restate that we'll stamp I met the my original motion yesterday was a motion to expunge and I was by legal counsel
I was told that it needed to be recommended and
not moved so I changed my motion because of
Speaker 171
41:27
try to help clarify the situation given
Speaker 122
41:30
the latitude you know since the September meeting there was the attorney general opinion that was issued and provided kind of a route for this body
to take a desired course of action our our recommendation is that this body would kind of follow that ag G opinion as literal as possible to make sure there's no ambiguity at all and there's there's no questions or concerns as far as the action and the desire of this committee we're trying to assist the committee the best way possible. our understanding and we consulted with others as well was that a standing committee cannot undo the action of the
full committee which is why that action needs to
Speaker 173
42:15
occur in the full committee and I hope that helps answer your question I'd
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
42:21
like to add a comment that's all it is but this is the legislative branch of government we have our own rules I don't believe we should take opinions from the executive branch in our rulemaking and to me that's what that's what's happening here. We went outside of our legislative branch to the
executive branch to get an opinion on how we operate. I don't believe that is the way our system is established that's just a comment thank you that's was not requested by us it was
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
42:55
actually requested by the treasurer to make sure that they were following the law regardless, I think we're getting off in a rabbit hole here we're going to get to a vote executive branch as well yes sir I agree but we're we're trying to get to a vote on your motion so let's let's I'll I'll take the rest of these
questions but I think we can get to where you want to go if if you'll just let us hang in there for just a second. Senatorhammer is this discussion
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
43:25
on the motion madam chairir? I mean it needs to be discussion on we will discuss the motion once we get to that
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
43:31
motion we're we're still in the which role do we take at which time
so if we could get to the motion and get past this we will get to discussion right so we don't actually have a motion on the
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
43:42
floor right now that we are confined to have discussion on
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
43:46
motions the only motion we have on the floor is a motion to accept this report from this committee that's it we're not making a decision on whether or not to turn turn back funds have you got a second on that motion?
Wait just a second we've we've got some confusion and I'm sorry we have voted on the committee report. we have a motion
ok we can make let's make that
motion now waitit we got an objection
point of order Senator Gilmore so just for clarity I don't think we've settled and
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
44:31
again I I hate to belabor the point but I don't think we've actually settled this because I think we are arguing semantics of what a recommendation from the committee is so a couple of things the actions taken in in a subcommittee
and then further adopted by this body then set policy however you want to say it maybe I'm not using the correct terminology but that action comes in a form of a motion that is read which has been read and then the adoption action taken here then adopts that action of the subcommittee. so we agree on that what I think is interesting is now we're saying it was just a recommendation well then was senator Krowell not to invoke his name but with
senator Kroll's action in July just a recommendation so I think that's the question and what I heard the representative say was he was given guidance to change his motion to include the word recommendation In September we were in committee and I, I literally asked would this be an expungement action to which now the AG's office has said that was the appropriate action to take. So I think we just need to slow things down for a second and
figure out what is the proper path forward and and I just think that we have to be very careful here because then what's the point of the subcommittee's meeting we should just do our business here in this body is there a response to that ? no there's not. I'm
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
46:10
just listening and I'll take it all in. We just need to follow the procedure. madam chair could I go back because you gave him a point of
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
46:22
order when I had the mic. Can I come back now?
Yes thank you. and and maybe this is a dialogue between chair and the staff there to just help me get clarity in my mind there was an action that was taken previous committee meeting of which a decision was made based on what happened then and then there's the audit report or the attorney general's report that has come out and then yesterday there was a action
that came out of the committee including a recommendation and listening to the discussion it seems as though there's a conflict between what was determined in the first meeting and what was determined yesterday that it was ok for one but it was not ok for the other because we were advised the subcommittee could not have greater authority than the overall committee and so it needs to be addressed in here Am I tracking right or not?
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
47:24
Senatorhammer, I think we're offtra so much. I'm not sure
which way is up. what we need to do is we need to accept the report which we've done and then we need to move
on to the motion. I think, I think otherwise we're just interject more confusion senator
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
47:45
dotson thank you madam chairir. senatorhammer, I was in the meeting yesterday City County localcal subcommittee and did ask the question very specifically and directly
to ensure that we're doing the right thing the subcommittee did not have the authority to expunge the action of this committee the subcommittee had the authority to recommend to this committee that we take up expungement and so consequently it was very clear and and it was even asked what is the vote threshold before before finalization it was a simple motion which if we'd taken up a motion to expunge it would have
been a 2/3 vote within the subcommittee it was a simple majority motion to recommend to this committee to take action so that's what was adopted in the report was a recommendation to this committee to take up the question of expungement so it put it on the agenda for today but council also it was asked and answered that that whether we passed that out of committee yesterday or we didn't pass it out of committee yesterday that that recommendation motion we could
still as this full committee take up the action the actions of the subcommittee were were kind of irrelevant with it regards to whether or not we took up that action today separately I'm sure Thank you then my
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
49:20
question is because something was said in all this discussion was the committee advised of
that after the decision was made or was that inserted into the discussion while the decision was being made because I kind of got the impression of was something that was said a while ago it was after that decision was made that then the committee or somebody was advised hey you need to know this was all that contained into one conversation during that committee meeting discussion. I was there for part of it had to leave so I don't know. It was before the vote. it was before the vote. it was before the vote thank you
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
50:01
and senator dismain thank you I do think it's important that we kind of clarify how we're going
to move forward with this type of vote I went back and looked you know the motion that Senator Krowll made was made in committee and it was a purely an adoption of the committee report is how we got to where we are today with an expungement. so I mean to everybody's point in the room there was not a
separate vote in the full legislative audit meeting on the Friday. it was just an adoption of the report if it was it was not on the agenda and y'all would have had to suspend the rules to have that vote and I don't believe that that happened. and so if I mean because this would be very different than the procedures and what we accept in legislative council all any committee can do is make
a recommendation. you are correct they have no authority unless it is delegated
to them by law to make a final action so there is nob or there is no legislative counsel committee that can take a final action on anything unless we've allowed them to have it because of an emergency issue or whatever it may be the same is true for this committee you're absolutely right but when you adopt the report you're adopting the recommendation which you're adopting the recommendation to expunge now that's a different and
what maybe should have been noted was when you made the vote on your committee report there was a different threshold for adoption
because there was an expungement involved but Id I don't I I don't understand how we're going to move forward if this is now the procedure that what the committee does is only recommend and then we take separate votes we don't do that on any ALC committee and if odd it's going to take that position what is that going to mean for contracts and everything else in the future I I don't know so I do think the question needs to be settled OK Representative Duke
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
52:08
thank you madam chairir. I guess I have a little I don't know frustration is the right word for this. I appreciate the discussion we're having but it seems like some of this discussion should have happened before we had the vote on the report because if I was in the meeting and I went back and watched it again last night and had pretty good clarity on the fact that it was gonna be a recommendation to the committee to expunge it and then there was going to have to be a motion following that separately and so then we're having this discussion now when
I mean I don't know how many members were in there how many people had it time to go back and watch it but now we're having a discussion after we voted on the reports which might have changed how some members might have voted on this and it also kind of brings to me like I guess my question for staff is we are so far away from that vote can what can be done procedurally as far as roll call and and those types of procedures when we when we had this happen in the last meeting whenever we got in the middle of a discussion and then we came back and rollcal and could we so what does that look
like because that this discussion right now I would have liked to have seen happen beforehand if we were going to question what the committee was told yesterday was the proper procedure in which to do this because I do think that was all relevant information to people as they voted on that report. So I guess that's kind of my thoughts on that but I would also like to know and also on the expungement, I mean I'm I'm not a freshman anymore but I'm not as great on rules as some of you guys in the
committee as well. The I think that had an impact there too is I guess the committees can expunge. I think that there's a lot of muddiness here on whether they can come back and expunge what we did as a body as well. So I mean my personal opinion, I think these are all great points probably should have been hap happened before we voted on the committee report so we all had that clarity to begin with but at this point to at least keep clarity to everybody there was one discussion yesterday and recommendation and my understanding was it was a
recommendation not let's expunge it. those are two different things. I think there's a point to be made as far as how we've done it procedurally. but at this point things are just so muddied. I think the best way to keep it clean is to let the representative make his motion and vote on it that way as well so that at least it's clean and then clean it up moving forward or I guess let go back and we can do that go back and and vote on this again or give the opportunities for roll calls or whatever needs to be done or people to have the opportunity to understand they were voting for expungement when they voted
for that report because if you listen to that meeting yesterday that is not what you thought was happening in the adoption of that report today so that's if if staff could speak on as far as the procedural process when we're this far minutes wise of voice from that original vote. Miss what Thank you Representative deke. So the vote threshold
Speaker 164
55:04
to pass a chair report is a majority and the vote threshold needed to expunge the action of the committee in July or in
September would be a 2/3 of the members present or
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
55:15
authorized alternates present and that's why it was our recommendation to the subcommittee to make a recommendation only because that vote threshold is different and there're again it's our belief based on our rules, your rules of this committee and mason's manual that the subcommittee does not have the authority to undo an action of the full committee and that's why we made the recommendation that we did. OK and and I think again that clarity if we were going to be
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
55:44
voting adopting that amendment was going to have the the expungement
on it then there needed to be clarity of what the the vote was for that and that because it is a higher threshold. So again I think it kind of goes back to I I think that this is there's a lot of lack of clarity on what was going on here. I operated on what I thought the mean what recommendation was yesterday I think we should just proceed with this vote and on his motion so that wed we all know what we're voting on and have clarity on it and have the different
thresholds that we re are needed for these two different votes. thank you thank you. I think there's
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
56:21
some wisdom in that. I would ask that we do move on and get to the actual vote because that's going to be where the real discussion is and I do think we need to review this and
and spend some time looking at the rules and the proper procedure. to make sure that we do have some clarity on this particular issue if if it's all right with the body out there
it's3 people left I would ask that you just make your comments short and then we moved to the actual motion
senator Johnson thank you madam chair I appreciate
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
56:52
the discussion I don't think it's that critical how we get here but I think it's important that we not set a bad precedent I see this situation as analogous to when a bill is introduced and bills are constitutional the constitution recognizes bills committees which are formed by the two houses of the general assembly are not in the
constitution and if a a bill goes to a standing committee and that committee is basically sending a recommendation to the floor saying do pass or do not pass or the rarely used think without recommendation that is exactly what it is is a recommendation and the full house and the full senate must pass that for it to move forward and then it goes to the other house and goes through the same procedure but again the
constitution didn't create those committees we did that by our own rules and that's fine that's a good procedure it appears that this is analogous to that the difference being that the statute that allows this full committee to make that to send that information to the treasurer and instruct him to withhold these funds the language in that statute probably is what governs now
on one hand I think that uhpresentative Duke's point was exactly right we can go ahead and do this and it's clear and I I like that on the other hand I see what some members are saying that we may be sitting a bad precedent here now I think it's important to the staff clarify the language in the statute that that causes this committee to send that information that to the treasurer saying don't send out this turnback money if
once we know that I think we we could go forward without a a a clear with a clear distinction I don't think in the whole scheme of things it makes a difference I'm gonna vote for the motion because I see it as a way to to clear things up based on the advice the advice the advisory committee the advisory opinion from the attorney general he didn't tell us what to do he gave us advice based on his reading of the law but I think
we need to know what the statute that that gives us this authority to direct the treasurer to hold the funds and once we know that then I think we could resolve this without either set a bad precedent or are doing something else that we might regret later I just wanted to ask that so if if Miss Whiteru would be able to just tell us am I right on that or am I way way off base so I'll just leave it up to to staff thank you madam chair thank you staff is pulling that
Unknown speaker
59:55
information right now. bear with us just a second.
let's take a five minute recess and we'll get right back to you. Stay tuned.
Speaker 144
1:01:34
x I didn't expect this to be it's a small task
Unknown speaker
1:02:24
that's why that feeling you got right there that make too much
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:07:33
Members begin taking your seats staff is passing out a copy of the actual legislation for your review and I would remind everyone this is not the only order of business and we need to move along so if you've got a
question, get in the queue if you've not please let's move along
Members if you'll just take a minute to actually read the bill the guts of the matter are section 1C and then we'll move on. so if you're in the queue if you could get
out if you don't have a question, stay in if you do.
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
1:09:33
Senator Stone, I believe you had a question do I won't audit to explain to me why the original motion
that senator Crowellll made to withhold the turnback funding was made not as a recommendation but it's a statement of fact and then it was affirmed in a vote by this committee. Any legislature has the power to ask for something to be pulled out and voted separately
so why did this have to be made as a recommendation instead of uhpresentative Lederman's original boat because what happened is audit forced this out to a separate vote instead of allowing the legislature to make that decision which would raise to vote threshold for this bill to be pa or this title to be passed can you explain to me why crowell senator crowlls
motion was handled differently from umpresentative Laiman's so the president and
Speaker 64
1:10:43
the way legislative audit has operated is
Speaker 122
1:10:53
that those actions of the standing committees are included in the chair's report and when approved by this full committee or actions of the full committee
in this situation there was a different threshold that was provided via thatagG's opinion and via the rules
Speaker 123
1:11:13
for that approval Senator Stone Id I disagree with that. I'm not an attorney but I
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
1:11:27
just know that we're breaking precedent and for what reason I don't know but it has occurred to me that
I was just forcing this out to a separate boat and
that's what the legislatures have the right to do is to pull it out it shouldn've never been, I'm saying representative Ladyman's vote or motion should it ever been changed yesterday. I mean I'm just thinking back, you know, Senator Gilmore got counsel and was told that he couldn't make a motion to expunge a vote and then the agG turned around and overrode that advice. so I'm just wondering what we're doing our advice and what we're coming in here I'm a little bit confused about what's going on the purpose of audit and the
purpose of the legislatures so I just just real cautious about why I kind of pressed it we're setting I mean just all that answer to the legislatures or to the legislature's answer the audit because that's what's at stake here if we're not careful. thank you sir senator dismay and my question is in some ways I mean how do
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:12:33
we reconcile that because the way that I look at this particular issue
it is bigger than it's difficult and let's just
move on. because all any subcommittee can do is make a recommendation and then we'd adopt those recommendations in the in council for instance we don't utilize the argument of different vote thresholds because take rules committee it's a wonky set of you know circumstances that you have to go through to pass a rule or adopt a rule right? and inside that same report there may be 15 other things with a different vote threshold but at the end of the day when we sit down in council we say we adopt the report
we adopt the report we adopt everything in it whether or not the threshold was one or 20 it's all the same so I don't understand some of the logic of where we are I mean it originally I heard that the the vote for expungement needed to happen in this full committee it did not all we did was adopt a report Now there was a recommendation for expungement that we adopted and I would agree that's expungement but now we're saying
the opposite can't be true and I think it's imperative that the legislators of this body make a determination of how things are going to look moving forward and set that precedent or you're going to fight this every single time that you have a meeting that's something semicontroversial comes up that that's my opinion so I I hope that y'all are able to get a reconciliation and it's difficult as it is to have the conversation and not just punt this to the next meeting
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
1:14:14
Senator Krowell so in July when I made the motion did we withhold the money immediately Upon the Friday
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:14:29
meeting I believe we did so when this committee voted
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
1:14:33
to give the money back in September 12 . Why is the money not given back immediately? my understanding is the treasurer asked for a attorney
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:14:46
general's report at once we voted to send that to the treasurer. it became a shell in the
bill section oneC line 233. given noticed the fact the treasure of the state who shall then withhold turnback funds he wanted clarification because the law goes to shell and he wanted to know if that was the
correct procedure So right now on the books we
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
1:15:18
have a past motion to give these cities their money back is that correct? this body did vote for that So and we also have an outside opinion in the attorney general's that said we can do that. No sir we
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:15:34
have no sir we do not the attorney general position is that we have to vote to expunge that vote if we want to do the turn back funds so so the
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
1:15:49
ok I'm just trying to get clear that if we make a decision to do something that somebody cannot do it
and ask for an opinion. that's that's what happens right
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:16:01
well let's back up just a second that it was a separate go madam
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:16:11
chairir thank you as I understand it Senator Kroll, there's two separate motions the one you made in July which
according to the law was the one that gave notice to the treasurer
of state . the one that was made last month in September is not in accordance with the lines of the law. There's nothing in the law that says hey we can pause this till December like the motion that was made in September and I think that's what as I understand it the AG's opinion was referring to was that we have the authority to expunge the July motion that gave notice
but we don't necessarily have the authority under the statute to to pause the action from July like what happened by this committee in September so I think that's that's the the difference we're talking about expunging the July motion and rescinding the notice that was given to the treasurer thereby freeing up the treasure to to not follow the law where it says they shall withhold
because there would be no notice at that point technically given. Senator, I believe the biggest important thing that we
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:17:35
do is make sure that we follow the law as it's written and I think that that was has been twisted around and we need to make it either correct and move to expunge or leave it and let it ride. so those are the that's the that's where we are in the crossroads
we've got3 left in the queue. Senator Johnson and then we'll go to Representativeladyman and Representative beatty.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:18:09
thank you madam chair I I appreciate the staff getting us the copy of 14,234,120 and and and highlighting the point that this committee legislative joint auditing committeetee it didn't mention our standing committees it just says this committee may give this notice of fact
to the treasurer so May is permissive the treasurer doesn't have permission it says the
treasurer who shall then withhold the turn back funds now I believe that the attorney general's advice to the treasurer is correct that with a direction which is discretionary by this
committee then he must do this he said he's he's looking for and then we give him some
conflicting vote within our September meeting well I appreciate the fact that everybody's trying to get this right and not set a bad precedent on the other hand the fact that it says may gives us this committee only some discretion and I think our council's advice that to follow what was advised to the treasurer by the attorney general that we still have that mayy we can we may do things and
as the definition of expungement is is that it's if it did not happen now we can go back and forth and this is a good lesson in making sure that you know we follow this because words do mean things but I'm in support of kind of dotting the i and crossing the t by supporting p re s ent representative ladyman's motion for no other reason than most people in this state are not gonna be concerned about how we
arrived at this they're gonna know did the turn back get back to these cities or did it not and if you we may make that decision however and I think that the AGiviv advice to the treasurer gives us that discretion and we can stick with our original July recommendation not recommendation order to the treasurer or we can not do it we can undo our own thing gave us a mechanism to do it I think we should take
advantage of that mechanism if we want to do so and I respect my colleagues who say no we we follow the law they didn't they didn't follow the counting law and so we're gonna stick with what we did in July I think that's what we need to do is make a decision in your own minds about which policy we should do and let's not get carried away with this because it the statute clearly gives us the authorityba we make a decision
once we've made that which we can expunge according to the AG and I agree with him then but the treasurer has no options so we're we're kind of like that breakfast thing you know the the the chicken is involved in breakfast but the hog is committed so I I we we're the hog we have to decide up or down and I think we need to do that today I have an opinion but if if y'all disagree on whether it's a good idea I certainly don't hold anything against
anyone that sees it in a different manner but that's how I see this and I appreciate the staff getting us the law because you know the law affects us differently than it does
a treasure thank you madam chair thank
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:21:57
youpresentative ladyman you're up thank you madam
chairir. well, I find it very difficult to think that this body who controls the budget cannot
cannot give the cities the money that they're allocated by law there's no way we can do that directly without the 2/3 vote. Representativeladydyman, if I could interrupt, let's deal with your motion that's
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:22:23
on the dealing with my mo'm just introducing my motion. OK well let's we
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:22:27
have one more question in on the procedure
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:22:30
and then we can go and I'll entertain your motion and then we can make a vote. so if you'll pause for just a
moment umpresentative beatty you were in the queue and that's the last one.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:22:45
thank you madam chairir. I I guess my my question's going to go more for
leg audit staff and for the chairs of committee in in relation to the AG opinion requested by the treasurer did any member of legislative audit or the chair of this committee suggest or encourage the treasure to seek an ag opinion in this matter before doing the wishes of this committee
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:23:14
I know there were a variety of discussions of those private discussions will stay private. I don't think that's a relevant to this discussion at this time um'd like to hear from staff Representative, I did not request any AG opinion of the treasurer's office.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:23:44
did anyone else from your staff encourage or or or ask the treasurer to seek an
AG opinion? I am aware of no staff at legislative audit that requests or encourage the a the the AG opinion
Speaker 123
1:23:55
request. I am aware of none. Thank you. thank you very much for
Speaker 60
1:23:59
answering that question p re s ent ative ladyman thank you madam chairir. I may proceed I'm looking
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:24:07
at the law here and the and again this is relevant to my motion and maybe I can do it in
discussion but I think it's relevant to to do this before the motion because if you look at this law which I'm reading here word for word and the sec the treasurer of state shell is in response to the may as Senator Johnson said so we may do this and that's in response and the attorney general opinion is not law that is an opinion so we don't have to go by that
as a body we are a separate legislative body. We do not have to comply with what that opinion is that opinion is not law until it goes to court and is proven in court. or we go into legislation session and change that so we could do whatever we want we take the opinion we evaluate that and then we do as a body what we want to do so in my opinion that's what we should do but it seems like the body
differs on their opinion so I will be happy to make a motion I move to expunge the vote taken by this committee at its July meeting to withhold the turn back funds from cities and towns that had not completed their water and sewer audits for 2022 and2023.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:25:39
we move and we have a second and now we move into discussion senator hammer
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:25:50
thank you madam chairir. if the chair would allow maybe
senator or lady meant to respond to some of this because now we have that motion and second so the discussion of the motion would be this does this mean and include all cities even those that are actively responding to the pressure that's been put on them by this legislative body and are doing due diligence because they got the message and they're actually putting forth the
effort to get it done and also what I understand are the fi5 towns to give or take a few that have put forth no evidence and have given no evidence that they are doing anything to be responsive as the other ones who are being responsive is that the entirety of the group or are we going to split the doers from the not doers out senator just for a point of clarification
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:26:54
currently we have357 cities that have completed their audits for 2022, for 2023 we have340 that have completed both 2022 and2023 and for the 2024 we have 171 so we have a large number of cities that have complied and have done that we are dealing with only39 we originally had43 municipalities since then a number have completed we have 21 that have completed their 2022
reports. We have 15 that have completed their 2023 reports and we have6 that have completed their 2024 reports so these cities are working on their compliance they're not done yet but they did take it seriously once we made that action in July. I suspect we'll see over the next few months even more completions so that kind of gives you the numbers but let me get this again for 2022 we have357 that completed for the year 2023 we have340 and for 2024 we have 171
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:28:00
madam chair may I ask you a question seeing how you get the
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:28:04
numbers there in front of you sir
asked me a question all right let me let me finish with his
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:28:16
question. so senator would you please state your question? my second question is how many have not do not have active letters of engagement and have shown no effort to initiate getting their audits done is there a single
number in that group that fit that description. yes you
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:28:35
we have 13 Yes. does that answer your
question senator yes but if the chair would allow,
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:28:48
I'd like to ask, I'd like to give Senatorpresentativeladyman that's where'm going thank you umpresentativelady let me turn you on right
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:28:55
you're up Senator, thanks for your
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:29:02
question and and thanks for the promotion. you're welcome. the number is 13 but let me add to that you know I think entrecrowll his motion was very good and I think it's been successful of the40, I believe the number was46 somewhere in that range.85% of those46 water departments that were noncompliant are now compliant
so that leaves as of day before yesterday there were 13 cities that had not complied. These13 cities with the exception of one which has a population of700. The other tel have a population of 200 or less. one of them I think has70 population or maybe it's 170 so these are very small cities and from discussion with a lot of people some of these cities are
as you said senator they're not they're not doing anything and those cities need to have their money withheld at some point but there are other small cities a city of 200 people that has to pay either3,500 dollars or $10,000 for an audit that puts them in a bad situation especially since they haven't got turned back for two months that may be keeping them from complying I don't know Here's the other point
and I think Senator Gilmore made this point yesterday in the meeting in September this body took a motion and told these cities that you're gonna get your money they probably made adjustments speaking as a previous mayor I would have done this and I'm sure they did and said hey we're gonna get this money so then they changed their financial plans and now we're telling them30 days later, no sorry you're not gonna get your money you know we we told you you were gonna get it but you're not
getting it. So now we're telling them they got to go back and make changes again and why are we doing this we're we're 85% compliant and the motion had the effect and I I appreciate the senator making that motion. I think it was necessary. it was successful so we've got a short list that we can work with and I I spoke to municipal league and they say these cities are coming in every other day they get another city that's compliant they're working on this
so let's give them a little leeway here till maybe the end of the year by expunging this vote still gives them until the31st of December and then we take another action if we need to so senator I hope I answered your question but the number is 13 and most of these cities have a population of less than 200 and I'm sure they're struggling without their turn back money because that's that's only one of two sources that they probably have. They get rates from their water users but they don't have sales tax they don't
have businesses. These are little towns of 200 or 100 people. So I hope
Speaker 127
1:32:09
I answered your question madam chairir would would you allowpresentativeladyman to rest ate his motion and
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:32:16
I'd like the privilege that before we take the vote I may want to come back with substitute motion but I'd like to hear the rest of the discussion from other members but would he restate his motion when we get close to the end we will definitely have him restate the
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:32:29
motion the actual number of cities besides the ones that haven't done anything is 13 the
total number is39. the law says that they have to have 22,23 and24. We have 10 that have 22 and23 but not completed 24 we have 20 excuse me have6 that have filed their 2022 only and then we have 8 that have engagement letters for 2022. So but we have they're not completed yet and then we have the 13 that have not engaged so
it's it's a little little more than just 13 we have excuse mesenator deeses and
then Representative Hoak Hope Di. senator thank you
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:33:22
madam Chair. I, I appreciate the discussion and appreciate the motion. I I think for myself there was a a lot of side conversations through through this last week and the last few days especially about setting a bad precedent or or
even changing law through this committee outside of a session which that concerned me of those types of conversations but everything I've heard today this motion and voting for this expungen does not set a new precedent, does not set new law I believe it's completely in accordance with statute 14-234-120 which we see here today that this body does have the ability to do that and so my main discussion point is that I have complete confidence that
the law is clear that we may we have the ability as a body to vote in this way that it does not I wanted to encourage you just like I needed encouragement before I voted on this that that voting for this motion does not set new statute into law. it actually just follows it now you can vote for or against but your conscience can be clear is is my point and so I'm encouraging members to vote for this this motion. thank you senator Representative Dick.
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
1:34:44
thank you madam chair I guess I have a little bit of a question on what the effect of the expungement of the July motion, on the July action has on September, I mean if July didn't in effect take place can September action, I mean cause it sounds to me like the September action from what the representative is saying would stand and this is for staff to begin with would stand but I don't understand how it stands if you
expunge the action which my understanding is what happened in July never took place so how can you take action in September on something that happened in July. So can can we get some well I asked and asked staff initially
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:35:28
please let's let's let's let staff respond. Representative Duke, if I understand
Speaker 288
1:35:38
your question correctly you you're concerned about if the expungement occurs for the July action how does that affect the
Speaker 164
1:35:44
September action of this full committee? Is that accurate? yes, I believe so. OK in the way that we interpreted the advice, the advisory opinion of the attorney general if this body wants to undo the legal effect to the treasurer's office that occurred with your July action then you would want to consider expunging both the September and the July action of the body because if I recall correctly there was
sort of an amendment to what was done in September and it gave them and it gave those43 entities until December31 of2025 to get either an audit in for 2022 or a letter of engagement that promised completion of an audit for 2022. and so I think the cleanest way but there again this is just up to the body the cleanest way would be to try to expunge both if that's if it's the will of the body to go back and undo that July action
because it's that July action that had a legal effect for the treasurer based on the reading of that statute have I answered your question Representative think
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
1:36:58
so it's it's brought up a lot of different questions because I had issue in and
of itself with what we did in September on whether this body had the authority to do what it did in September. so that in light of what we did in July so there's just so many layers to this and I think what got gets us in trouble sometimes is
everyone if we're not necessarily engaged from the very beginning and we come in halfway or we try to make some of these decisions on the fly umpresentativeightdyman if the chair will allow is is your intent to just expunge the July do you intend on doing another motion for September because my understanding also would be I mean I guess the September if if you'd expunge the July 1 then they have to December if you expunge both then all bets are off. is that correct
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:37:48
terminal thank you madam chairir yes I have a second motion when this one is dealt with to expunge the vote for September does
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
1:38:05
that answer your question man so then in effect with that with that if your best case scenario happens and
both expungements happen then those cities have no deadline at all.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:38:19
right and it's unless the committee came back and based on legal advice from the staff on how to handle this that's when I was told that we need to expunge both boats and then it would go back to like no action was ever taken so the turnback would go back to the cities and madam chair if I may finish
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:38:37
your question you wanted to ask about the end date would there be a cutoff date on on these funds right and that that
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
1:38:46
I think he answered it there's not going to be one at the September 1
it will also will be expunged so there is no there is no accountability unless we come back at a different time there's no end date for them to have these audits completed there would be no date at this point but
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:39:05
it would be it would clean the slate so that a new motion could be made and any date could be put in there so it would just clean should be today to it could
Speaker 295
1:39:15
be made at any time you have to ask staff that don't
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:39:22
let's in my opinion yes it could be made anytime let's let's
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:39:28
chew on that and then get back in the queue? senator Murdock well and I like that. senatorhammer I'm gonna make a
substitute motion it may just get blown out of the water but we want
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:39:45
to make a substitute motion let's finish the discussion before we entertain any other motions there those members that have been waiting in line that have
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:39:53
not asked a question umpresentative McIlroy I'm not going to entertain that motion just yet. umpresentativealby thank you madam chair the good thing about
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:40:09
lawyers one will starve to death two will make a living and so it appears to me in in my part of the discussion is I think we if we
expunge the July vote, there's no reason to take up anything else because at that point there's nothing in the law that has given us the authority to set any date on these folks and so we expunge it they're free to do whatever they want to they don't have to do it until we start bringing them in individually and addressing each one of them individually so what we're going to do if we vote for this we're going to tell the cities that are dealing with this and those who've already dealt with
it never mind you don't have to don't don't worry about what we did we'll change our mind and you can take whatever amount of time you want to file your report because there will not be no deadline and we don't have an authority to set a deadline all we're going to do is cite King's xx we're not doing this anymore. take your time and some of you've taken your time since 2022. so I think that we need to stick with what we've done and not expunge but that's just my thought. thank you.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:41:28
thank you I appreciate that Senator Johnson, you've been in the queue quite a bit and if you could make it
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:41:37
short thank you madam chair on this motion I go back again I wanted to know what the law said and I think we can all all remember that this bill was sponsored by Senator Wallace andpresentative Gazaway Senator Wallace is not here today so I'm don't want to be careful in interpreting what he said when he set these wheels
in motion for us to to undo what we had done in July Representative Gazaway is here if he wants to weigh in and say I'm all wet on something that's ok too and I respect him enough to sure hear that but it appears to me that this bill was to address a specific problem and it put gave some teeth to this committee to enforce what these cities are supposed to be doing and I think we got their attention
mean I really do believe we got their attention now if you look at the seal of state of Arkansas one side you'll see an angel holding something that says mercy and on the other side you'll see the sword of justice and that's really what we're trying to do here is counterbalance justice and mercy I think we want these cities to comply that's the justice side the mercy side is we're gonna give you a little bit of leeway and a little bit more time I think we got their attention the numbers that were
stated that a whole lot of these cities got after it but that doesn't mean we don't keep that sort of justice to use later so I'm gonna vote for the motion by Representativeladyman even though I had many reservations about it this is like parenting when do you give your kids licks and when do you just give them a stern lecture and say straighten up and that is kind of how I I feel about this but I'm gonna vote for it for those reasons and I encourage us to clear the deck
we can always come back and paddle them so to speak thank
Speaker 143
1:43:39
you madam chair thank you senatorenatorve thank you
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:43:47
madam chairir. So I just have a question I guess for you our staff so when we
when we first initially took up the action we sent it over to the treasurer's office and the treasurer's office held the funds. Then later we had discussion. Senator Crowee made
a motion out of here and we accepted the motion to actually reinstate the funds by default with that not be an action to actually that cos out the first initial action and then so then we went and got aagG's opinion that says well we have to go back and and and and expunge but by the fault of the second action it was already expunged
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:44:36
No sir we have to follow the law as it's written and the committee may and that's what
we're working on the May part right now but the treasure has nothing to do with this they work for us they follow
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:44:53
the law medamir once we took up Senator Crowelle's motion and we voted to reinstate the funds we reinstated the funds in here that was our that was the
motion and that was the action so now
I'm I'm confused as to why we needed a H's opinion to say we had we needed it was necessary for us to expunge it when if the initial motion was to stop the funds then we took up a motion in here to actually reinstate the funds so therefore by default of of this body taking up the second motion it cancels out the first motion that is that is how this body is predicated that it that's just like us passing a a bill
and it's taken up in January we pass it and then we pass another bill in February they canceled that bill. That is how this body works. So I'm I'm I'm unsure why the AG is saying that the second action that we took needed to needed needed to it it's it's it's an actual motion that we took. so why do we need to expunge when by default that is expungement this body took it up
Speaker 154
1:46:16
that is that is expungement Misswa Senator Le I
Speaker 149
1:46:28
can't speak to the reasoning. I don't know why the AG opinion was requested. um, but I can tell you that based on the way that we read the attorney general's advisory opinion that the treasurer's hands were tied based on the legal effect of the action that was taken by this body in July but
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:46:46
but the legal effect of us actually reinstating it we took that motion up this body passed that motion so why would we need an expungement that I mean you all come on like this is not making any sense at this time because we took a motion to actually hold the funds now we took another motion and passed it to actually reinstate the funds but now we need an expungement By default that is an
expungement when we took the motion up to reinstate the funds Now if if we're gonna say that
a motion that we take up in here is not valid and that we need theagG's
opinion to make sure that this body is valid then it what are we doing Was that motion not valid by senator
Crowll that we took up and we passed we hang on just a
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:47:47
second Mr White Senator Love I I think
Speaker 303
1:47:53
you have a valid point. the the situation I see is legislative
Speaker 122
1:48:00
audit can't interpret the law that's going to be for the courts to make that final decision. what I think there we have before us is one executive branch agency who has not going to act until they sought another executive branch acency's opinion
Speaker 171
1:48:20
for this audie to get that agency to act you know
Speaker 122
1:48:28
we would recommend following what their attorney told them . theiriragG said to the treasurer's office as far as whether the vote we had in September is valid and held that's a decision to be held by the courts and I couldn't s I'm hoping I'm trying to help answer your
Speaker 123
1:48:44
question what you're saying but what you're what
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:48:51
you're saying is now we have to change the voting threshold if there was a if there was a motion made to actually hold the funds that was made on one threshold OK? now we have made another motion a second motion to actually reinstate the funds but now you're saying that there's a different threshold for the expungement and I understand I understand that but but the motions that we made were both valid because they came out of this body
and if we're going to say that theagG has to validate us, you all then we are we are in trouble because we are the ones that the people elected to do the will of the people so so any motion that this body takes up should be a valid motion that is how it works . If we pass a bill and then we pass another bill that cancels that first bill out. that is it
that is how this body is predicated that is how this body works so we should not needagG's opinion on if we need to have an expungement or not because senators crowelle's motion that we took up was a valid motion of this body now if some of if if I mean like if some people do not like the way that motion falls then that is fine but this but the motion that we took up was a valid motion and it should have
reinstated the funds that that is that that is not an argument that is a fact of record so that's what we should follow what this body does by law that is what that is what you
just handed out says Thank you senator. we're working on that well let's get
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:50:51
to the couple of other people in the queue and then we'll get back at it Representative Mayberry
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
1:51:00
thank you madam chairir. I'm going to make this really short because we're spending way too much time talking about this. I'm sorry.hink about the cities out there, the majority of them watching this discussion and they're sitting there saying we've done it right. we have followed the law why are we going to allow others to not follow the same law. and I just want you to think about that. The message that that sends, thank you.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:51:31
thank you Representative Brown thank you madam chairir according to senator Loves statement and comment if we leave things just exactly the way they are now then the cities will get their turn back no they won't get any turnback money unless or until they are up to date by December31st. is that correct?
thank you. wait wait they won't have they won't receive any money unless they get their reports filed.'s correct Well no, I didn't say that was his motion. I was talking about senator loveve's discussion point that I understand that I understand if we just follow what's already been voted on then that would mean that none of these cities would get their money until the end of the year if an a less or until they they file their audits correct or or make some progress once they
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:52:33
filed the 2022 audit or a letter no
they have to have an audit and let's let staff clarify Representative Brown,
Speaker 314
1:52:49
would you restate your question if we, as senator
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:52:52
Love stated that he believes that what we have done in in this body it it is is ok that what we've done is correct that we have that we are
within the law if we leave things just the way they are the way we've already voted and don't expunge these votes don't make any more motions what the effect of that would be that the cities that are not in compliance who they would have their funds withheld until the end of december unless or until they filed their 2022 audits is that
If we just leave things the way they are now they won't get any money
Speaker 303
1:53:52
until they get that filed. and Mr White where we are
Speaker 122
1:53:56
right now is when entities when municipalities that were on that original listing have filed a 2223 and24 audit reports we are providing a letter to the treasurer stating that they have filed reports through the most recent calendar
year. and then the treasurexxx in their their authority or that's their decision. We provide the letters to that effect any time we have a municipality who has either filed a 22 report, a23 report or has provided us with a letter of engagement with a promise to complete by the end of December we are sending a letter also to the treasure's office in accordance with September's motion
Speaker 315
1:54:42
we can't and we they'll get their money then our our direction and
Speaker 122
1:54:48
guidance to the treasurer's office is that they release those funds it is the treasure's office that then
Speaker 123
1:54:55
acts or doesn't act once they complete they get their funds and
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:55:03
their funds are held in escrow until they do complete. so we're we're fully within our purview
Speaker 317
1:55:09
just to leave things the way they are
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:55:14
Yes, if we leave things the way they are the cities will continue to complete once they complete they get their money. The process is working we will get to an end of the line though where there will be a list of probably 14 cities out of the390 something that have not done anything and we'll have to deal with that in a separate I don't know how we'll deal with it but we will have to deal with it then in the meantime the process is working as a further point
Speaker 317
1:55:41
of discussion on this these cities who are that are so tiny
that are so small that they do not have the fun maybe they I'm giving them benefit of the doubt they do not have the money to hire the auditor to do these this work is the ultimate conclu conclusion of this that they would just simply lose their charter and quit struggling that is not something this committee can decide that something legislatively we
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:56:10
would need to have a process for them to surrender their charter. but that's not for us to decide
us is we are just looking at whether or not they've completed the audit. my question would be if they have a water and sewer department and you don't pay your water bill, what happens? You get your water cut off at some point they've got to be able to do an audit but that's a discussion we have to decide down the
road. Senator Murdock Murdockch, sorry. I got you Yeah try it thank you madam chair this is for staff could you please
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:56:47
state the senator crowellell's motion from September please. they'll need just a minute the
reason I'm saying that is because senator Love when he mentioned the second
past motion taking the place of the
initial motion I think we need to be clear on what that second motion was thank you they're working on
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:57:23
itsenator dotson you were in the queue thank you madam chairir.
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:57:27
My my question is just for staff before we take a vote I just want to make sure we're all crystal clear if the motion is to expunge that is a 2/3 majority vote or is that a simple majority vote I just want that clarified for all members before we vote on any motion so we have two questions for staff. let's give them a moment to answer. are we ready?
Speaker 303
1:57:54
Senator Murdock you asked about the motions that occurred in September if I understood you correctly there's one that had there was one principal motion that Senator Wallace made that was a little bit of senator crowell so the September
Speaker 326
1:58:15
motion took the place of the July motion there was there was a motion in
Speaker 122
1:58:25
July by Senator Krowell to withhold turnback for the43 municipalities completely and then September there was a motion made by Senator Wallace and that motion and I can read it for you here
Speaker 328
1:58:38
if you so desire but it it that's the motion to return the money there was a motion to reinstate the turnback funds for those remaining December31st,2022, delinquent entities that have filed a
December31st,2022 report or have provided an engagement letter stating that the December31st,2022 report will be completed by a date before December31st,2025. Thec's must also complete their 2023 audit by December 1st , 2025 . That was the September motion thank you Representativeazaway thank you madam chairir. So
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:59:23
in discussion of senator Ladysladyman's motion I
just want to make a couple of points we have a lot of issues going on here and this is a lot to sort through and I appreciate staff for the work that they've done trying to sort through this and follow the proper process and procedure one I think there's an initial question that's been brought up about Arkansas code 14,243,120 and whether or not we're changing the law and its something that we do here is changing the law we're not changing the law that law is very clear so I don't
think there's any issues with any action that we take here in terms of changing law that we've previously passed there's been an issue brought up about subcommittees and motions that are made in subcommittees and how they bind the full committee and the way I understand that the argument's been made senator Disang's point is that Senator Kroll's motion to withhold the money the turnback funds was a motion that was made in a subcommittee that motion that was made in the subcommittee and made it into
the report was a was adopted by the full committee when we adopted the report and that's how the turnback funds were withheld because of an adoption of a report. I think Senator Disang's point is is if we can bind if if a subcommittee's report adoption binds the full committee then wouldn't a motion to expunge in a subcommittee wouldn't the adoption of that report also bind the full committee and essentially be an an a motion to expunge or the adoption of a motion to expunge
and I think that's a fair point the problem is is that's not the motion that was made in the subcommittee what it sounds to me the motion that was made in the subcommittee yesterday was a motion to recommend that this committee expunge the vote I think we'd have a different story if the if the motion in the subcommittee would have been to expunge and then we adopt subsequently adopted that report but that's not what it was the motion yesterday was to recommend that the full committee expunge also want to say I agree with
the attorney general's opinion and this goes to senator Love's point about whether or not we should whether or not the action that was taken in September was legally valid or not and the issue there is really kind of one of parliamentary procedure the issue there the action that we took in September was to rescind the notice and I think the question that the attorney general had was whether or not we had the power to rescind a notice that we had given and the attorney general essentially answered that by saying yes but the proper way to
do it the proper procedure to follow to do that is by a motion to expunge the vote where the notice was initially given which would be the July notice that was given based on Senator Kroll's motion that was adopted in the report and so I think Senator Lady's ladyman's motion to expunge is proper now it's a question of you know where you stand on whether or not we should expunge that vote whether or not this money should go back that's
a fair question for the body to debate. I personally am in favor of expunging it. I'm also fully in favor of accountability and enforcing the law but this is the first time so just to speak on the policy of it this is the first time that we've ever really had the ability to enforce this particular law and we took advantage of it at the first opportunity and I think we got a lot of the city's attention when we adopted that motion in July to withhold their turn back funds I think we send a strong
message and I think we've seen a lot of compliance and my understanding is there's 13 cities that are not in the process and out of those 13 there may only be4 that haven't responded to anything so we definitely have gotten people's attention and I think at this point if we just allow them a little grace period to get into compliance and then we can always come back and we can send that notice again when we believe it's appropriate so if we come back in December or January and we think we see that you know there's
some cities that have just completely ignored this after we withheld their turnback funds that we have the ability to send a new another notice and withhold those funds and take the appropriate action so I'm in favor of the motion to expunge at this time. I think it's the proper way to handle this again I agree with the attorney general's opinion don't think that we're changing the law here I think Senator Dismay makes a good point and I would agree with him that we could have expunged the vote by
subcommittee vote if the motion in the subcommittee would have been to to expunge but that wasn't the motion in the subcommittee the motion in the subcommittee was to recommend to this committee to expunge which I think is a different a different thing so with that I'm in favor of senatorladydyman's motion and I hope you'll give it due consideration thank you thank you Representative
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:04:29
gazaway. I believe we leftsenator hammer hanging with
a substitute motion and then we will go to the original. Senator Hammer
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:04:38
thank you ma'am chairir and knowing senator rep
if I may to representative ladyman through the chair make this comment knowing that there's a second motion that you're going to bring this 1 may align with your so the committee can just use your discretion vote for against d like to offer a substitute motion substitute motion to expunge all previous votes to withhold turnback funds and instruct the treasurer to release funds to cities that are actively showing efforts to comply with the law
as determined by a list provided to the treasurer from legislative audit staff and the chairs but not to cities who as of the date of this motion have produced no evidence of actively complying with the law if a city who's actively proceeding stops effort to comply they will be called before the full legislative committee cities who have not shown effort as of this day of this vote are required to attend the next full legislative audit meeting at which time a
full report of all activities will be made to the committee and if I get a second, I'd like to speak to my motion and the rationale madam
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:05:52
chairir. the chair will entertain a second. is there a second? we have a second by Senator Cooper all right let's discuss
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:06:02
that motion Ma I speak to my motion? thank you. I'm struggling between you know, having listened to all this I'm struggling between grace, mercy, rewarding effort,
but not rewarding those who are blatantly disregarding the law because I think that is an injustice to the cities that have gotten the message are making an effort and what I see this motion doing is saying to those that have have shown effort we are we heard you we're doing what we got to do we're trying to get it done. let's go ahead and reward them but yet there's an element of accountability that if you stop doing what you're being asked to do by the law you're going to come in front of this full committee at the same time
those cities 13, whatever the final number is that have shown no effort they don't need to be given the same treatment as those that are putting forth effort and they need to come in front of this committee and they need to explain their selff and at that time if they got a good explanation we may choose to release but they don't need to be able to sit out there without any accountability and thumb their non nose that the legislature or this committee and I think this establishes a protocol for them to have to
come in front of us that's the intent of the motion. I'd appreciate a good vote.derstand if you don't want to vote for it. thank
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:07:26
you thank you senator Hammer I believe Senator dotson you have a discussion point
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:07:31
thank you madamir. Senatorhammer, well I like the intent of where you're going with your motion because I'm in agreement I think to a large extent with what you're trying to do I'm concerned however with the actual statute that we have in
front of us 142234-120 under C1 there where it says the legislative audit committee may quote give notice that that in effect that notice whether it was July September or or today triggers the treasurer holding these funds for all municipalities and so I don't know that it it would change the status quo of the treasurer sent out an AG's opinion on the September deal to say that this actually rescind the notice
and I think we're with your motion while we might have expunged the vote on all previous motions in effect were giving a new notice to the treasurer to hold. I don't know that we can turn the spigot on partially I think it's an honor off switch with that give notice that's my opinion of it I'm sure the treasurer's office will will get to make that determination if we do anything
other than just fully expunge or or leave it as is where we gave notice but just wanted to
give you that consideration and everybody in the committee that consideration before considering your motion could
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:09:08
could I respond madam chair thank you and senator you know, I'm looking at the the language has an element of permissiveness utilizing the word may
and whether it is this way or not it is my intent through this motion that what we're doing is saying that the treasure may go ahead and release all these but in the motion it keeps the element of accountability that as long as they keep complying then they can keep getting the money however if they don't the motion has it and I realize members don't have the benefit of this being written out to see in front of them but those cities that cease to be
compliant with trying to get to what the law is asking them to do will be in front of this full committee at which time we could say to the treasurer, stop it because they have stopped their effort that's the intent whether it aligns with your concerns and the law or not I'll defer to the full committee's wisdom.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:10:13
thank you umpresentativeightdydyman, would you state your motion for the record? so we have both these motions in front of us
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
2:10:30
ok you're up wouldn't thank you madam chair my motion was I move to expunge the vote taken by this committee at its July meeting to withhold the turnback funds from cities and towns that have not completed their water and sewer audits for 2022 and2023. thank you we do have to take the alternative motion first but I want you
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:10:55
to have both of those fresh in your mind so we have
Senator Hammer if you could give us the short version we need to vote on that unless there's any further discussion. would you light
me up? oh sorry yes give us the the short version
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:11:17
again. madam chair would you restate what you're asking me to do your motion restate my motion you're on Yeah know'm I'm reading something somebody sent
me aligned with this. The motion was to expunge all previous votes to withhold turnback funds which addresses the multiple dates that are in question. The motion to expunge all previous votes to withhold turnback funds and instruct the treasurer to release funds to cities that are actively showing efforts to comply with the law based on a list provided by leg audit and concurred by the staff and the the the chairs
but not to cities who as of this day today of this motion have produced no evidence of actively complying with the law if a city who is actively producing stops efforts to comply they will be called in front of the full committee the intent of that is you're working on it now. don't take this as a signal that you can stop because you're gonna come in front of the full committee cities who have not shown effort of this day are required to attend the next full legislative audit meeting at
which time a full report of all activities will be made to the committee I wouldu I would think that this would also clarified that we are giving notice that these 14en cities are not in compliance therefore the money would only be withheld for those 14en cities everybody else's money is
going to be released and we continue to be released as long as they continue to make and show effort otherwise they're going to be in front of this committee which I don't think any of them want
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:13:22
to be Thank you Senatorhammer. My understanding is this is a 2/3 vote is that correct? OK. is that
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:13:28
2/3 of the quorum or 2/3 of members present would you would staff clarify that please Senator Hammer present to your rules
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
2:13:35
you have always operated on members or authorized alternates present
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:13:44
OK. let's make sure we understand we are voting on Senator Hammer's motion and it has to be a
2/3 vote so those in favor wait just a second Thank you that I I think this is
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
2:14:05
germane to the motion certainly it's gonna be an effect of the motion so if we pass this out the treasury department then has
the duty to do what we're saying or not I I guess my and it says
shall that's a good point senator. It says it shall ok so
what what I don't want to see happen and what I'm what I'm throwing I'm throwing this out here publicly is that if someone is looking for a reason not to because they don't they don't agree with this being passed then that shall become something
else and then becomes another submission to AG or whomever else after this body does what it has done. I just think this body this should be respected whatever
we do throughout so that we're there itspresentativeladydymann you had a
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:15:01
I saw you come up thank you madam chair I'll try to be brief but Senatorhammer, I agree with
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
2:15:08
what you're trying to do and I understand that but my concern is that who determines whether they're actively
pursuing is it going to be in the treasurer's office and they're trying to decide and who who who defines who's actively pursuing and what is the definition of that so I just think there might be a lot of gray area here and then nothing happens that that's my concern with your motion I know you're trying to do the right thing and I agree with what you're trying to do but I'm afraid it would create some misunderstanding and people making decisions based on something they don't have a definition for so that's just my
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:15:50
comment right Senator Hammer you can respond and then we're going
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:15:57
to need to go to the vote yes and and sent keep on make center so well not don't give himspresented Leedyman the that's why I put the phrase in there as determined by legislative audit staff and the chairs. we're we're putting a lot of trust and a lot of authority and them that evidently there's an identified list by some protocol that has
been included in discussion day we're down to 13 cities that have nothing. I think if somebody's name is on the list we can as individual legislators go to the chairs and lay out and say hey now wait a minute here's evidence that they're doing it that'll create maybe a little back and forth but it seems like the content of the discussion day we have narrowed it down that there are a certain number of cities 13, maybe around that number that haven't done anything there's evidence that everybody else is doing
something to move toward it so that whether that's a good explanation satisfies your concerns or not but that's why I put that phrase in the motion Represented beatty
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:17:06
madam chair that motion had a lot of moving parts in it could you restate that motion and just hit the highlights oh right Senatorhammer
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:17:16
let's let's make it short. No no sidebar, no discussion just a straight motion
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:17:25
i Hart please thank you motion to extend motion to expunge all previous votes to withhold turnback funds and instruct the treasurer to release funds to cities that are actively showing efforts to comply with the law as determined by legislative audit staff and chairs but not to cities who as of this state of this motion have produced no evidence of actively complying with the law if a city who is actively proceeding stops efforts to comply they will be called before
the full committee cities who have not shown effort of this date of this motion being passed are required to attend the next full legislative audit committee meeting at which time a full report of all activities will be made to the full committee That substitute motion thank you senator hammer we have a second
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:18:26
camemeron made a second excuse me senatorpresentative Cooper right so we're all thoroughly confused let's go vote. all in favor of Senator Hammer's substitute motion please signify by saying aye those opposed no we have a roll call by division of chambers
I rule it fails but let's go ahead and do a roll call. Remember it has to have a 2/3 vote and we've had requests for division of the house division of the body the was made by the house so we'll start on the house side.
Speaker 344
2:19:31
Representative Gazaways having signed in Representative Rrie as having signed in Representative Rye Representative Mark Mcellroy Representative Wayne Long as not having signed and next
representative Carolyn Brown representative Carolyn Brown is a yes Representative Fred Allen having signed in p re s ent ative Fred Allen Representative Cameron Cooper representative cameron cooper is a yes
Representative tony furman Representative Tony Furman is a yes representative RJhawk is not having signed in we go to first alternatepresentative Paul Childress Representative Paul Childress
Nextpresentative Robin Lundstrom Representative Robin Lunstrom is a no. Nextpresentative Mindy McClendon having not signed in, we go to first alternatepresentative Rebecca Burkes Representative Rebecca Burkxs is a no Next we representative Hopeduke Representative Hopeduke is a no
Nextpresentative Sttephen Unger Representative Stteen Unger is a no Next p re s ent ative Wwomack Representative Wwomack is a no. Next with representative Sonnya Eubanksarker not having signed
in, presentative Howard beatty Representative Howard beatty is yes ex p re s ent ative Carrollalby. Representative carol dalby Next
Speaker 345
2:22:31
p re s ent ative Stan Barry Representative Stanbury no next
Speaker 328
2:22:41
p re s ent ative Julie Mayberry Representative Julie Mayberry is no .
Speaker 344
2:22:53
ex t representative Matthew Brown as having signed in Representative Matthew Brown Nextpresentative Bryan Evans not having signed in
representative Keith Brooks , p re s ent ative Keith Brooks Nextpresentative Jack Ladyman Representative Jack Ladyman yes
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:24:40
7 yes 8 nos4 present the motion fails now we'll entertain the motion by Representativeladyman yes
sir . Representative ladyman would you please state your motion
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
2:24:55
thank you madam chairir. I moved to expunge the boat taken by this committee at its July meeting to withhold the turnback funds from cities and towns that have not completed their water and sewer audits for 2022 and2023.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:25:13
we have a motion and a second on the floor all in favor all opposed let's have a roll call vote I couldn't tell and so
I don't think it rises to the 2/3 so motion fails let's have a roll call vote.
we have then we have 123,4,56 separated by the house I
mean it's by the chamber house start on the house
Speaker 344
2:26:06
side Representative Jimmy Gaz Representative Jimmy Gaway is a yes. Representative Johnny ye. p re s ent ative Johnnyright is a yes
p re s ent ative Mark McElroy. representative Mark Mcellroy is a yes. Representative Carolyn Brown Representative Carolyn Brown is a yes . p re s ent ative Fred Allen representative Fred Allen. Representative Cameron Cooper
Representative Cameron Cooper is a no. p re s ent ative tony furman , p re s ent ative Tony Furman. Representative RJ hawk as not having signed inpresentative Paul Childress p re s ent ative Paul Childress.
Speaker 328
2:27:31
Representative Lunstrom is a no next
Speaker 344
2:27:38
representativeindy McAlinon not having signed in, we go to Representative Rebecca Burks Representative Rebecca Burks is a no Nextpresentative Hopeucke Representative Hope Duke is a no Nextpresentative Stephen Unger.
p re s ent ative Stephen Unger is no. Nextpresentative Richard Wwomack Representative Richard Wwomack is no. ex t p re s ent ative Howard beatty yes Representative Howard beatty is yes ex t ispresentative Carolalby p re s ent ative Carolalalby is no
. Next ispresentative Stanerry p re s ent ative Stanerry is yes Next is representative Julie Mayberry Representative Julie Maybeyrry is no ex t ispresentative Matthew Brown p re s ent ative Matthew Brown.
Next withpresentative Bryan Evans as not having signed inpresentative Keith Brooks p re s ent
Speaker 328
2:29:22
ative Keith Brooks. Next p re s ent ative Jack Ladyman. Representative Jackladyman is yes.
Unknown speaker
2:30:02
they're going to give us a vote total Yes sir it's 2/3. yes sir.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:30:33
7 yes 8 no,5 present the motion fails . All right, moving on next item on the agenda is theucation committee. senator deeses if you would read
that report on the education committee? you madam chairir the
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:30:58
standing committee on Educationstitutions met on Thursdayoctober 9th and adopted the minutes
from the meeting that was held on September 11th 2020-25 sevenation audit reports for the year ended on June30th,2024 were included on the agenda with no recommendations from the subcommittee over my dad sorry for the joke officials from the mammoth Spring School District were present to answer questions from the committee related to findings in their audits reports which was deferred from the September meeting re school districts audit reports had
findings and were referred to the applicable prosecuting attorneys and attorney generals the committee filed7 audit reports that were brought before it and madam chairir I move for adoption of this report I have a second. Is there any discussion
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:31:52
of the education report? I believe there was a member that had a discussionpresentative Duke I'm sorry that was Representative Unger's
committee all right got a lot of notes up here.
All right we have a motion and a second all in favor right right all opposed all right motion passes our committee report is accepted and too soon Senator dees too soon all right standing committees for state agencies Representative Unger it te e ' s agenda
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
2:32:29
yesterday three reports with the following findings were presented the department of agriculture had an unauthorized payroll
disbursement the department of education did not have adequate controls in place to identify students with educational freedom accounts for duplicate enrollment in a public school d d ition ally the department used one of its appropriation for a different purpose than the specified in its appropriation actct made an overpayment for a national board for professional teaching standards incentive and reported a stolen utility
vehicle. The Department of Health did not properly prepare bank reconciliations reported that an employee had falsified travel expenditures and did not properly obtain bids for a capital asset edition various agency staff members were present to report how the agcency's intended to address the audit findings and then answer committee questions
during the meeting the committee filed 10 reports I moved to adopt this report do we have a second
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:33:50
and then we'll have discussion. We have a second by Senator dotson. We have two in the queue right nowpresentative Mayberrry and then Representativennepresentative Mayberry thank you madam Chair. I'd like to
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
2:34:02
make a motion to extract the Department of Education
annual financial report and vote on that separately.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:34:10
we have a second discussion all in favor post let's hear
this let's it passes and we'll have a separate vote on that uhpresentative innneitt you got cut off and didn't get your question you got ok thank you
p re s ent ative Mayberry can I, can I
Speaker 361
2:34:44
make you restate your motion please restate the
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
2:34:48
motion or make a second motion because I think my firstt one passed it passed thank you passed so what I would like to do is since that did pass to defer that finding or that report to be discussed by the full Arkansas legislative audit at the next meeting.
so you're just asking for deferred for that to be deferred and to be discussed before the full legislative audit at the
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:35:21
next meeting that's a proper motion all in favor Oh wait wait wait look staff's waving me so we need a second on that we have a second by Representative Duke. all in favor?pose all right thank you we'll
take that up and put it on the agenda for next time.
percent of in it you're still on did you need something? OK.
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
2:35:48
let's hear it thank you chairwoman I have a question I don't know if this is out of line what measures is Arkansas taking to prevent duplicate enrollment among students with EFAs Representative Ennett you're gonna get to be the first up in next session or
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:36:01
the next meeting for that exact question you can ask those questions there we'd still need to adopt the rest of the report is that correct
let's go ahead and adopt the rest of the purport I need a motion to do so. I need a second 2nd thank you Representative bennett. all in favor? opposed a report is adopted . All right, ext we have a special report a review from the Arkansas state ub lic school
employees healthal benefits fun and I would ask members that you please stay for this because we need to make sure that everything is going well with our employees benefits
funds and I'd like for you to listen closely and then we will get in most those members could come up with the we'll need to be sworn in Mister Spivey, would you come up and and bring us the report
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
2:37:18
Thank you madam chair . Arkansas code requires legislative audit to conduct an annual review of the employee benefits division and the performance of the health and benefit plans the primary objective of this report was to analyze the fund balances of both the state and public school employee health and benefit plans at June30,2024. Ebd administers the health and benefit plans for both the state and public school employees. Benefits are provided through
selffunding, a method by which the state takes in contributions from both the employee and the employer Separate funds are set up for each plan to pay health and pharmacy claims and to serve as reserves to prevent dramatic rate increases for subscribers sincence January2023, Ebd has paid United Healthcare to manage the group medicare advantage plan, commonly referred to as the MAPD plan for Medicare eligible retirees. this exhibit, which is found on page two of the report shows the
planned enrollment for both subscribers and members for each plan. The term subscribers refers to both employees and retirees who are enrolled in the plans while the term members refers to subscribers and their qualifying dependents who are enrolled in the plans. as detailed in this exhibit from fiscal year 2023 to2024, the number of subscribers decreased by 12 for the AE plan and increased by 2,216 for the psE plan, creating a net increase of 2,204 for both plans.
The exhibit shown on this slide and on page two of the report provides medicare eligible retirees by enrollment in a retiree plan. as indicated in the bottom row of the exhibit the MAPD participation rate at June30,2024 was62% among AE subscribers and members and41% among PsE subscribers and members The first plan discussed is the ASC plan. as shown in the exhibit on the slide
and on page three of the report the ASC plan had just over360 million in fund revenue for fiscal year 2024. state contributions provided65% of total revenue subscriber monthly premiums made up 26% and now the revenues accounted for 9%. Other revenues included FIA savings, investment income and pharmacy rebates. As shown in exhibit6 on page 5 and on the slide the AC fund
balance increased to 119.6 million at the end of the fiscal year. The fund had a growth rate in fiscal year 2023 of114% compared to the44% growth rate in fiscal year 2024. the fund's growth was primarily the result of planned revenues exceeding expenditures by38.8 million and a $1.8 million decrease in the actuarial incurred but not reported health and pharmacy claims revenues were higher primarily due to the increase in employer monthly contribution rates.
Exhibit4 on this side and on page four of the report provides a five-year comparison of cost per subscriber for the ASC plan. as indicated by the blue line in the exhibit the health and pharmacy claim cost to the fund per subscriber totaled688 dollars per month, a5 dollars decrease from the prior year as indicated by the red line, the out of pocket cost to subscribers increased from359 dollars per subscriber per month in fiscal year 2023 to366 dollars in fiscal year 202
This exhibit is provided on page 5 of the report. The blue line indicates changes in claims and administrative costs for the AC plan for the past five years while the red line indicates changes in premiums and other revenues for the same period. it should be noted that premiums and other revenues for fiscal year 2023 included one time funds from the American Rescue Plan Act, commonly known as ArRpa. Schedule3 on page 14 shows healthal and pharmacy claims by plan type shown on this slide as the portion of the schedule
related to the AC plan for fiscal year 2024, healthal and pharmacy claims paid from the fund totaled 183 million in over 99 million respectively. while MAPD plan costs totaled over 17 million Additionally Schedule4 on page 15 provides a fouryear comparison of health and pharmacy claims. a factor contributing to the change in health claims for retirees was the utilization of Unitedhealthcare's MAPD plan for a full year.
The next few slides contain information regarding the PsE plan. The exhibit on the slide and on page six of the report shows over459 million in fund revenue for the psE plan for fiscal year 2024. Legislative funding provided31% of the total contributions from school districts amounted to 29% subscriber monthly premiums made up30% and other revenues delivered 10%. Other revenues included performance guarantees, penalties, investment income, pharmacy rebates and FIA savings.
As shown in exhibit 10 on page 8 and on the slide the psE fund balance increased to over 206 million at the end of the fiscal year. In fiscal year 2023, the fund balance grew at a rate of53% over fiscal year 2022 and fiscal year 2024, the rate of growth was just under 1%. Exhibit 8 on page 7 and on the slide provides a five year comparison of cost per subscriber for the PSE plan
as indicated by the blue line healthal and pharmacy claim costs to the plan per subscriber total527 dollars per month. a35 dollars increase from the prior year. as indicated by the red line out of pocket costs to employees increased $13 from the prior from the previous fiscal year to347 dollars per subscriber per month. This exhibit is provided on page 7 of the report the blue line indicates changes in claims and administrative costs for the pSE
plan for the past five years while the red line indicates changes in premiums and other revenues for the same period. It should be noted that premiums and other revenues for fiscal year 2023 included onetime ArPpa funds. Additionally for fiscal year 2024, total claims and administrative costs exceeded premiums and other revenues. Schedule3 on page 14 shows healthal and pharmacy claims by plan type shown on the slide is the portion of the schedule related to the PSC plan.
for fiscal year 2024, healthal and pharmacy claims paid from the fund totaled31006 million respectively while MAPD plan costs totaled approximately7 million. Additionally, Schedule six on page 17 provides a fouryear comparison of health and pharmacy claims factors contributing to changes from the previous fiscal year included increases in planned subscribers, plan members and plan utilization.
ALA also reviewed the 13 members of the of the AE plan and the six members of the psy plan with cumulative claims exceeding500,000 dollars. ALA tested these claims for accuracy and timeliness of case management services and noted no discrepancies. The2024 total cumulative Health and pharmacy claims exceeding500,000 dollars total to 26.1 million, a decrease of6.6 million from the prior year. Our report contains one finding
as noted on page nine in accordance with R1-da19-4-702 of the department of finance Administration Financial Management guide. if an agency pays an invoice in the fiscal year subsequent to when goods or services are received that invoice should should be recorded as a payable EBD paid paid3.8 million for the ASC healthal claims and6.5 million for PSC health claims in fiscal year 2025 that should have been recorded as a payable and fiscal year 2024.
as a result, accounts payable and expenditures were understated at the end of fiscal year 2024mounts are affected throughout this report have been adjusted for these errors. madam Chair, this concludes my presentation. aggency representatives are here to answer committee with the agency representatives please come forward to be sworn in
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:46:30
If you would please rise if you Please state
Speaker 367
2:46:44
your name and position. Grant Wallace director of the employee benefits division uhjacaldwell CFfo shared administrative Services. OK if you could raise
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:46:51
your right hand gentlemen do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. thank you
Members please jump in the queue if you have questions. I have one as well on page 15 of the report where it
talks about the PSc healthal and pharmacy claims and premiums I'll give everybody a chance to get there page15 page 15 if you're looking at the report I'm sorry it's page7 on ours it's page 15. this is the slide that
has pSE healthal and pharmacy claims and premiums for physical year 2020 to2024. we've I'm I'm concerned
I'm seeing a rise in cost and deduct
and then a decline in premiums can you explain this or delve into this one a little
Speaker 367
2:47:59
bit more? ma'am and echo that concern what happened during this time period is that the state match the district minimum
was cut from300 to23450 so that's why you'll see the decrease in revenue and on the increasing in costs we've experienced an increase in cancer diagnoses and treatments within this population that was outpacing the state employee side so we're diving into that just to see if it's a one time kind of blip or if there is something more long term that we need to kind of adjust our modeling for
we've not completed that work and that so that's the study on the expense side what we've done on the revenue side is during this past session there were corrections to get the district minimum back up to where it needed to be and we continue to work with the department of Education on our funding side to make sure that those issues get back on track and that we are seeing an increase in the revenues so we we do have a plan we are addressing these things and are
Speaker 370
2:49:07
getting back on track with where we need to be. OK.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:49:12
thank you umpresentative Mayberry, I believe you had
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
2:49:18
a question. thank you madam chairir. I'm just curious because it's not necessarily in here and it may not be something that you all directly pay but I don't know where the money comes from to pay for it. So when we have a bill that affects the state employee plan, or the public school employee plan. it has to go through fiscal
analysis through Seegal and I'm trying to figure out is that something that state employees are paying for or we paying for is the state can you help me understand who pays for that report so
Speaker 367
2:49:57
we do not it is not part of this this art bills we do not receive any invoices from Seegal or anything like that so my assumption is that belr covers those expenses OKblr is
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
2:50:08
paying for that but before you all would do the analysis like but because this
was a recent change I guess not last legislative session but the a special session before that is that is that correct? You all did some type of analysis we
Speaker 373
2:50:25
do have our own actuary that would run that does run or can do our
Speaker 367
2:50:31
own kind of modeling and any kind of impacts on potential legislation so we do have that service
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
2:50:37
yes. just frustration with that process. I realized that
that's probably something that maybe I need to discuss withblR then
but it takes a really long time to get those fiscal impact reports back and I know I'm not the only one that was receiving the fiscal impact the last week or two of session which makes it pretty impossible to get a bill that has anything in
Speaker 361
2:51:02
there through so anyway, thank you. Senator dotson thank
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:51:10
you madam chairir. going back to what chairman womanmanundstrom was talking about on that
expenditures for pscs exceeding the revenues in 2024. the last slide that they were referencing said something about6.5 million dollars was was in inappropriately put in the wrong year but it should have been in 2024 is that on top of the number that's being reported here or you know it may be for staff rather than believe it I believe it's staff if you could help us out with
that it was included in that's included in this chart here that on on page seven of the of the exhibit ok so in essence we we basically almost broke even it was about5 million dollars just you know 1% off but things that we did in the session where does that take us because this has been this has been 15 months or so
the snapshot was June of 2024 I believe.
Speaker 373
2:52:25
Right so most of any kind of bills that were passed in this session
Speaker 367
2:52:30
that would have addressed plan design we'll go into effect in January. some of those things might have kind of rolled out in August but when it came to really like plan design and coverage of certain benefits those will be in January of this upcoming year so we will not see that impact probably until
you audit Fy26 you'll get that kind of first six months run at
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:52:58
that standpoint another further decline in 2025 more than likely but if I'm reading correctly on page 8, the fund balance has what 206 million at the end of 2024 correct so that that basically if if we're only 1% off we have enough fund balance to maintain claims payments for a few years to where we can get the revenues
Speaker 367
2:53:28
little bit of leeway and I want to kind of define little naarra you know narrow because it does take you know a high costs claim come in and and we're eating into those really fast so
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:53:39
but as the moment there's roughly 200 million in fund balance to help address those we're not we're not building on that fund balance but we're not dipping into it enough to where we can't make it to January and start collecting
additional premiums based off planned design changes correct thank you Members do you have any other
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:54:06
questions? with the indulgence I would like to hold this over a little bit this is a we need
to catch this on before I'd like to see what's going on
next month and the next month I I'd like to avoid dipping into that fund balance too significantly and I'd like to hear what your results are on those that are having cancer the
one off thing I'd like to get some more information on that so could we ask you to come back next would November work or December to come back and give us an update? we'll come back at
Speaker 373
2:54:38
any time that you'd ask so hang on just a second
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:55:14
Staff recommends there's two ways to do this. you could come back to this committee or we could ask that a motion to send it to the Ebd committee and have them review it and then come back that way. I I would entertain emotion either way. I think the EBD committee is a good fit for this I would entertain that motion. Could I get
that? I believe senator representativeburkes all right and I have a second
from Senator dotson. let's move this to the Ebd committee and
take another look at it a little deeper dive and then you can keep us up to date that way. we need a we have a motion and we need a vote all in favor
opposed all right we'll see you in ABD thank you right thank you staff. we do need
a motion to receive that in this committee. to file a report so moved in a second
all right. those in favor posts thank you right we received that OK having no other business come before this committee we will see
everybody again on November 13th and 14th thank you for your work today
Agenda
A. Call to Order by Chair
B. Adoption of Minutes
C. Reports of Executive and Standing Committees:
D. Review of Report:
E. Other Business:
F. New Business
G. Adjournment
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — LEGISLATIVE JOINT AUDITING, Oct 10, 2025 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 3
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Senator Jim Dotson
Unverified
Speaker 22
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Senator Jane English
Unverified
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Speaker 90
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Speaker 117
Speaker 122
Speaker 123
Speaker 131
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 146
Speaker 147
Speaker 149
Speaker 151
Speaker 154
Speaker 148
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
Speaker 64
Speaker 171
Speaker 173
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
Speaker 164
Speaker 144
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
Speaker 60
Speaker 275
Speaker 127
Speaker 288
Speaker 295
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Speaker 143
Speaker 303
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
Speaker 314
Speaker 315
Speaker 317
Senator Reginald Murdock
Unverified
Speaker 326
Speaker 328
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Speaker 344
Speaker 345
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
Speaker 361
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
Speaker 367
Speaker 370
Speaker 373