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
Members if you want to get your seats we're gonna start here in just a second
So I call the legislative joint audit committeetee to order the chair sees a quorum so our first item on the agenda is the adoption of the minutes of the July11th,2025 meeting. any questions if not then do I have a motion for adoption of the minutes so moved my motion in a second all those in favor let it be known by I. any
opposed motion carries the next item on the agenda is the adoption of the
reports of the executive and standing committeespresentative Lumstrom, you're recognized
to report the executive committee thank you Chairman Petty.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
3:42
The report of the executive committee, the executive committee met on Thursday, September 11th and adopted the minutes of the meeting held July10,2025. Staff reported to the committee the audit and special report scheduled to be presented to the standing committees and the full legislative joint audit committee this month. Staff also noted reports that are anticipated to be completed soon.
in new business requests were deferred for special reports regarding UAMs Washington County lease agreement and the conway school District maintenance department. A request for the special report on the hot springs County solid waste Authority was deferred to the staff to seek more information regarding the scope of the request. in other business, the county voted or excuse me the committee voted to establish a policy to direct staff to immediately notify the treasurer state treasurer when the legislative audit receives a waiver a water
audit for a city whose turnback funds have been held withheld due to a late submission of these audits pursuant to Arkansas code 14-234-120. The committee considered new business and items postponed from earlier in the meeting regarding a special report on physical impact statements the committee voted to authorize staff to determine the population of ax with physical impact statements passed by the 2021 regular legislative session and categorize those acts by impact
amounts provided no additional business was discussed. the meeting was adjourned the next meeting of the committee will be scheduled for Thursday, October 9th at the call of the chairs.
I move to adopt this report. youpresentativesundundstrom. you've heard the report and we have a motion
to adopt the report. do we have a second? any discussion on the motion? all those
in favor say aye any opposed motion is adopted. The next item on the agenda is the report of the standingittee
on counties and municipalities. Senator Stone, you're recognized to
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
5:55
present that report. now you're recognized sorry about that thank you. item number one the committee adopted the minutes of the meeting held July10,2025. item number two the
committee was updated on the status of the December31,2022
delinquent private water and sewer audit's three entities three entities turn back has been reinstated because all reports have been submitted the committee was updated on the status of the December31 that's album number 3 2023 delinquent private water and sewer audits of the'64 delinquent entities45 have filed their 23 reports since July LAck meeting. item number4, the committee was notified that all private municipal audits for the
year ended December31,2023 have been filed. itemtem number5, a discussion was held regarding the city ofRockport's substantial noncompliance with municipal accounting law city officials were not present in the committee approved a motion to def er this report until October meeting item number6 officials from the city of Lakeview were present to address questions regarding the city's failure to meet the requirements of its approved plan for repaying misused street funds the committee voted to notify the
state treasurer and city officials at the city's highway revenue will be withheld until a ballot due is paid in full item number7 the committee reviewed a deferred reports and 224 reports current reports officials from eight entities were present to address repeat findings six previously deferred reports were filed and two were deferred of the 224 current reports reviewed,12 were referred to the prosecuting attorneys and the attorney
general and one was certified to the government bonding boardard the committee filed 23218 current report s and the first six reports too Allow officials to answer questions or provide further information at a future meeting item number 8 the committee voted to approve the reinstatement of turnback funds for the remaining delinquent entities that have filed a December3122 report where our
provided an engagement letter stating that reports for December31,2022 and2023 will be filed by the end of 2025 calendar year. itemtem number 9, the committee voted to notify that December31,2023 delinquent entities that the reports are to be filled out before the end of 2025. We
this report thank you senator Stone uhpresentative Wwomack
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
8:43
you are recognized for a comment. thank you Mr Chair. Mr Chair, I have a substitute motion to adopt the report with the exception of items 8 and
9, I request that those two items be voted on
separately is there a second I have a motion in a second so we're not voting at this point on anything but the substitute motion to
OK uhpresentative Wommack, would you mind explaining your motion sure thank
Speaker 32
9:17
you Mr Chair. Hoestly, uh, during discussion yesterday,
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
9:19
I think there was a little confusion about exactly what we were voting on and when it was cleared up last night, I believe the action we took yesterday is in direct conflict with state law and I'd just like the committee full committee to take a take a look at it before we move on with
something we regret. all right any discussion on that
item. looks like senator Gilmore you're recognized .
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
9:50
Thank you. so just point of clarification on the substitute motion we'll be voting on the report and then the other items correct so there will be a vote on the other items just separately. I'm making sure I understand that OK. in addition Mrir if I may yes sir. Look, I think there was some discussion about the cities
and counties and their turnback funds I think it was debated fully. I think it was healthy debate. I supported for several reasons Senator Wallace's motion and I appreciate him making that. I think, I think from our standpoint we when we when we set something in in motion we have the ability to undo that from my perspective now again that's my opinion I understand members may not share that opinion, but obviously we'll we'll figure out where
members are on this in just a second but I think that action was taken. I think the message was sent to the cities I think that there is there needs to be an understanding that there's real consequences for cities not doing what they're supposed to do and I'm for that but I also understand too at times there needs to be some grace and when you have a turnback funds withheld from small communities I think it can be detrimental. and my district is made up of several of these small
communities as is many others in this room so that would be my only caution.gain, I'm not trying to absolve people of their of their wrongdoing or or things that they should have done and I think that two things can be true. I think they should have done what they're supposed to do. I think now they are trying to do that. I just would ask the committee to consider that and I respect Representative Womack motion here and and I understand what he's trying to do and his position on that not lost on me and I understand where he's coming from but that's that's my
opinion on it. that's where I'm coming from. I do think that the the message has been sent. I think the message has been received I don't hopefully I don't think we'll be here again in the future but you know, I just I think there needs to be some consideration what happens to communities when turnback
funds are held thank you. thank you senator Gilmore. just to just to be clear we can debate the vote on the items that are have been asked to be taken out by the substitute motion. so
if you could limit your discussion at this point to whether or not you support or have questions on the substitute motion at this point Senator Stone, you're
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
12:29
recognized yes, I would just like to make a comment I don't believe there's any confusion in yesterday's meeting and what
we voted on I believe it was clearly articulated from both sides what was at stake there was a proper motion in the second after spirited the debate and and it was and it was passed
and if it gets undone today we have a proper motion if we get a second on it it will be undone but I think everybody's clear on what
they're voting on thank you. Sinner wallace you recognized to speak on behalf or on the substitute motion. Thank you Mr Chair. we we I hear the
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
13:12
term that we're being told that this is against state law is there going
to be anybody here from the attorney general's office that can show us how that's against the state law or whose
word are we taking that it's against the state law and that's a question the attorney general's office will not be here today.
they there have been requests to have many discussions I have had personal discussions with him multiple times they are not
here today to speak on behalf of that one thing that we have not had is someone speaking from a legal standpoint saying that this is legal and so I think that's probably something that we may consider at the the proper time as well. May I respond? Sure go back to
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
14:11
what we've been told many times that51 members of the house and 18 members of senate can do anything we want to do as far as making a law and we make the laws the bureaucracy does
not and we had a good vote yesterday. It was a spirited debate and I urge us to vote against this motion
Chair
Unverified
14:37
by the representative. Representative Hack, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr Chair. I I think it also needs to
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
14:44
be said that in the executive committee this same motion was placed in executive and it was overwhelmingly denied because while the attorney general was
not there, he did communicate with the chairs of the executive committee and with the with the chairs of this this committee that to say that it was the opinion of the attorney general that we'd be violating law and so in the executive committee we we said this would you know we there was 95 representatives that voted for this bill during the session there was35 senators during the session that voted for this bill as is and we would be undoing and frankly I believe that we would be politicizing the joint
audit committee if this if if this were to pass and so I'm with Representative Wommack on this and and I don't, I just think this this would set a bad bad
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
15:42
precedent p re s ent ative p re s ent ative Beatty you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairir. I sat in the committee yesterday and and did participate in the discussion of the motion by Senator Wallace. I, I respect and appreciate each member's vote and to take a position one way or the other, those members that
were not in that committee meeting that did not hear that debate. I'm certain we'll hear that in a few moments my issue is we are a political body and and everything we do is politicized so the fact that this was discussed in executive committee with how many members that represent the the 1undre0 in the house or the 95 that voted for this. I'm not certain my position is that I agreed with Wallace's motion yesterday. I'm going to agree with Wallace's motion today and I look forward to just getting on to to the actual boat and on
this motion then get into the discussion. So I thank you all and
I respect, I respect, Representative Wobacks position and motion on this so thank you Representative Long
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
16:42
you recognized thank you Mr Chairman you know I was in education committee every state so I didn't get to participate or hear from any of this yesterday so I was speaking in favor of the motion to vote separately you know somebody that really didn't get to to participate in the the other
committee and or hear anything about it I'd like more information before it's time to vote on it
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
17:10
and I think this would be the best way to do it thank you Representative Brown you're recognized thank you Mr Chair. of course I wasn't in that committee yesterday but I did listen to the testimony when this bill was presented in house committee and in senate committee and the idea behind
passing this law was to prevent municipalities from hiding information or dragging their feet to not report errors in their practices I believe the law gives municipalities sufficient grace and I am concerned about them feeling that they don't have to adhere to the law so I would like to hear it debated. I support the motion
Chair
Unverified
18:03
Senator Mark Johnson, do you recognized?
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
18:05
Thank you Mr. Chairman I don't want to belabor this I think most of my colleagues understand it and I appreciate the the comment that Representative Brown just said we're not looking at this to me we are not looking at this as the law we passed in the last session and we need to look at that not to to relitigate that or relegislate that that's has
to come in 2027 or if the governor should call us in and include this as something on the call that we would would deal with the law is the law and as I said in in com in county municipality subcommittee yesterday when we're not in session we're just 135 ordinary citizens and we don't get to change the law in an interim committee. Now we can change rules and we have a lot of flexibility to do that and that and that's a good thing but when something's in the law
we we can't change it and I I say that with utmost respect to my good friend senator Wallace and he and I agree almost all the time but this is one where I think we we disagree I think we've gotten very astute legal counsel both from our committee's counsel and from the AG's office and I would would support this motion. I think we need to to follow the law and if we need to change it, I would certainly be open to doing that in the proper venue at the proper time. thank you sir.
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
19:41
Senator Wallace you're recognized thank you Mr chairir. Members if we can't come down here and make decisions to affect our
state we might as well go ahead and stay home and play dominoes. we're here to make law we are lawmakers this body makes laws I sponsored this bill it's a good bill knowing
if I knew them what I know now I'd have made this date31 December we've had over 100 towns we get down to I think either 15 or40 I forget the number in these towns or the towns are having problems getting a CPA to do their audit they just need more time and what's going to happen is we cut this off we're not punishing a town we're punishing the people inside that
town if you have a a waterman and if he doesn't get paid a check, he's not making a lot of money from these small towns anyway he's gonna go to a bigger town we are this will hurt the small towns and we are bigger than this there's not a reason for us to do this. Theres there's not a law that prevents us from doing this thank you Mr chairir. Representative
Speaker 21
21:12
Lundstrom you have a comment? we have the
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
21:17
video of in its textbook I have to complimentpresentative Gazaway and Senator Wallace when they presented the bill if I could point you to the screens and let's take a look at that it's we'll hang on just a second are they going to be able to show it at all to give them a second, I have a copy of the bill in front of me.
It's very clear exactly what the intent of the bill is and what the law says and doesn't matter intent it's what's written here. They did a very good job of presenting this and making it clear that they had 18 months to do this plus another 12 in the very back on the back page line30, it simply says that they may give notice to the fact that the treasurer's office blah blah then it's circle the word shall once the committee voted in July they were following the law
and this is the process it's not something we can go back and change. They had latitude 2.5 years to get this done.2.5 years to get this done if we go back and go well we'll go3 or4 months more,4 months more whatever we're just extending the pain here they made the choice they can choose to hire a private auditor or choose to use leg audit. they chose to use a private auditor and not submit that information. I know the municipal league's been working with these folks on and off and trying to help them
but this is not getting done. we have to follow the law and the law goes from May to shall to very important words and we're in the shower we don't have a choice but to implement the law that we voted for to do anything else is And I think they're they're ready with the
video OK they're still working on that and we may in the interest of time, not be able to look at that but Representative McIlroy you're recognized thank you Mr
Representative Mark D. McElroy
Unverified
23:22
chairir you know I don't don't talk much but in the delta we're limited on our auditors they don't they're not arm wrestling to get on to 400 person town and go through a box of books back there and trying to find out what's going on but they're not guilty of anything right now they hadn't even had their books looked at but we're we're not just punishing the mayor or sending them a message
. The water superintendent he's making a little bitty check and I used to have my water license. it's hard to get a waterman in a small town. and when he misses his car payment and gets one payment behind on his house he don't want the cheese. he just wants out of the trap and that's what's happening in these small towns in the delta and you're not just punishing them because the people that depend on that water
they don't they don't have a dog to hunt up here. They don't they don't care. all they want to know is when they turn
on the waters tap the water's gonna come out it's gonna be safe to drink and I was county judge in 1993 and legislative audit was5 years behind. You check my records 5 years behind on their audit but now they're trying to put the pressure on on
these little towns I just ask you to think about the people in the delta. Thank you.
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
24:58
Representative Duke, you are recognized thank you Mr Chair and my comment is just primarily on I guess on the motion is I think that this we do need to have the substitute motion. I'm in favor of it there's clearly lots of different points of view on this and that is why members need to have the opportunity to vote on these things separately as opposed batching them and then I would say I I think we need to take great pause on what
precedent we do set here if we choose to say that when we're not in legislative session,51 members can go ahead and do something different with the law that's that's a big decision to make there are processes put in place to be able to address problems if we think there's something that we really do need to change. there's a process in place to do that but to decide that51 members can in this committee in another committee
make law or change a law because we don't like it I I think that's a real slippery slope and it may be good for this issue for some of us and we may agree with it but then there's going to be another issue and another issue because we all know that's happened in the past sessions where we've gotten away and gotten home and gone oh my goodness that was not the best decision or the best version of that law we need to fix it and we've usually had to wait so I think for those reasons we need to I support this substitute
motion and I think we really need to thank the long term and I have empathy for these cities. I I have some rural towns in my area we do have them in northwest Arkansas and so I understand that but there's a bigger narrative here too and we can't forget that narrative as well so umm I'm gonna be supporting
the substitute motion. OK Senator Wallace you're recognized for the last discussion before we take action on the motion. Thank you Mr Chair.
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
27:06
members we keep talking about the law who who can give me the law that says that we can't do this I asked that question yesterday and didn't get an answer and then the my final word is we have a great state what we're what harm comes to our state by allowing a few small very small towns the grace of another60
plus days, maybe 90 days max to avoid causing pain to all their citizens who did nothing Find grace in your heart thank you.
I'm going to make a liar out of myself and my good friend Senator Flippo let you speak for the last time on on the motion.
Senator Scott Flippo
Unverified
28:05
chairman. but I did see the video we're
not gonna watch this video are we I do I've served on audit for 10 years now. never seen us do anything like this concerned about the precedent that this sets we go back and find you know you know form56 months ago members ran a bill on the floor and then bringing it to committee half a year later I just I just don't like the presence of the sets I don't think it's necessary that's it
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
28:32
thank you Mr Jo. Senator flippo if I may this isn't this is a very well
done presentation and it's very clear what the authors of the bill and what the actual bill does it's more for educational if we don't want to watch it that's fine but I would encourage you to look at how well this is and it's clear and 2.5 years later the bill is being implemented so I think it's a mistake not to take advantage of the historical knowledge that we have and look at what the members did and how they voted the senate voted35 to0 and the House voted 92. so if you don't want to
watch it that's perfectly fine but please know this is for edification if if it's not something the body wishes to do that's fine but I would encourage you to
take a look at it at some point. OK, let's let's go on with the the substitute motion and just to explain we're not voting we're not voting on the last two items that we've been debating mostly in this conversation
about the motion. we're just voting on the substitute motion which is separating the last two items from the full report if this motion passes a vote of i is a vote to separate these two items a vote of no is to not separate and then at that point we would take a vote on the full
Speaker 97
30:01
the the initial motion including those last two items appropriate time to ask for a division
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
30:14
by vote vote by the senate or the House both separately or do I do that after this vote? OK what I I would like or I guess I'll make a motion that we
divide the vote the senate and by the house and I
believe that requires three hands 1,2,3 I see. all right we will divide this vote
on the motion the substitute motion by chambers OK so the substitute motion by Representative Womack is to simply pull out items 8 and 9 and have those voted separately. And I guess my question would be for for staff or or whoever is
if that if this motion did fail and or or does mean if this if this motion passes, then we will vote on them separately. If it doesn't and then the full motion doesn'tpa or the original motion doesn't pass what happens to all those reports and everything at that point do we have a an opinion on that
Speaker 108
32:07
Thank you Mr Chair. Emily White, legislative audit. So if I understood the question correctly if the full committee does not adopt the full or does not pass the motion for the full report. at that point, everything that was done in subcommittee would essentially be rejected because it's the job of the full committee pursuant to masons and pursuant to your rules to either accept or reject what was done in the subcommittees yesterday. ok thank you that clarifies
right, one last time we're not voting on the items up or down we're voting on the substitute motion which is separating the last two items for a separate vote in a minute. if this motion passes a vote of a is voting separately those two items the vote is no is we will vote on the report separately the
original report separately and and I guess because we're doing chambers we're going to do roll call OK.
Speaker 113
33:09
all right. Kevin if you'll lead that thank you we'll start with the house Representative gazaways having signed in Jimmie Gazaway Am I on? here we go before we vote can someone just restate the motion
Yes, I think it was as simple as a substitute motion
to adopt the report with the exception of adams number 8 and 9. and at
Speaker 121
34:09
8 and 9 be voted on separately No Nextpresentative Rye not having signed in, presentative Ferguson , Representative Kenneth Ferguson
Representative Kenneth Ferguson voting Next representative Mark McIlroy. Mclroy no . Next representative Long Representative Long yes . ex t p re s ent ative Carolyn Brown
Next representative Carlton Wing Nextpresentative Cameron Cooper having not signed in Representative Rick Beck having not signed in Representative Joy Springer Nextpresentative Tony Furman
Next representative RJhawk representative RJ yeah hak yes Representativelonstrom is a yes. Next representative McAlinon not having signed in representative Rebecca Burks Representativeurkes is yes
Next representative hope duke Representative Hope Duke is yes Next representative unger nodding not having signed in p re s ent ative Torres having not signed in p re s ent ative John Carr Representative John Carr is yes. ex t representative Wwomack Representative Womack, yes.
Next representative Sonya Eubanks Barker not having signed in Representative Howardhaatty Representative beatty no Nextpresentativealby Representativealubby yes . ex representative Stanerry. Representative Stanbury no . ex t p re s ent ative Julie Mayberrry.
Representative Julie Mayberry yes next representative Bryan Evans has not signing inpresentative Keith Brooks Representative Keith Brooks
Having passed the house we'll move on to
Speaker 126
37:58
the senate Senator Danulllivan Senator Danulllivan no. ex t senator Ronald Caldwell
Speaker 121
38:12
Senator Caldwell Next senator Scott Flippo Senator Flippo
no Nextsenator Mark Johnson Senator Mark Johnson yes . ex t s en ator Jamie Scott Senator Jamie Scott no next senator Jane English Centerjane English no.extsenator Kim Hammer
Senator Kenhammer no Senator Petty is a yes Nextsenator Matt Mckee Senator Matt Mcee is a no Next, Senator Steve Krowell Senator Steve Crowe is a no.
Next senator Matt Stone Senator Matt Stone is a yes . ex t senator Frederick Loveent frederick loveve is a no ex t senator Wallace Cener Wallace is a no . Nextsenator ben Gilmore g il mo re he said no
OK the substitute motion fails so now we're back on the original report and the original motion from the committee to pass. are was there a second there's a second. is there any discussion on the original motion seeing none all those in favor
of the original motion to adopt the report, let it be known
Speaker 102
40:39
byi all those that are opposed no no I think I know where this is headed. but I'm gonna, I'm gonna
go through this again the nos were very loud but I think we counted them individually a minute ago and we know where that was at. but let's
the report from the committee as presented to adopt the report is a yes
Speaker 145
44:32
right members let's let's get back on task
we don't members let's get back on task so we can get everyone out of here on a reasonably time frame. we don't end up here very often in audit. I've I've noticed that so thank you for your patience but I do I do want to
ask for a clarification from Senator Wallace as to for for staff for audit staff
purposes as to with this motion now if it passes if it fails obviously nothing changes if it passes what does what what is the expectation at December31st if they haven't turned in their reports by then do we expect to have be back here again and have the same debate again for a few more months or is this it no more you know we're we're three years out on a report and so that's enough. so if you would
and does this immediately turn on their turnback funds
today or as soon as they can. so if you could clarify what what we're trying
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
45:48
to accomplish here with this motion m yesterday was that we we moved the date back to31 December and31 December being the drop dead of the they if they don't have a letter in by then or if they don't have the audit done by then then it is
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
46:09
their funds are cut off Representative L question when you say letter just a letter of engagement doesn't get it that extends it out
so you're saying a letter of engagement or the audit or the audit
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
46:28
is completed. What my original motion yesterday was and I'll I'll read it is if a city is on the 2022 delinquent list their turnback will be reinstated once the 2022
audit is completed or the city has submitted a letter of engagement with the CPA to complete the 2022 audit by a date before December31st,2025. The city must also complete their 2023 audit by December31st,2025. There was a second motion to that and said that if a city is on the 2023 delinquent list they have until December31st,2025 to
complete their 2023 audit. so if and maybe I'm just not clear on on what your expectations if they have an engagement letter to perform the audit by December31st and and complete the audit by december31st then it turns it back on if if they don't have an engagement letter or they don't
have an audit then it's it turns off or it stays off it turns off . OK so and then and then the other question that that I have is if this motion passes, and and it does pass. does it mean that they turn it on with the next turnback money or do we notify the treasurer to release all the
past that has been withheld the last few months. Well my my
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
48:19
understanding is that treasury does a money dump is not the right word but I'll use it on the 10th of every month.
so the 10th has already passed this time so it would the first money release would
be october but would that be for the month or would that be for that month plus all the the the treasure
has has had withheld. Itu it would be for that month plus all the treasure has withheld. OK so bringing them
back up to current on all of the funding. OK until December the31st right chairmanetty is this
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
48:57
legal what we're doing it looks like we're going back over the law that we've already passed can we get an a Miss Emily, can you come up and give us is this legal what we're doing I think that's a question we need to ask
Speaker 157
49:24
Miss Emily you're recognized thank you madam Chair and Mr Chair, umpresentative Luundstrom, if I understand your question correctly
Speaker 108
49:34
are you asking me the question about what Senator Wallace is is wanting legislative audit to do on
Speaker 159
49:40
December31,2025 if the audits are not in and a letter of engagement is not received when the
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
49:48
audit committee passed this in July and made the decision to follow the law
we're going back now and creating some pretty big chaos and I just
Speaker 108
50:01
want to know if if this is correct that this is legal the code section is 14,234,120 Representative Lindstrom and in subparagraph C, ladies and gentlemen, it says that once this body the legislative joint auditing Committee refers a municipality to the treasurer's office and you had discretion in July not to refer them , but you voted to refer them in
July and the law says once you refer them in July, the treasurer shall hold their turnback funds until they have filed their most recent fiscal year and reports that's the law that you passed so based on the way that we understand the motion now. You you voted on that in July and that immediately happened in august. We referred those municipalities to the treasurer's office and the treasurer's office in august
began withholding the those turnback funds but now if I understand what you all are asking us to do you're asking us to not wait for all of those reports to be filed and to go ahead and notify the treasurer that these municipalities are in compliance when based on our interpretation of the law they might not be. Thank
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
51:18
you I I think that's really important to note that we are breaking the laws that we passed Mr Chair
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
51:32
there you are. OK. you're recognized sir you Mr chairir. Yesterday in our subcommittee we asked that question and we we asked specifically the question and are we breaking any law and I thought the answer that was given then was that we are not and and I would
go further if if we're if we're breaking that law, I'd like to have the AG
tell us how we're breaking it because I don't, I don't believe we are. I believe that we as a body have the right to do what we're doing for the good of the state otherwise let's
go home play do right, I believe we are moving into discussion on the the motion to adopt the report so we'll continue in the queue here . Senatorhammer you're recognized thank
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
52:29
you Mr She. Point of clarification to the motion last month
was when the action took place to refer it to the treasure is that correct my understanding from what was said a minute ago it was July. it was July OK. so so the what the law required to be done has taken place and it's now
in the hands of the treasurer correct? so what the law required to be done, and what has happened I think there's a distinction there because what what could have happened last July they the
way the law was written as I read it they could have referred it to the treasure they have the discretion to not. they didn't. Last August they could have referred to the the treasure. They have the discretion they did not all the way up through this year and then this year in July they decided you've had another 12 months and so now we're going to refer you once that as I read it and I'm not an attorney once that has happened then the discretion for the committee goes away the law says you shall produce the report
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
53:41
right so there's the idea of any benefit of holding this report to the end of the year that's not an option or even a consideration correct that's what's being debated now that's what's being debated now is whether or not that is to hold it to the end of the year or just to hold it to to hold it to
the end of the year with the motion is it ok thank you
OK members, I I I still think there's a little bit of confusion, maybe a lot of confusion in my mind as to what we're doing, where we're at. I I suggested that we move to roll callll but I think from the queue there's a lot of questions or debate or clarification that needs to happen. So I'm going to and I don't know if this is proper protocol or parliamentary procedure or not but I'm going to allow us to have the the the many members to have some some additional discussion before we actually move to formal roll
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
55:13
call. so uhpresentativealby you're recognized. thank you Mr chairir. Id I want
to speak on on senator Wallace's motion because it was my understanding and I'm in the committee yesterday it was my understanding this motion and somebody can clarify if my not understanding correctly that we will say the motion is you get it filed by December31st and if you don't get it filed just send us a letter
and then then don't worry about it just send us a letter saying you've engaged somebody but there's no deadline on that so they could send a letter saying oh we've engaged somebody and then be another year down the road before they ever get get it in on those folks who have sent the letter that's the way that motion reads in my mind and because it doesn't say you know it just says if you get your get your audit in you're gonna get your money back or otherwise send a letter in and you're
going to get your money back and then you've got because we're going to trust that you're going to get it in and I think that that's wrong and I totally agree with Miss White in her analysis of the law we turned it over and it becomes a shell and so for that reason and I voted no a while ago and I'll vote no on the roll call which I think we're in a wrong parliamentary procedure but that's for others to decide. thank you Representative Mayberry you
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
56:45
recognize thank you yes we're lawmakers but only during a legislative session this is not a legislative session. I don't know when we have ever changed law outside of that time period once every other year. that is not the purpose of this committee this committee is the audit committee
whether you like the law or not that's what we voted on as legislators if it needs to be changed then we need to do something to do it the right way. this is not the right way to do it This is allowing a small little group of people the power to override the rest of the members here
this is not right. Can I ask legislative audit has there ever been a time that a legislative audit committee has basically changed a date in law in and of itself. Can I ask that simple question can anybody answer that
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
58:18
Representative Mayberry, I don't think that's ever happened we're in new territory I don't think we have the the right to go in and change the law once a bill is passed we're we're in charge of making sure that this is done to the letter of the law I can't answer you for all history but I think we're in dangerous uncharted territory and we're setting precedent here and I think that's something that we need to be show extreme caution thank you
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
58:50
Senator Love you're recognized thank you chair. I I'm gonna go back and I think I will have staff come up and answer regarding the law in and I guess my first question is this is that when was that Miss White? is that can you can you
Speaker 181
59:11
come back up to answer just to clarification Senator
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
59:21
Love you you have a question for you have a question for staff. I have questions for Miss White cause and based on based on the testimony she just entered that's that's what I'm basing this on so Miss White I'm just going through a timeline so based on the law we had the the committee had the discretion to refer it to the treasurer's office is that
Speaker 159
59:44
yes senator Love that is accurate that discretion you all
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
59:51
had in July. OK so then we're not debating I guess the debate umm on'm hearing two things the debate is in my mind the question is we have the discretion to refer so they did they could refer it or they could not refer it. is that not correct? Yes sir that is correct and then they referred it. So my the question in my mind is can we can we
Speaker 160
1:00:16
rescind that action the way that the code section reads Senator Love and that's that's subparagraph C in
Speaker 108
1:00:25
14,234,120 It says that once the committee decides to refer it at that point the action that is called upon for the treasurer is a mandate. It says the treasurer shall withhold those funds until all reports have been filed through the
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:00:42
most recent fiscal year. OK so so so to your to your knowledge then we cannot rescind that action. the the this the joint auditing body cannot rescind that action that
that the committee made is that what
Speaker 160
1:00:58
you're saying? Is that your testimony senator it is. I listen
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:01:01
because I mean what I'm saying is we're debating to me we're debating two different things we're debating number one is did we have the discretion to make that action yes or no we did not I mean if the committee did not send that action to the treasurer's office then it wouldn't it wouldn't be an issue but it did create the
issue in my question is then not if it's legal or not for this body this body to actually rescind that action because that's what we're debating. The debate to me is is can we rescind that action it's not if we're if it's if we're operating illegally because we we have the discretion in the code to say if we could refer or could not refer the report and so I think we need to be very careful when we begin to start saying
that we're operating illegally because the committee did not have to to send it over there in the first place I mean so I think I think you know for us to cast aspersions in that we're operating we're not operating within the law or not this body had the discretion to either send or not send and I think we need to debate that point carefully versus are we operating legally or illegally because those are
those are two different points within this within this this law within the code and so I just I think we need to kind of tamp down on if we're operating legally or illegally or changing you know different things like that because that's the that that rhetoric I don't like I will say and I think we just need to tamp down that that type of rhetoric because this body for us to
actually have the discretion that's within the law. right are you going to entertain this point of order because I do want to hear this.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:03:14
yes I was trying to find the button here. yes sir and just this is not directed at you and love but I think the conversation is heading in a direction that we are asking our legal attorney to render a legal opinion. I'm
not really sure that that is the right position to put her in. I think that direct questions but we need to be a little bit cautious about putting our staff attorney in a position to pick sides as far as legal or not. and and and I appreciate the live questioning but I think there ought to be a degree of caution to that Mr
Speaker 141
1:03:48
Chair. thank you thank you Senatorhammer and I agree with that and hold on for a second Mrs chairir with all
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:03:54
due respect though when you ask when and I'm not'm
not directing this to staff but we asked her to legaluu ask her to render the decision and she rendered it so I'm speaking on what she rendered I'm not asking her to pick sides, I'm just picking on she rendered something and that's what we're debating. So I mean so I don't want to put on the spot so Miss White don't take it like that but what I'm saying is I'm listening to the rhetoric that we're exchanging and that's that's what I'm speaking to not for the fact that you know what
Miss White rendered so anyway in the last thing I would say is this is is we talk about the precedents that were that were setting a number of these cities have caught me as well and the point that I think represented a Mcellroy made senator Gilmore made about the CPAs and Mr Chair, you are a CPA as well. of CPpa firms not being able to get down to those small communities to actually provide
those services that is a real issue I mean I've worked on this commit this committee right here my entire legislative session in this is a real issue for these small communities to get CPA's down there to do this to get this work done so I think when people start talking about precedents and grace and different things like that. I think we need to really think about that as well so with that Mr Chair I'm done. thank you.
right. thank you Senator Love and and and I I think just to clarify, uh, and and I'll let Miss White speak for herself in just
a minute. but I I think what I heard was not rendering an opinion. she was reading the law to us what it says and what it doesn't say. and then I don't think there was a debate as to whether or not because there's two parts there's discretion and then once you go beyond that we don't have that discretion. I think the discretion portion of the debate there is no debatebody agree s we have the discretion but the
other part is where the debate is so just to clarification on that Representative beatty you're recognized.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:06:12
Thank you Mr Chair. I just kind of want to follow up because I think
ent er loveve kind of hit on the point I'm I'm I'm hitting on as well. One, the clear language of the act is is understandable by all these cities failed to submit their audits . the language in the bill said that that list you know once that motion was made on July10th that that would be
submitted to the treasurer and then turnback funds would be held we don't don't I don't dispute that or argue that point but I don't see anything in that legislation again we're not changing law because we're not changing anything that's in the code we're we're using the discretion we have as legislators that we were given by the constituents that elected us to provide grace to some of our cities and I don't see anything and I asked this yesterday where in code or where
in in in state law do we give up our rights as legislators to address an issue or something that we feel needs some additional attention we don't have to have a a a legislative act to extend a date we can take that action as a body vote or pass that and I respect the opinions of those when you cast your vote because we all have one vote I would I would just say right now you may not have a city that's in this circumstance and right now it just applies to
water and sewer audits but it could apply to other areas in the future that affect directly affect your city and your constituents so my deal is I don't dispute the language in the law that's clear language we all understand we met our obligation the motion was made legislative audit has fulfilled their duties per that legislation I don't see where it's an act or a power of legislative audit to tell this body that we don't have the authority to take an action and if we take that
action and then that's relayed to the treasurer's office that shouldn't have any impact on legislative audit or the process or the job that they are are to discharge for this state but we're not changing law by making this action and so I think members that that's the only place I would dispute or or disagree with you on is we're not changing law by taking this action we're giving grace to some communities that need it some of the most impoverished communities that we have in the state and what we're
going to do is you're going to create and compound the problems that legislative audit and that city county committee deals with in the future because these folks don't have the resources to pay their employees and provide essential services so they're going to utilize all avenues that they have to take care of things and you legislative audit I'm I'm gonna be waiting to see when you go back in and do the audit for this time period where you take 90 days worth of cash flow out of these small towns to see how
they've utilized funds to take care of the needs for their for their citizens but this directly impacts constituents in my district and that's why I'm speaking up on this y'all know I believe in enforcing the law and the rules and I think we've done that by holding that turnback money they've had 90 days of no cash flow coming in . it'll be October before they could get their money back so 90 days out right now is budget time for these cities. So along the same lines that's compounded their budgeting process and everything else.
we're not punishing these mayors you're punishing the the small mom and pop and the citizens of these communities when their services aren't there. So I would just ask you to make that consideration. we're not changing law. we are strictly exercising the authority that each of us have as legislators. So I'd please ask you to think on that and quit focusing that that we're changing state law because we can only do that by legislative act, not a vote of this body and it's something we do every month
every month that we meet we do things like this so we're not stepping out of our our territory. Maybe not in legislative audit but in other committees that meet in this room so
with that I ask you to reflect on
that and I thank you for letting me speak Mr chairir. thank
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:10:29
you cochair Luundstrom you had a comment or yes just a point of clarification the bill as it states gives them 18 months to comply then it gives an additional 12 months and all of that so that's been 2.5 years to
comply I I think that needs to be very clear before before it gets to line30 the treasurer's office and we voted to shell remove the turnback funds they still get their funds once they comply and they don't have to wait till the next month once they get their job done and cities are to their credit they are getting the job done that's turned on almost the next day so they're not having to wait an additional month but 2.5 years before this action was taken
they've known this OK and and and I just feel like I now's a good time to interject this because of a few things that were said not in not in a negative vein but I staff legislative audit works for us and and they're not picking sides they're interpreting the law and I think we want that to be a bright line that they notify us on and and so I don't think that we need to , I don't want to use the word
blame. I I think we just need to be conscious of the fact that they work for us that they are doing what they feel like they're the reporting requirement per the law is they're not they're not picking sides so p re s ent ative ga z a way you recognize Thank
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:11:58
you Mr Chair and I guess first let me begin by saying that I have a great deal
of respect for all the opinions that have been expressed here so far and I have a great deal of respect for legislative audit and the staff I served as chair of this committee the last legislative
session and was actually the sponsor of the bill that we're discussing here today but I would note that lawyers have different opinions the supreme court for example is made up of lawyers who have become judges who issue opinions and this is why there is a descent because lawyers disagree all the time it happens everyday and with regard to this particular bill and the language of the bill and I completely agree wholeheartedly with
Representative Beatty that we're not changing the law we can't change the law the law says what it says the issue before us today is the interpretation of that law and again lawyers can disagree about interpretation as they do every day and so when I look at this bill and I look at if I'm asked to interpret it what I see is that the legislative joint auditing committee which is this committee may give notice of the fact
to the treasurer of the state that these reports are late we may which means what we did with that law is we empowered this committee with discretion the committee may the committee has discretion now we exercise that discretion when we gave notice to the treasurer a couple of months ago but that in my opinion and again it's my opinion does not mean that this committee loses discretion this committee has discretion we are elected by the
people to exercise discretion and we retain our discretion and so if our discretion now is to withdraw revoke or or rescind our notice that is the discretion that this committee can exercise that actually in my opinion is probably the proper way to handle this would be a motion to withdraw revoke and rescind the notice that we gave the treasurer because Miss White is correct oncece you give the notice the treasurer shall the treasurer has no discretion
under the law that we passed but this committee retains the discretion to do what we want this is what we were elected to do aspresentative beatty said and so I'm just of the opinion that if this committee that this committee is empowered to withdraw its notice to rescind its notice to revoke its notice to the treasurer and at the appropriate time and I agree once again wholeheartedly with Representative beatty's comments that we should enforce this law this is a good law this is a law that we should seek to enforce
to ensure compliance and I wholeheartedly support the law that I sponsored and that this legislature passed but this committee retains the discretion in my opinion to revoke that consent and then to give notice again at the proper time and so that's that's what I would ask this committee to consider as you consider your vote on this motion and maybe at some point there needs to be another motion but again my opinion is that that would be the appropriate way to handle this and I
respectfully respect all the other opinions that were also given thank you very much thank you Representative
Gazaway senator dismay you're recognized thank you for recognizing me as a noncommittee
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:15:31
member kind of listening to the debate I'm not sure where we're at in the process . I mean but I do know what you're being asked to vote on is do you approve the report or do you not? there's already been the debate on do we withdraw something from the report and vote it separate and the membership said no
right so we're only debating whether or not you're going to approve the report but what I would like to do is go back in time and kind of look at what we're doing here and what what we're allowing nonlegislative entities they have the authority to dictate which is policy this bill wasn't something that Representative Gasaway and Senator Wallace streamed up overnight. It was a bill that was brought to them by legislative audit drafted by legislative audit and we're sitting in this room right now saying there is no interpretation other than the
one provided by legislative audit who drafted the bill. that's a ton of authority . the other thing that I would say and this goes to what Representative Gazaway's point is in the bill it gives discretion and do we know the one thing this committee did not do outline what that meant the most crucial important part of the bill which was giving this body discretion we didn't even sit with the parameters were. again we were giving our authority to
set discretion to a non elected body. that honestly doesn't need to have the power to set policy on what is decided to be sent or not sent that is y'all's discretion. so again I think you've got two things happening number one you've got the ability to vote and prove or not approve and if you read what he what is his motion was yesterday it isn't by way an engagement letter isn't a little deal. if you sign an engagement letter that is not just some willy nilly letter that goes out and
is a piece of paper that has teeth it's a binding contract it's a real thing and the second part that I would say to that is it also says that the audit has to be complete if I heard his own words from the the the motion that was made that's not in front of you by the way. all y'all have and are debating is a piece of paper . Everybody else is a copy of the law everybody else has a copy of the motion and we do not sitting at your desk as far as I know. but if I understood what you said there's a there's a
specified date and when that audit even has to be complete. so what he was seeking to do was set discretion or set the parameters for discretion. and if we allow for discretion what does that look like? and then the last piece is I would agree Representative Gasaway, I think that the more prudent thing is because you have the ability to do it is to withdraw or you know remove y'all's motion to send that to you know the department of treasury whatever it was but again I just I don't know where we're at. I feel like I
appreciate the latitude because I think we've got a tonnenel latitude we were supposed to be in a roll call and we devolved into a full on plate and we went from the debate to actually allowing questioning of outside entities that I don't know where we are today I'm a nonmember speaking so well then you're cut off then I appreciate that but again I I just I I want us all to be very mindful of what we are allowing someone else to have the authority to do that is only being given to you as a member of this audit
committee, not our staff to you thank you senator dispayne. So I,
I guess in that vein with your comment and and with senator or Representative Gazaway's comment but and there's been multiple times both
in committee yesterday and today by the people that knew that they were not available today that the attorney general needs to to speak out my question would be at this point Representativegazaway if if between now and then between now
and the next meeting the attorney general says guys what you did was wrong what is going to be our reaction or or how how do we undo what we did that we undid so that that's a question that I that I'm a little concerned about which may
or may not happen so Representativeasaway, you may have a an opinion there follow up well I
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:19:50
see Senator Wallace has got his hand raised and I I certainly don't want to jump over him so it
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
1:19:58
he may want to answer your question London come at far we're that's speculation we don't know what's gonna
be said we're we're here in a moment right now but they may or may not agree with what has been said that that that's like asking will the sun come up tomorrow that we are here now as lawmakers to make a decision . not to hide behind the bureaucracy thank you sir
clarify on bureaucracy we're talking about theagG or we're talking
about OK thank you Senator Johnson thank you
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:20:46
Mr Chairman I think where we're headed here is some interesting case law I can't see how this couldn't be ending up in some court somewhere and that may be a good thing
I definitely first I wanna say I appreciate the comments of Senator Wallace and Representative beatty basically pointing out the problem. The problem is these municipalities need some help and they they got their rear ends in a crack kind of thing I also appreciate our house co-chair pointing out that they had a lot of time to extract themselves from that situation and and for one reason or another failed to do so
which led to a good piece of legislation that passed basically unanimously in the house and the senate and now we're coming back and say yes but that's good law but yes but we need this exception now since yesterday's meeting I've been kind of in a in a situation as senator Gilmore called it a conundrum that's probably another word for it as well but I've been thinking how do we get out of this staying true to our
oaths to uphold the law but not hurting our people and our our mayors and city council members are trying just trying to do their job I am intrigued by Representative gazaway's point that perhaps we can do this through a motion to rescind our previous act and I have to think that regardless of the the issue we're about to vote on whether we adopt the report or not I
think that that if that is the will of the committee then maybe we we should rescind that act especially if it's rescindable and that may be where the case law we're going to see decided comes down but but here here's what I wanted to say about about this most importantly we make an act a legal act and let's compare it to some a couple that goes down to the courthouse and gets them a marriage license and they find someone that can solemnize
marriages and they get married and they they say I do and that person
says I pronounce you. I started to say husband and wife but that's not even that way anymore that you're married and then they walk out of court and say hey
we made a mistake we don't want to do that well how do you undo that? Well it requires legal action and I asked the thing I'm really asking myself is if I'm the treasurer today and he can speak for himself. He
is a constitutional officer If I were the treasurer, what
would I do? now if he if I were the treasurer, I
think I would follow the law to the extent that his legal counsel and the attorney general tells him to follow and we know that word shall is in there so if we don't want him to follow it then perhaps the best way to give him a tool to not have to follow it is to do what
Representative Gaaway mentioned and that this committee today votes to rescind our July action now to me the question is is it rescindable at this moment if it is then I think maybe we've gone a long way towards solving this conundrum but if it's not then someone will probably file an illegal exaction lawsuit and it'll go to court and then we'll have that case law so I think everybody here everybody in the
room doesn't want to hurt our citizens by cutting off money to for important services on the other hand it's do we want to just ignore the lock when it's not real convenient for us. So I'm hoping that the if we accept the report and I think votes are probably here to to approve the the report then we immediately moved to some kind of action such aspresentative Gazaway suggested that we officially if the committee has that power then we
should act today and rescind our July action and allow the treasurer to move forward with this additional advice and not force him to have to do something that the law absolutely mandates he do so I hope I'm I hope I'm clear about that and Mr Chairman thank you for the opportunity to speak on that thank
you representative ye you're recognized thank you miss chairir.
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:25:45
ig thing about what I see here is just a movement of dates that's what I think that senator Wallace was trying to do in the first place to get everything straight so that the counties and cities would be able to operate in a proper manner and while we're sitting here we we've got folks that are out there in in small towns now that don't have enough money to hire someone to do their their their accounting work
so I mean to me it's a very simple thing I think we're making a whole lot harder than what it really is and I think we need to do what the people would want us to do and I appreciate you letting me speak Mr Speaker Senator Hammer you're recognized
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:26:38
thank you Mr chairir. for me to make
a decision about my vote I'd like to ask a point of information please if I may. yes sir
. how many how many entities are we talking about here? There are44 on the 22 list and around69 or so on the 23 list. how how many have been turned over to the treasury? Kevin would you care to answer that? Yeah so the number of
Speaker 126
1:27:19
entities that had not submitted the 2022 report in July where43 entities since that 0.3 have caught up underneath legislative audit's interpretation of the code. So at this point if not mistaken there are40 entities of which turnback funds are currently
Speaker 218
1:27:32
being withheld. How many of them reached out to you for
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:27:36
help as they got it so we help all the
Speaker 126
1:27:49
municipalities and we provide guidance to the municipalities but I want to make sure to clarify something that was stated here in relation to water and sewer engagements is that legislative audit does not perform those engagements we do not perform water sewer engagements we are not auditing the water and sewer funds that's only4 private CPA firms
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:28:08
completion if if does that answer your question? It it did and one last
question how many other ones do you do not the water sewer because you can't do those about
how many how many of the other entities in comparison to the ones we're debating about do you currently do if you had the
Speaker 126
1:28:30
ballpark thank you Mr chairir. if I understand your question correctly.
Speaker 218
1:28:34
there are around500 municipalities and we perform the general financial audits for around460 of those. right. last one in the
queuepresentative Brown and then we're going to move thank you chairir.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:28:53
I just would like some information maybe from staff these pe these cities that are so far behind I mean nobody wants to hurt the residents of those cities no one wants to cause them harm it seems that we have a very liberal approach to giving them time to get their reports done but my concern is if they can't hire a CPA to do this or if they don't have the money to do get their reports done
is this is just a question this isn't a criticism how much will they actually have time to get it done by the end of the year that's one question. The other thing is can they not see the futility in using a private auditor and use the art legislative joint auditing or our audit committee, our audit staff
can they reverse their decision to use a private auditor could they not just
Speaker 123
1:30:02
use our audit staff and get it done. p re s ent ative
Speaker 126
1:30:06
Brown if I understand your question correctly. that is where the municipalities currently stand as in July there was a 12 month window that was started of which they are to get those audit reports filed and at the end of that 12 month period if they have not filed those audit reports they would lose
the funds completely they're currently being escrowled. I believe that answers one of your questions. Your second question about legislative audit performing these services again that has been a service that legislative audit has not provided. in order for this to be a a a success and to hold all funds accountable we work in partnership with private firms and private firms doing this work is necessary to get them monitored. We don't have the capacity to audit all the water and sewer funds does that answer your question ?
let me restate it this way the legislative
audit, our legislative audit do not currently audit any of the entities that we're talking about today that that is not part of of their role as legislative audit currently. so are we just talking about water and
Speaker 227
1:31:19
sewer audits or are we talking about their whole audit water and sewer audits so
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:31:25
and legislative audit doesn't do those that's correct
right, are we ready to move on here? Let's right . s p re s ent ative ga z a way amm I recognized there we
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:31:58
go you are recognized yes sir. So you asked if everybody was ready to move on I'm not entirely sure
because I think the just want to make sure everybody knows and I know what we're voting on. my understanding is the motion is to approve the report as it was presented that would include Senator Wallace's motion that they be given additional time until December31st which I think still leaves open some question about what happens on December31st is it an automatic the funds are shut off again or does this committee need to meet and resend a notice
and I I don't know the answer to that I I wasn't unfortunately it wasn't in the subcommittee yesterday so I don't know what the discussion was and exactly what the parameters of the of the motion the approved motion were but I think that may be something
we want to figure out before we vote. you must have overheard as we were having that same discussion. so what I was
about to say is if if senator Wallace and I could together articulate the question the the motion the questions
what happens at that point from your motion and and what what I heard was that the action that was taken in July is undone and the funds are released immediately all of the funds and then come December31st if they don't have their audit completed then the process starts again and at that point immediately
staff notifies the treasure but that's just what I heard. I want you to clarify for for everyone here so that was that was yes ok and and just to clarify on the engagement letter senator Dimay talked about the engagement letter the the we're talking about the actual audit, not an engagement letter at December31st. sir ok
p re s ent ative dalby that was the the committee report and then the motion was
Speaker 234
1:34:28
on that. Representativealby. Oh, I was just
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:34:31
asking for clarification if Senator Wallace would just I mean, I forgot now what the motion what his motion was and you know with all the discussion just for clarifying purposes
because that's part of the report and I just wanted to hear that motion again be but referencing Walmack just handed it to me and it it doesn't say everything has to be in31st the motion that I'm reading says the committee voted to approve the reinstatement of turnback funds for the remaining delinquent entities that have filed a December31st,2022 report or have provided an engagement letter stating the reports will be filed by the end of the year but
then I heard him say otherwise that his motion a while ago and and that's what I'm asking is that an accurate statement of the motion or was the motion that I understood from yesterday was if you've got the engagement letter in by the end of the year you're ok and then you can get that audit in later that was my always has been my understanding of his motion that's what I'm asking clarification because it
seems like we've gotten offtra somewhere and I can't
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
1:35:43
follow what it is he's trying to do. I think it best let me
read this motion again and then I'll I'll speak to it if a city is on the 2022 delinquent list their turn back will be reinstated once the 2022 audit is completed or the sitter the city has submitted a letter of engagement with a CPA to complete the 2022 audit by a date to complete the 2022 audit by a
date before December31st,2025. the city must also complete their 2023 audit by December31st,2025. so they they have to have their their audit
done by 20 by the end of 2025 December31st. OK and then the
second part of that but
the second motion was just simply is if the city is only 2023 delinquent list they have until December31st,2025 to
complete the 2023 audit. does that help senator Johnson, do you have a question or did
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:37:02
you guys get it worked out there if you well if you leave Senatoralllace's mic on
too I think we make them work this out Mr Chairman I would love to see us maybe in one motion maybe in two one after the other
pass what Senator Wallace has said but also to to make clear our our intent that we officially by voter committee rescind the referral to the treasurer that was sent in July I don't the legality of that I'm not sure of but we certainly want to give the treasurer the discretion to make the decision and not be where he feels like the law has hemmed him in on what his action would be and
it would solve this short term problem that we're dealing with of of of our our localities having these problems now I've I've just had turned to Senator Wallace and said would you consider amending your motion to add that that we approved the report and rescind the motion Maybe they need to be two separate motions as long as we don't leave today till we've done those two things I think we could create more problems for us down the line but that's that's my suggestion and I I'm kind of
looking at our our staff think is that will that work will that kind of get us out of this conundrum or is there some reason why
Speaker 112
1:38:38
maybe we perhaps should not do that so senator Mark Johnson, our understanding of the motion that Senator Wallace has made will in effect cause that that that rescission of that previous motion just
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:38:49
want to make sure that we are
clear about it and that we acknowledge our July action and that we specifically say we we rescind that I yeah I I agree with you that's the that would be the effect but I don't want there to be any question about it so I I trust y'all to come up with with the answer to that thank you Mr Chair.
right. we've got one question it looks like and then we'll summarize what we're doing one more
time so Senatorhammer Mr Chair may I ask Senator Walsh
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:41:03
a question about his motion. Yes, I think that's
what we're trying to get clarified. thank you if you'd light them up please Mr Chairman. would you
Speaker 246
1:41:18
push your button Senator Wallace so I can light you up here.ir there we go
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:41:25
thank you Mr chairir. and Senator Walace,
I just need the unattended consequences to what may happen and bring me some peace of mind if we go with this so your motion is basically going to give grace to these cities to be able to let the treasurer not withhold the money for them. I correct and ok and has that that money's already been paid out to the towns currently or it's been withheld, correct? Be withheld sir. OK. so they get to the we give it to them and they get to
the end of the time periods that you have established and they still have not done what your motion is going to require them to do what would be the retroactive date that they would withhold money or take money back from them and how would that be facilitated? I would say31 December 2025. right so that gives them to the end of the year and then if they've not complied it would kick in to where they're turnback money would be starting January1st. is that correct?
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
1:42:27
Yes sir and my logic to that is once they get that
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:42:31
money it's going to be spent so it's gonna be hard to take back. right and that's why I was concerned about I want clarification it's hard to get money back from people who can't
afford what they need to do in the first place. I just want to make sure. thank you yes sir thank you OK so just to
clarify, we are we are we've gotten clarification from Senator Wallace's motion from yesterday and what was passed
yesterday which is in the report which is what we're voting on and that motion is that immediately , immediately upon passage if assuming it passes here today notification will go to the treasurer that they will release the funds and then as of December31st,2025, those that have not had their reports
completed then the the funds would then begun begin immediately to be withheld at that point at the January10th disbursement date basically
is that correct Senator Wallace ok thank you all right are we ready staff
for the roll call the motion is to adopt the report and
we had a vote. it was very loud and yet we had another vote on the substitute motion so we're doing a roll call on the report Senator Sullivan Senator Sullivan, yes. Senator Caldwell Senator Caldwell
Speaker 113
1:44:35
Senator Flippo Senator flippo yes Senator Mark
Speaker 126
1:44:41
Johnson . Senator Mark Johnson yes , Senator Jamie Scott Senator
Speaker 113
1:44:50
Jamie Scott . Senator Jamie Scott, yes Senator Jane English
Senator Jane English, yes Senator hammer Senator hammer yes Senator senator Mcee Senator Mcee yes . Senator Krowllell Senator Steve Krowellell
Speaker 121
1:45:36
Senator Matt Stone Senator Matt Stone, i senator loveve Senator Love
Speaker 126
1:45:55
Senator Gaaway , Representative Gaaway my apologies Representative Jimmie Gasaway Representative Gaaway yes
Speaker 123
1:46:08
Representative Rye Representative rye yes Representative Mcellroy Representative Mclroy yes Representative long p re s
Speaker 123
1:46:31
Carolyn Brown son of Carolyn Brown yes
. Representative Carlton Wing Representative Carlton wing no . p re s ent ative furman Representative furman nopresentative RJhawk p re s ent ative RJhawk no representativelonstrom
Representativelonstrom no RepresentativemcAlinon not having signed in p re s ent ative
Speaker 121
1:47:23
Burkes No representative duke No Representativesteve unger
Speaker 123
1:47:29
not having signed in representative Randy Torres not having signed in representative John Carr.
Now representative womack Representative Wwomack, no Representative Howard beatty p re s ent Howard beatty yes representative carol dalby Representative Caroldalby no Representative Stanerry Representative Stanbury yes
Speaker 121
1:48:14
Representative Julie Mayberry Representative Julie Maybeyrry no Senator Wallace Senator Wallace
Speaker 123
1:48:28
signed in representative Keith Brooks son of
Speaker 121
1:48:38
Keith Brooks no senator Ben Gilmore
Senator Gilmore yes senator Justin Boyd Senator Justin Boyd
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:50:12
OK. motion passes and committee report is accepted next up Sir OK. you're recognized Mr. Chairman I move that the legislative joint auditing committee rescind the notice that was sent to the Arkansas state treasurer for at at our July meeting referring these
entities to have their turn back funds withheld. OK. clarification. I thought staff said
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:50:56
want to make sure there's no totally be unambiguous about this that are exactly what our intent is and I'll add to my motion that that the co-chairs will send a letter to that effect to the the treasurer
have a motion in a second hold on for discussion with staff, any discussion while staff is discussing any discussion of the members
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:51:32
Representative dalby thank you Mr Chair. just appears to me that we just I mean we voted and the body has spoken saying that we're going to give them until December31st so we're all on that page they now have December31st
if we now my understanding of this motion if we rescind what we did in July then we are now saying you don't you're not even youd you don't even have to have a letter in you don't have to have your audit in you don't have to do anything because we have taken that back and those provisions are not in place and so we have we have just retak off what we just did giving them a deadline we've now said we're rescinding
that all bets are off you don't have to do this and so that's the way this motion in my opinion looks like we're going to do now had we so right now we've got a date certain which I think that's what was the will of the body that was what senator Wallace was trying to get done quite frankly that's what the municipal league was wanting done because they're the ones who drafted all of this. So now then we're saying ok we're gonna take that back nothing's on the table we're back to square one like we were back in
July and I don't think that that's where we need to be because we've now said we've got a date now we're gonna say we
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:53:03
don't have a date so Senator Gilmore, thank you Mr Chair and and I don't know that this is really discussion but more of a point of clarification or point of order and I appreciate my lawyerly colleague over there and rarely do I like to disagree, but there's times when I try to play a
lawyer on TV so here I go. as I understand the motion was passed in the report for a date certain as you stated representative I think all this is doing not changing that at at all all this would be doing would be rescinding just to you know, cover our bases to clarify whatever it is a previous action back in July I think the two are mutually exclusive and completely separate as I see it and maybe staff can can speak to that if they feel differently but that's the way I see it. I think the
one has no bearing on the other Can can we work on the language of the motion and we don't have a second we we undid the second can we work on the motion to make it clear what we're rescinding and be specific that the the we're rescinding and in its place the action that was taken today replaces it or something just to clarify because I think we're we're we're creating some
mass confusion some quite frankly some possibility for litigation if we do withhold and then I just if we could clarify kill
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:54:36
your yes sir I agree with what you just said I did not write this down the motion was sort of spurred moment but I'm intrigued by as I said by Representative Gazaway's suggestion that we still possibly had the ability to just
simply say what we said to you Mr treasurer in July we rescind that and that would give him cover to not be in between in a dilemma of is he following what the committee just said in Senator Wallace's motion and what the the statute says I'm trying to give him some cover so we can get out of this situation and I think they do stand alone I appreciate Senator Gilmore agreeing with me although my
friendpresentativealby is a lawyer and a lot smarter than I am but I do think these two are are are separate but complimentary shall we say and I I trust the staff if we could come up with
something and I would hope we could maybe do it today thank you . OK. so so your your motion that you made
your your work your trusting staff to to help craft that motion to to satisfy
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:55:53
OK . Senator Hammer you're recognized well first of all do you have a second on the motion because I don't want to talk to you if you don't have a second. There is not a second on the motion. The second was withdrawn but was the motion withdrawn? The motion was not withdrawn. OK then I'll wait till you
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:56:17
get a second before I have a comment please. Representativeuckdalby this is just a parliamentary question I mean we don't have a second but
would we not be because I don't want us to be in haste we never make good decisions when we're in haste and we're trying to draft something off the top of our head. none of us do well in that deal if this would be something that the senator might consider let's address this come what is it September ouroctober meeting because they're they're good right now they're they're good they're going to be
following the motion, I mean the adoption of the report they're good right now and then if we feel like come October we need to get this in the right position to withdraw because the the treasures the treasure's going to be following what we have now said they've got this deadline until December31st and it just seems like when we start drafting off the top of our heads is when we get ourselves
in in a pickle and so I would I would just offer that as a suggestion and then as aside I appreciate Senator Gilmore's kind words we all ateid at
Speaker 80
1:57:37
a holiday inn express last night so ha right the the the
motion was withdrawnpresentative beatty I lit you up. I don't know if you still have more comment or we're done. Well
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:57:50
my my question is just to make certain I understand the intent of of
Senator Johnson's motion and I respect the the wisdom ofpresentativealby and Senator Gilmore. my question is could we, could we instruct the chairs of of leg audit to draft a letter to the treasurer informing them of the actions of this committee and and what we passed in in in the in the county committee and what this committee passed today that way they have that that that notice and we're not we're not placing that on anyone other than this
committee so that would be my request. I don't know if that needs to be in the form of a motion but if so I would place that in a motion that the chair of the committee notify the treasurer of the actions
taken today by the committee so that
they are informed properly by this committee of
the actions we took as legislators uhpresentative Beatty that is the normal process anyway the action of the committee on something like
this we would have the letter drafted and we'll begin to work on that language and proceed from there
do not need a motion right thank you sir thank you OK next on the agenda item number3 the standingittee on Educationalstitutionspresentative Duke you're recognized to
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
1:59:27
present Thank you Mr Chair. The committee met Thursday, September 11,2025 and adopted the minutes from the meeting
held July10,2025. For7 education audit reports for the year ended June30,2024 were included on the agenda. Officials from the Brinkley Dearmount Judy and pine Bluff school districts were present to answer questions from the committee related to findings in their respective audit reports which were deferred from the July meeting. A representative from the University of Arkansas East Arkansas Community College was present and answered questions from the committee related to findings in the audit report. eight school district audit reports had findings that referred to the applicable
prosecuting attorney and attorney general. the audit report of mammoths mammoth Spring School District was deferred to theoctober meeting so that school officials can be present to answer questions from the committee related to a finding in the audit report based on requests made at the July10,2025 committee meeting staff provided a summary of unauthorized withdrawal findings noted in fiscal year 2024 school district audit reports. The committee filed46 auto reports and deferred one auto report
that were brought before it. I moved to adopt this report. Thank you. do we have a second ? we have a second any discussion if not all those in favor say aye any opposed no motion is adopted and the next item on the agenda is our standing committee on state agencies and we have uhpresentative Brown is a new
substitute to present this report. So representativerown you're recognized picture your hit
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
2:01:17
your button and I can
thank you Mr Chair the standingittee on state agencies on September 11th 8 reports were on the committee's agenda yesterday to reports with the following findings were presented the department of inspector General used contract labor for the tax appeals commission in excess of the amount allowed
the military department made payroll direct deposits for active duty soldiers into the wrong bank accounts. Variousagcency staff members were present to report on how the agencies intend to address the audit findings and to answer committee questions during the meeting the committee filed the 8 reports moved to adopt this report thank you you've heard the report we have a motion
to adopt the report. do we have a second?
have a second any discussion if not all those in favor say
aye aye any opposed no motion is adopted. Next up our review of some special reports the first item is special report for law enforcement agencies compliance with asset seizure and forfeiture requirements under the uniform Controlled Substances Act for the calendar year ending December31st,2024. and Mr. Josh Davis is here and going to present this report.
Speaker 278
2:02:45
Thank you Mr chairir this report reviews law enforcement agencies compliance with the asset seizure and forfeiturere requirements of the uniform controlled Substances Act for calendar year 2024. asset forfeiture has been used since 1971 to help prevent vehicles and other property of drug traffickers from being used to commit subsequent offenses during the late 1990s legislators became concerned that a lack of uniformity and accountability in the forfeiture procedures across the state was undermining confidence in the
process during the 1999 meeting of the Arkansas General Assembly Act 1120 was enacted to address these concerns through the amendment of the uniformed Controlled Substances Act the forfeiture process shown process is shown on the slide and in exhibit three on page three of the report. Arkansas code provides that within48 hours of an asset seizure, the seizing officer shall file the original confiscation report with the seizing law enforcement agency for maintenance in a separate file within three days of receiving that report the
seizing agency shall forward a copy of the report to the prosecuting attorney for the district in which the property was seized and to the Arkansas drug director for entry in the asset seizure tracking system In turn, the prosecuting attorney has60 days to file a complaint in circuit court listing the seized property. Schedule one on page four the report provides a summary of seized assets for counter 2024 for all judicial districts. For example, as shown on this slide in the second judicial district
almost470,000 dollars in currency,28 automobiles,46 firearms and two other assets were seized in 2024. for the entire state over3.7 million dollars317 automobiles,453 firearms and34 other items were seized. over the past 10 years, over48 million dollars,4,100 vehicles and5,200 firearms have been seized The map on the slide and an exhibit one on page two of the
report shows the seven judicial districts selected for testing to conduct the review two seizure incidences in each district were chosen from the asset seizure tracking system we traced the seized asztecs recorded in the system to the supporting confiscation report and verified required procedures had been followed in the disposition of the seized assets. Additionally, one confiscation report was randomly selected from the agency and traced to the system to ensure all seized assets had been properly reported. Finally one seized asset was randomly
selected from the agency's evidence room and traced to the entity's confiscated inventory records. All material assets selected for testing were accounted for, however, exceptions in record keeping were noted at three of the le agencies reviewed. as listed on page three of the report, the Almalice department did not maintain a separate file of renral confiscation reports. The8ightth South Drug Task Force
did not obtain and maintain a proper transfer of property receipt . The Dallas County sheriff's office did not forward the confiscation report to the Arkansas drug director within the required3 business days the Dallas County sheriff's officef, the Almalice department and the eight Southug task forcece did not maintain adequate ces property inventory records and the Alma police department did not include an odometer reading as required by the code in the confiscation report for seized vehicles s po n s es from these agencies were provided in appendixs A, B
and C respectively. Legislative audit intends to follow up with these agencies to verify whether corrective action has been taken. Additionally, chedule two on page five of the report provides the number of agencies reviewed by legislative audit and the number of agencies with the exceptions for the past five county years for example in calendar year 2020 we reviewed 14 agencies and noted5 exceptions therefore, almost36% of the agencies reviewed had exceptions during that year.
Mr Chair this concludes my presentation and in the consideration of time and the presence of agency officials was not requested today as previously mentioned staff will follow up with those law enforcement agencies with exceptions during the next review cycle to ensure corrective action has been taken. Thank you Mr Chair.
thank you Mr Davis committee you've heard the report are there any questions for staff regarding this report? If
not do I have a motion to file the report
have a motion a second we got a second. all right. any discussion on the motion? if not all those in favor say aye any opposed? no. motion passes. The next item is the special report for law enforcement agencies compliance with tobacco seizure and forfeiture requirements for the calendar year December31st,2024. Mr. Davis you're recognized to present that report. Thanks again Mr
Speaker 277
2:07:47
Chair. This letter reports law enforcement agencies calendar year 2024
Speaker 278
2:07:53
compliance with tobacco seizures and forfeiture requirements. Arkansas code provides forfeiture procedures for tobacco products upon which the full amount of excise tax due was not paid or which were possessed or sold by an unlicensed wholesaler or retailer in addition the property and money used to facilitate a criminal violation of code for the manufacturer distribution of contraband tobacco products may be seized and forfeited to the state According to Arkansasbac tobacco Control one tobaccorelated asset seizure occurred in calendar year 2024. In addition, legislative audit followed
staff followed up on seizures that were outstanding in the prior year to ensure agency compliance with co requirements. No instances of noncompliance were noted as a result of staff procedures legislative audit did follow up on one seizure that was still outstanding from the county year 2023 report to ensure compliance with code requirements the seizure occurred in april on April8th of 2019 and included over 17,000 dollars, a delay in that disposition is typically caused by extenuating circumstances beyond the control
of the consorio agency in this instance the attorney for the prosecuting attorney's office who were over the case were allowed to withdraw because they were no longer employed by the prosecuting attorney's office. As over the review date, the cast was still being held in the prosecutor attorney's drug task forcece asset forfeiture holding fund pending that disposition. and this concludes my presentation again a consideration of time presidency of presence of agency officials was was not requested. thank you Mr Chair. thank you Mr Davis committee you've heard
the report are there any questions for staff
regarding this report? If not, do I have a motion to file the report motion in a second. any discussion if not all those in favor say aye any opposed no motion passes the the next item is an investigative report for review of selected transactions for the Marion County Regional Airport for the period May 1st,2017 through May31st,2024. Mr Anthony Weston, you are recognized to present that report.
Speaker 282
2:09:57
thank you Mr Chair this report is issued in response to requests from the fourth judicial district prosecuting attorney for legislative audit to review selected transactions of the Marion County Regional Airport. our assistance was requested to investigate financial discrepancies and assist in the Arkansas Statelice investigation. the objectives of this review were to determine if airport disbursements specifically payments made to the board treasurer were documented and proper. Department determine if the
airport complied with Arkansas code requirements for obtaining annual financial audits and assess internal controls for adequacy. the airport was established by county ordinance governed by a sixmember board according to the airport bylaws the board treasurer is responsible for all funds and securities of the board collecting and disbursing funds and providing a financial report to the board and the uorum Court quarterly. The individual serving as treasure during the review period resigned in February of last year.
The board maintains3 bank accounts and airport funding consists primarily of fuel cells and hangar rentals. The county contributed 2000 to the operation of the airport in u023. as a regional airport the airport is required by Maral code to be audited by CPA within 150 days after the end of each fiscal year. Review of airport bank statements revealed undocumented and questionable disbursements totalling over 117,000 dollars. This amount includes over
$111,000 in undocumented disbursements to the board treasurer and6,000 in checks made payable to cash as shown in exhibit one. due to insufficient documentation we were unable to determine a valid business purpose for these disbursements. It should be noted that many of the checks to the boardard treasurer were issued out of sequence with other checks issued for routine airport expenses. Financial statements for January through October 2023 were provided for review and we were unable to reconcile ending
balances revenues and expenses with bank activity furthermore balance sheets indicated twocDs which totaled over77,000 dollars as of July2023. However, bank inquiries indicated the airport has not had any CDs in the last seven years. Arkal code requires the airport to be audited annually and it appears the airport has never received a financial audit In inadequate financial records and several internal control
deficiency were also noted invoices were not always retained to support disbursements ledgers were not prepared for all bank accounts and bank accounts were not reconciled. in an ci al duties were not adequately segregated due to an inadequate number of personnel and the airport did not implement adequate compensating controls while financial statements were provided to the board information did not agree with the bank activity the board did not provide adequate fiscal oversight
we recommend that the airport maintain adequate financial records segregate financial duties to the extent possible obtain annual audits by an independent CPA and evaluate Fidelity bond coverage to protect the airport from theft of financial resources We further recommend that the board provide adequate fiscal oversight of airport transactions bank statements be reviewed monthly by someone not involved in the bookkeeping process and financial transactions be monitored for propriety.
in summary our review revealed undocumented disbursements totalling over $117,000 payable to the boardard treasurer or cash in inadequate financial records and internal control deficiencies in addition we were unable to determine when twocDs totaling over77,000 dollars were cashed and how those funds were used. this report was forwarded to the fourth judicial district prosecuting attorney and the attorney general. douglas Starkey who served as
board treasurer during the review period resigned in February 2024, was charged with felony theft of property and abuse of office in May of this year Mr Starkey pled guilty to these charges, was sentenced to60 months probation and was ordered to pay over $117,000 in restitution to the airport according to the current board president restitution has been paid in full Mr Chair this concludes my presentation. Management response is provided in appendix A of the report and officials are present to respond to committee questions.
Thank you Mr. Weston. committee you've heard the report we also have representatives from Marion County from the regional airport and from the city of flipping available if you so desire are there any questions for staff or it is is it your desire to call any of the witnesses to the
to the table So just for my sake
in in summary the the airport is required by law to be audited
annually but they have not ever provided an audit and as a result of that there was a request by someone in the legislature to do selected transactions because there hadn't been an audit and these are the transactions that you found poi potential improprieties and and funds
that cannot be accounted for of about77,000 dollars I believe that the prosecutor requested this
Speaker 282
2:15:46
due to the board coming across information that led them to request the legislative
Speaker 286
2:15:52
be involved but they they are required by law to produce an audit. They just
Speaker 245
2:15:58
have failed to produce an audit my opinion
actually I see it yeah here Arkansas code 14362124. OK. so thank you. Senator Johnson, you are recognized
thank you Mr chairman Mr Weston
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:16:17
I've seen a lot of things since I've been on this committee but this is the first time I've ever heard they said they had CDs that no one could find they didn't exist was this just by your investigation he they just lied and said we had CDs and put it on a ledger sheet and but they they were just the money was absconded with is that pretty well
Speaker 283
2:16:40
what it appears to be well according to the state police affidavit, the state police investigator
Speaker 282
2:16:47
questioned him about that and he admitted to to stealing the se77 approximately70,000 dollars worth of CDs before he started with the rest of the funds so
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:16:56
there were at one time CDs he just cashed them in and pocketed the and the bank records the banks were not
Speaker 283
2:17:02
able to go back far enough to tell us when those sees the time period correct
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:17:07
thank you for your answer thank you Mr Cha. Thank you.
Any other questions? Obviously we're here in audit and we see the significance and
the importance of having audits timely filed. if not , I don't see any others in the queue so do I have a motion to file the report have a motion in a second any discussion? if not all those in favor say aye any opposed motion pass so that concludes the review of the reports under other business the next meetings of the legislative joint auditittee will be on October 9th and 10th,2025.
Unknown speaker
2:17:51
seeing no other business we are adjourned.
Agenda
A. Call to Order by Chair
B. Adoption of Minutes
C. Reports of Executive and Standing Committees:
D. Review of Reports:
E. Other Business:
The next meetings of the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee will be held October 9 and 10, 2025.
F. New Business
G. Adjournment
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — LEGISLATIVE JOINT AUDITING, Sep 12, 2025 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Jim Petty Chair
Unverified
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
Speaker 29
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
Speaker 32
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 21
Representative Mark D. McElroy
Unverified
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
Speaker 92
Senator Scott Flippo
Unverified
Speaker 97
Speaker 108
Speaker 113
Speaker 121
Speaker 126
Speaker 102
Speaker 138
Speaker 145
Speaker 157
Speaker 159
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
Speaker 181
Speaker 160
Speaker 141
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
Speaker 218
Speaker 123
Speaker 68
Speaker 227
Speaker 234
Speaker 112
Speaker 246
Speaker 163
Speaker 80
Speaker 273
Speaker 278
Speaker 277
Speaker 282
Speaker 286
Speaker 245
Speaker 283