Legislative Joint Auditing
Video
Transcript
1 document
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
If we can just see that it's not a good one. We're going to have to wait a minute. We're going to have to wait a minute. We're going to have to wait a minute. We're going to have to wait a minute. We're going to have to wait a minute. We're going to have to wait a minute. We're going to have to wait a minute. We're going to have to wait a minute. I'm going to have to wait a minute. We're going to have to wait a minute. We're going to have to wait a minute. We're going to have to wait a minute. Members, if you'd go ahead and start to find your seats, we're going to start here promptly at 9 o'clock.
Unknown speaker
2:28
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Joint Audit Committee for Friday June the 6th will begin our first order
of business is selection of seating for the 2025-2026 meetings and we are going to follow mr. white and go in order of seniority that's correct so listen
Speaker 13
4:16
listen for your name so the selection is going to go based
Speaker 14
4:22
on order of seniority first person is representative r.j hawk he has chosen seat number 76. second is senator dotson
Speaker 15
4:36
not seeing senator let's do you want to pick him a seat or
Speaker 19
4:41
do you want to just we can assign right let's let's
Speaker 17
4:45
pick that one right there doing that one right there yeah Tim, go see
Speaker 14
4:56
what number this is. Senator Dotson, seat 54. Next is Representative Womack.
Speaker 14
5:10
move on. Next is Senator Caldwell. Next is Representative Eaves. Next is Senator English. Next is Representative Ladyman.
Speaker 29
5:41
Next is Senator Hester. Next is Representative
Speaker 14
6:08
Carolyn Brown. Next is Senator Scott Flippo.
Next is Representative Gassaway. next is
Speaker 29
6:34
Senator Wallace I'll get you next is Representative Barker we did not
Speaker 34
6:53
seat number 72. Next is Representative Barker. Not seeing
Speaker 14
7:00
Representative Barker. Next is Senator Mark Johnson. Not seeing Mark Johnson. Next is Representative. 55.
Speaker 34
7:16
Senator Mark Johnson is 55. Next is Representative Johnny Rye.
Speaker 14
7:21
Representative Rye is seat number 46. Next is Senator Kim Hammer. Senator Hammer is seat 88. Next is Representative Carol Dalby. Representative Dalby has chose seat 64.
next to Senator Dan Sullivan. Senator Sullivan has chosen seat 57. Next is Representative Carlton Wing.
Speaker 14
8:13
is seat number 53. Next is Representative Stan Berry.
Speaker 21
8:21
Representative Berry has chose seat 43. Next is Senator
Speaker 44
8:40
Murdoch. Representative Murdoch is seat number 23. Next is Representative Mayberry. Representative
Speaker 14
8:50
Mayberry has chose seat 44.
Next is Senator Matt McKee. Senator McKee has chose seat 59. Next is Representative Cameron Cooper. Representative Cooper has chose seat 45. Next is Senator Boyd. do we move
Speaker 14
9:24
adjusted next is representative harlan bro Representative
Speaker 29
9:40
Harlan-Brow. Not seeing a representative of Harlan-Brow. Next is Senator Joshua Bryant. Senator Bryant is seat 89.
Next is Representative Brian Evans.
Speaker 34
10:11
Representative Evans is seat 67. Next is
Speaker 14
10:15
Senator Kroll. Senator Kroll is seat 84. Next is Representative McElroy. Not seeing Representative McElroy.
Next is Senator Matt Stone. Senator Stone is seat 58. Next is Representative
Speaker 21
10:40
Furman. Representative Furman is seat 39. Next is
Speaker 49
10:50
Senator Dees. 51 is. I'm sorry, 51 is Hester. 51 is Hester, I'm sorry.
Speaker 21
11:23
Next is Senator Frederick Love. Senator Love
Speaker 14
11:41
McAlendon Wayne I'm sorry representative Wayne long is seat 41
Next is Senator Jamie Scott. Senator Scott is seat 24. Next is Representative Matthew
Speaker 29
12:26
Brown. Representative Brown is seat 38. Next is Representative Hope Duke.
Speaker 58
13:03
all right next is representative Steve Unger
Speaker 34
13:30
Representative Unger is seat 21. Next is Representative Brad Hall.
Representative Brad Hall is seat 20. Next is Representative Stephen Meeks. Representative Stephen Meeks is seat 19.
Speaker 14
14:08
Next is Senator Missy Irvin. Next is Representative Lane Jean, Representative Lane Jean is seat 63.
Next is Senator Jonathan Dismang. Senator Dismang is seat 81. Senator Irvin is seat 60. Next is Representative Matthew Shepard.
Speaker 34
14:51
Representative Shepard is seat 71. Next is Senator Alan Clark.
Speaker 29
15:21
Next is Representative Wardlaw. Representative
Speaker 14
15:37
Wardlaw, seat 70. Next is Senator Stubblefield. Next is Representative Ron McNair.
66 is taken
Speaker 58
16:21
Representative McNair, seat 68. Next is Senator Hickey. Hickey is
Speaker 14
16:50
seat 83. Next is representative Mary Bentley. Next is
This is Senator Blake Johnson. Senator Blake Johnson is seat 86.
Speaker 58
17:37
representative Dwight Tosh. Representative Tosh is seat 69. Next is Senator Brianne Davis.
Representative Davis is seat 87. Next is Representative Rick Beck. hey members we're
15 minutes into this if they're if they are not here we're going to speed this along and we'll assign it after this if you if you guys don't
Speaker 14
18:23
mind. Next is Senator Ricky Hill. Next is representative Kenneth Ferguson.
Speaker 29
18:36
Next is Senator Clark Tucker. Next is representative Fred Allen. Representative Fred Allen, seat 34. Next is Senator Clint Penzo. Next is Next is Representative Lee Johnson.
Speaker 14
19:17
Next is Representative Lee Johnson. Next is Senator John Payton. Next is Representative Howard
Speaker 34
19:46
Beatty. Representative Beatty is seat 74.
Next is Representative Keith Brooks. Representative Fred Allen in
Speaker 14
20:14
seat 32. Next is Representative Keith Brooks. Next is Representative Rebecca Burks.
Next is Representative Stetson Painter. Next is Representative Matt Duffield. Next is Representative Paul Childress. Representative Childress is seat 75.
Speaker 34
21:01
Next is Representative James Eaton. Next is Representative Deanna Gonzalez-Werthin. Last is Representative Randy Torres. Next is Representative
Speaker 14
21:07
Deanna Gonzalez-Werthin. - We'll be right back. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you.
Speaker 29
21:09
- Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Senator Clark is seat 90. - Senator Clark is seat 90.
all right if you uh have some questions about your seating arrangement please get with staff afterwards let's uh let's move on to the next time on the agenda which is the adoption of the minutes of the December 6th, 2024 meeting. Motion, second. All those in favor, let it be known by aye.
Those opposed, same. Motion carries. Next, we are going to work on adoption of the reports of the executive and the standing committees. First up, Representative Hawk is going to deliver the report for the executive committee.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
22:35
The executive committee met Thursday, June 5th, 2025 and adopted the minutes from the meeting held December 5th, 2024. Staff reported to the committee the audit and special reports scheduled to be presented to the standing committees and the full legislative audit auditing committee this month.
Staff also noted reports that are anticipated to be completed soon. In new business, a request for a special report on the Fountain Lake Volunteer Fire Department failed. And requests were approved by staff to perform audits for the Mountainburg School District, Forest City School District, Kip Delta Public Schools, and Watson Chapel School District. A request for a special report regarding fiscal impact statements was deferred until July of 2025. In other business, a request was approved for staff to perform selected procedures on the transition of officials of the treasurer of the state.
Staff legal counsel Emily White gave the committee an update on the 2025 legislative acts impacting Arkansas legislative audit. With no additional business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. The next meeting for the executive subcommittee is July the 10th, or at the call of the chair, I move for adoption of this report. All right. Thank you,
Representative Hauck. Do I have a second? Any discussion? If not,
all those in favor, let it be known by aye. Aye. Any opposed by the same side? Motion carries.
Lee Watson
Unverified
23:57
Next up is the standing committee on counties and municipalities, and Senator Stone is going to deliver
that report. I think the system may be having technical difficulties or the chair here is having technical difficulties. It looks like we've lost signal.
Speaker 107
25:06
you ready now we're ready I see a green light all right the committee adopted the
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
25:13
minutes of the meeting held December 5th 2024 the committee was updated on the status of the town of Gilmore due to the town's failure to comply with Arkansas code 277207 regarding repayment of street turn back the state treasurer will continue to withhold the town's highway revenues until the balance is due is paid in full. The committee was notified that the three remaining entities that had not
responded with the current status of their 2022 water and sewer audits as required by Act 453 of 2023 have provided engagement letters for those reports to be completed. The committee was notified that after the stout's follow-up visit to the town of oil trough, the town is in substantial compliance with municipal accounting law. The committee reviewed 12 deferred reports and 318 reports. Officials from 11 entities were present to address repeated findings. Nine previously
deferred reports were filed and three were deferred. Of the 318 current reports reviewed, 24 were referred for prosecuting attorneys and the attorney general and four were certified to governmental bonding board the committee filed 309 current reports and eight and third eight to allow officials to answer questions or provide further information at a future meeting the committee deferred in the report for the city of Helena West Helena to the full committee meeting scheduled for July the
11th are requested that legislative auditors subpoena city officials to be present to answer questions that provide further information mr. chair make a make a motion to adopt this report is there a second
here a second any discussion? Senator Love?
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
27:17
Thank You Mr. Chair I just want to go back to Senator Stone's report on the city of you said the city of Gilmore okay with that city you said either have an issue with the turn back and turn back is always a big issue when it comes to smaller municipalities kind of spending the turn back for general revenue or whatever the case is did you did you all have the elected body or
Speaker 117
27:47
elected board their questioning them no one showed
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
27:51
up for the city of gilmore yesterday but this has been an ongoing problem they have not made an effort to repay
the money so at some point you just have to step up and get the money back if they can
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
28:03
or won't do it okay and so have so has that turn back been held for two consecutive periods right now i'm not sure about that honestly Okay, I just wanted to kind of, because usually the process is we continue to hold the turn back again,
and then we go after the charter. So I'm just trying to see where we are in the process. That's what I was trying to ascertain. Well,
Speaker 121
28:27
we're at the point where we're going to hold the turn
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
28:31
back in the process. Okay, so this is the point in which we're holding the turn back. That is correct. All right,
thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to ask staff to also add a little additional
Speaker 125
28:42
clarity to your question. that's okay thank you sir Joe
Speaker 126
28:46
Archer staff Joe Archer staff City of Gilmore oh they have misused some of the street fund money this is not municipal
compliance so they were present during the December meeting when this vote was taken this was just the update for the new committee since the committee changed since December their turn back was started we withheld in January and they have not responded to us so it will continue to be withheld until they respond with payment in full so they
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
29:17
have not entered into an agreement to for repayment actually they did
Speaker 131
29:21
but they failed to comply with their agreement
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
29:24
okay all right thank you thank you
mr. chair thank you senator love all right any other discussion or questions if not all All those in favor, let it be known by aye. Aye. Any opposed by the same sign? Motion carries. Next up is the Committee on Educational
Institutions. Senator Dees is going
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
29:50
to present that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The committee reviewed 161 audit reports consisting of school districts, education co-ops, charter schools, and higher education institutions for the years ended June 30, 2023 and June 30, 2024.
As a side note, 133 school districts were audited with no findings and no issues, so congratulations to them. University of Arkansas system officials were present to answer questions from the committee related to findings in their audit report. Representatives from the Northwest Arkansas Community College, Southern Arkansas University, Kip Delta Public Schools, Mountain Pine School District, strong hudded school district hope academy of northwest arkansas osseola school district were present and answered questions from the committee related to repeat findings in their respective
audit reports the audit reports of the university of arkansas system atkins school district and mountain pine school district contained findings which were certified to the governmental bonding board and referred to the respective prosecuting attorney and attorney general the audit report for Falk School District, Osceola School District, and Western Yale School District contained findings which were referred to a respective prosecuting attorney and attorney general. The Falk School District audit report was deferred to the July meeting so that school officials could be present to answer questions needed from the committee.
The committee filed 160 reports and deferred the one before stated audit report for the July meeting. Mr. Chair, I move for adoption of this report. All right.
Is there a second? All right. Hearing a second. any discussion seeing none all those in favor let it be known by I any opposed motion carries all right and last up is the standing committee on state agencies to be delivered by senator McKee
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
31:39
thank you mr. chairman our committee heard 24
reports on the committee's agenda yesterday the reports were the following findings were presented the Department of Corrections did not have adequate internal controls over cash receipts and jail reimbursements the Department of Finance Administration issued refunds based on fraudulent information refunds were also issued incorrectly based on an error in programming in addition DFA made duplicate grant payments had unallowable travel reimbursements to an employee and experienced losses in a couple of revenue offices the governor's mansion
made leave payouts to some employees prior to their leaving employment and and made payments in an apparent violation of the public purpose doctrine. The Department of Health did not properly disclose a related party and paid an individual under a memorandum of understanding when the individual functioned as an employee. The Department of Transformation and Shared Services reported theft by a former employee, did not properly calculate sick leave payouts, did not perform bank reconciliations timely, and made accounting errors related to EBD.
Various agency staff members were present report on how the agencies intended to address the audit findings and answer committee questions during the meeting during the meeting the committee filed the 24 reports mr. chairman I would move to adopt this report
Lee Watson
Unverified
32:58
is there a second second any discussion if not all
those in favor of the motion let it be known by aye any opposed say nay motion carries next up our review of some very
Lee Watson
Unverified
33:20
exciting reports for those of you non-accountants as we deliver the annual comprehensive financial report and the single audit report we're going to let Matt Welch go through the Arkansas annual comprehensive financial report and then we'll pause for questions there. Matt. Thank you Mr. Chair. This
Speaker 135
33:46
presentation covers the audit of the state of Arkansas's annual comprehensive
financial report or ACFR for the year ended June 30, 2024. The 2024 ACFR was completed by the staff of legislative audit. The deadline for filing the 2024 AGFR was December 31st, 2024. However, an extension was granted to the Department of Finance and Administration, so the report was completed and then early released on January 30, 2025. We issued two reports for the audit of the state's financial statements. The first is the
AGFR, which includes all of the financial statements and notes to the financial statements for the state as well as our independent auditor's report. The second is the report on internal control over financial reporting. This report includes any findings related to the state's financial statements and federal financial assistance which Melanie Dozier will be presenting next. The Act for financial statements which were prepared by the Department of Finance Administration include the following entities: all state agencies across the state, the five retirement
systems, higher education institutions throughout the state, and the three component units which include the Arkansas Development Finance Authority, the University of Arkansas Foundation, and the University of Arkansas Campus Foundation. Legislative audit issued unmodified or clean opinions on the state's 2024 acfer we audited all the financial statements included within the actor except for
the following entities which were audited by private accounting firms the three component units which i mentioned on the previous slide the university of arkansas for medical sciences or uams and the revolving loan funds there were three reportable findings for fiscal year 2024. all three findings were considered to be material weaknesses i will go over the three findings later in this presentation however they are included in the single audit as financial statement findings
in the schedule of findings and question cost section and as i mentioned earlier the single audit will be presented next the next six slides will show some financial highlights related to the primary government of the state the financial information on these slides does not include the state's retirement systems that information will be included later in this presentation as shown on page 18 of the report the state had total assets at june 30 2024 of approximately 40 billion the major categories
of the state's assets include cash investments at over 15 billion capital assets were just over 20 billion and net receivables and other assets were around 2 billion. The state's total liabilities were just under 12 billion as shown on page 19 of the report. The major categories of the state's liabilities include bonds, notes, and installment agreements payable were over 3 billion and net
pension liability and other post-employment benefit obligations or OPEB remained constant from the prior year at $2.5 and $1.5 billion, respectively. This chart shows trends regarding the state's assets and liabilities over the past five fiscal years. The majority of the increase in assets from fiscal years 2020 and 2022 was in cash and investments due to the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security, or CARES Act,
and the American Rescue Plan Act, also known as ARPA. The $4.3 billion increase in assets from fiscal year 2022 to 2024 was largely due to a $2.7 billion increase in investments. Also in 2024, there was a $789 million increase in assets for various projects at the Arkansas Department of Transportation. Overall, liabilities have fluctuated slightly over the past five years. The main factor for changes was the decrease and increase of the net pension liabilities.
the state had total revenues of $29.5 billion as shown on pages 22 and 23 of the report the major categories of the state's revenues include grants and contributions such as federal revenues or federal grants were just under $12.5 billion taxes such as income and sales were at $10.3 billion and charges for services were consistent with the prior year at just over $5 billion.
The state's total expenses were just under $28 billion. The major functions or programs making up these expenses were health and human services at $11 billion. Colleges, universities, as well as education expenses were around $5 billion, and the remaining functions or programs were between $1 and $2.5 billion. This chart shows the trend of the state's revenues and expenses over the past five fiscal years.
The increases in both revenues and expenditures between the years 2020 and 2022 were the result of the COVID-19 pandemic and their federal funding associated with that pandemic. The $1.1 billion increase in revenue in fiscal 2023 was mainly the result of better returns on investments from the previous year, as well as additional federal funding from the Medicaid cluster and the highway planning and construction programs. In 2024, federal funding received from ARC a decrease, causing a $1.4 billion decrease in revenue.
Expenditures for the past couple years remained constant. The next five slides provide financial information regarding the state's retirement systems. As shown on page 35 of the report, the state's retirement systems had assets at June 30, 2024, totaling $37.3 billion. The major categories of these assets include cash at $900 million, investments were at almost $35 billion,
and collateral received from security lending transactions was over $1 billion. the retirement systems had liabilities totaling one and a half billion which is also shown on page 35 of the report the major liability was for obligations under security lien agreements for both public employee and teacher retirement systems this chart shows the trend of the retirement systems assets and liabilities over the past five fiscal years the variation in assets
were due to large fluctuations in rates of return in the financial markets for stocks and other investments over the past five years, with an increase of $7 billion in 2021, a decrease of $3.5 billion in 2022, then increases of $1 billion and then $3 billion in 2023 and 2024 respectively. Liabilities for the retirement systems experienced only slight fluctuations over the past five years the increase in 2024 result of my was the result of minor increases in both
investment principal payable and obligations under securities lending the retirement systems had total additions of five billion as shown on page 36 as you can see the majority of the amount was from net investment income which increased by one billion from the prior fiscal year to 3.7 billion total deductions were almost two and a half billion with benefits paid to participants or their beneficiaries being the main component
this chart shows the trend of the retirement system's additions and deductions over the past five fiscal years the primary reason for the variation in additions or revenues over this period was a fluctuation in the market value of investments from year to year. In fiscal years 2021 and 2022, the market was volatile due to the coronavirus pandemic. Investment income for the last couple years has shown an upper trend with an increase of close to $3 billion in 2023 and
$1 billion in 2024. The deductions for the retirement systems were steady over this period and consisted primarily of benefit payments. Now, for the rest of my presentation, I will cover the three reportable findings we had for fiscal year 2024. The first finding relates to internal controls at the state's treasurer's office. Controls in place around the redemption of warrants were insufficient to detect fraudulent warrant activity. Due to these issues, two fraudulent warrants redeemed in fiscal year 2024,
One warrant for over $609,000 was redeemed in July, and another for $3,600 was redeemed in August. After the Treasurer's Office became aware of the fraudulent activity, the office filed fraud claims with their financial institution for both fraudulent warrants redeemed. In November 2024, the Treasurer's Office was reimbursed for the warrant that was over $609,000. However, per the Treasurer's Office, the $3,600 warrant will not be reimbursed by the financial institution.
We recommend the Treasurer's Office implement additional controls to better enable the identification of fraudulent warrants in the required time frame for the state to be reimbursed. The second finding involved the processing of fraudulent tax returns at the Department of Finance and Administration. Over 1,500 tax refunds, totaling almost $1.5 million, were dispersed using fraudulent information. Specifically, the tax returns were processed with fraudulent W-2s as well as other stolen taxpayer information.
The refunds were issued through bank credit cards, state warrants, to other state agencies to be applied to taxpayer existing debt or were applied to prior year tax debt. in addition to notifying legislative audit dfa also notified the state police the irs and the fbi of the nearly 1.5 million dispersed as our as our report date nearly 340 000 has been recovered
leaving 1.1 million still outstanding this finding was referred to the prosecuting attorney and the Attorney General. We recommend DFA enhance controls over the filing of tax returns and subsequent disbursement of refunds, as well as continue to explore all avenues to collect the funds still outstanding. The third finding also occurred at the Department of Finance and Administration. The Revenue Division incorrectly issued 620 refunds, totaling over $362,000.
The refunds were the result of DFA implementing a programming change in the Arkansas Integrated Revenue System, or HEIRS. In prior years, DFA converted its tax processing software from information management system to HEIRS, which resulted in converted balance mismatches such as old penalties, interest, credit adjustments, or payment balances. Approximately 4,500 taxpayer accounts for the 2006 through 2009 tax years contain these converted balance mismatches.
As of January 7, 2025, DFA had recovered over 319,000, leaving approximately 43,000 still outstanding. This finding was also referred to the prosecuting attorney and the attorney general. We recommend DFA review and approve its procedures for program change control to ensure all application changes are validated properly, tested thoroughly, and implemented according to the established standards. Additionally, DFA should continue exploring all options for recovering any warrants inadvertently issued.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my presentation. I believe agency officials are here to answer any
Lee Watson
Unverified
47:08
committee questions. Thank you, Mr. Welch. members there's also a handout from dfna that
summarizes some other data and they are available for questions or to make a statement if so desired so with that i would entertain a motion to file the report motion second any discussion on the motion not seeing any all those in favor say aye
Lee Watson
Unverified
47:39
Any opposed, say no. Motion passes. Our next item on the agenda is the state Arkansas single audit report, which
is going to be presented by Ms. Melanie Dozier.
Speaker 147
48:09
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This presentation covers the state of Arkansas single audit report for the year ended June 30, 2024. The staff of legislative audit completed the statewide federal project, which was finalized and submitted to the federal government on March 25, 2025. The Single Audit Act requires that the audit of the state be conducted to meet five objectives.
First is to determine if the financial statements of the state are fairly presented. Mr. Welch addressed this objective during his presentation. Second is to determine if the schedule of expenditures of federal awards or CFA is fairly presented. We determined that the 2024 CFA is fairly presented and is included on pages 80 through 127 of the report. Third is to determine if the state has complied with laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements that may have a direct and material effect on federal awards.
Fourth is to obtain an understanding of internal controls over federal programs. And fifth is to plan and perform testing of internal control over compliance for major programs. State agencies and state-supported institutions of higher education disbursed federal funds totaling $12.25 billion from 482 federal award programs during the 2024 fiscal year. This was a decrease of approximately $1.5 billion from 2023, largely due to a decrease in funding
related to COVID-19. Based on criteria established by federal regulations, 15 major programs were review for 2024. These programs represented 62 percent of the state's total federal expenditures. The state departments shown on this slide expended the federal award received by the state. The Department of Human Services expended 61 percent, followed by the Department of Education at 11 percent, the Department
of Transportation at 9 percent, the University of Arkansas System at 6 percent, the Department of Commerce at two percent, other state departments at ten percent. The state received federal awards from 30 different federal agencies. As shown on this slide, the Federal Department of Health and Human Services, Education, Agriculture, and Transportation provided 93 percent of those awards. It is the responsibility of all federal awarding agencies to review
and provide resolution for all audit findings as well as determine if question costs identified by the auditors require recoupment or other adjustment. As shown on page six of the report and on this slide, $9.3 million in question cost remained outstanding as of June 30, 2024. Pages 253 through 263 of the report provide the results of our follow-up procedures regarding the uncorrected prior audit findings.
The audit for fiscal year 2024 resulted in 32 findings for nine federal programs. 11 findings, or 34%, were repeat findings. These included seven repeat findings for the Department of Human Services, three for the Arkansas Economic Development Commission, and one for the Arkansas Department of Education. Known question costs are reported in 12 findings and totaled $7.7 million.
Question costs are defined by federal regulations and are identified by the auditor because of a finding that resulted from a violation of a regulation, including the funds used to match federal awards, a lack of adequate supporting documentation, or cost that appeared unreasonable. Question costs are not considered improper payments until they are reviewed and confirmed to be improper by the federal awarding agency. As the auditors, our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance for each major program based on the results of the audit.
Although several findings were reported, we issued an unmodified or clean opinion on most of the major programs. A qualified opinion is issued if an audit finding results in an instance of noncompliance that is determined to be material, either individually or when aggregated with other non-compliance findings in relation to the major program as a whole. For the 2024 fiscal year, a qualified opinion was issued for findings related to the COVID-19 coronavirus state and local fiscal recovery funds,
the Children's Health Insurance Program, commonly referred to as CHIP, and Medicaid cluster. These findings are included in the schedule located on pages 21 through 79 of the report and are discussed on the slides that follow. Six findings were issued regarding the coronavirus state and local fiscal recovery funds. Three of these findings are based on review of projects administered at the Arkansas Economic Development Commission. All three are repeat findings and two contributed to the qualified opinion.
Known question calls totaled over $6.8 million. The remaining three findings for the coronavirus state and local fiscal recovery funds are reported based on review of projects administered at the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission. One finding contributed to the qualified opinion, and there were no question calls reported. One finding was issued for CHIP. This repeat finding contributed to the qualified opinion.
question calls totaled over $40,000 an additional six findings applied to the Medicaid program for a repeat findings and one finding contributed to the qualified opinion question calls totaled over $400,000 mr. chair this concludes my presentation agency representatives are present to answer committee questions thank you miss dozier do I have
a motion to accept the
report motion I have second any discussion any questions for agency looks like senator
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
55:01
love thank you chair I just have a general question if she could pull the slide back
up any of it I just have what is a qualified opinion what do you mean when qualified opinion happens whenever there's non-compliance
Speaker 147
55:19
that has determined to be material to the program as a whole okay
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
55:30
okay I think I think I understand the concept thank you
anyone else seen none all those in favor of the motion let it be known by I
any opposed motion carries all right
And Mr. White is going to have a follow-up here, if you
Speaker 14
56:02
don't mind. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the brief moment. One thing I'd like to mention is these two reports that we just covered take a lot of time of legislative audit staff the entire fall. And at the same time, it takes the support of all these individuals came here today, executive branch, all these individuals working together with us to complete these two important reports, Just kind of for perspective, these reports are done by the state of Arkansas,
and these opinions are necessary for everything from bond issuances to looking at revenue and at the same time for all the federal funds being received by the state of Arkansas. So these are two very important reports that I'd like to mention. They're taking a lot of time, taking a lot of cooperation with all these officials out here today, and I do greatly appreciate their assistance in that process.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. White. and it is reflected in our credit rating and in other areas as well so our last report is a special
report the review of the procurement process for selecting legal counsel
Lee Watson
Unverified
57:02
for the Arkansas Department of Corrections or really the the Board of Corrections for the period December 1st 2023 through April 30th 2024 and Mr. Charlie Camp is going to carry us through that report. Thank you Mr. Chair. This report
Speaker 153
57:19
is issued in response to a legislative request approved by this committee for legislative audit to conduct a review of the procurement process used by the Board of Corrections for selecting outside legal counsel. A timeline of events is provided in Appendix A. It should be noted that legal issues active in litigation were excluded from this review.
According to Arkansas Code, the purpose of the board is to manage correctional resources in the state such that offenders are held accountable for their actions, victims' needs are addressed in a positive manner, and the safety of society is enhanced. In addition to other responsibilities, the board has general supervisory control over the Division of Correction and the Division of Community Correction. The board is comprised of seven members, each of whom serves a term of seven years.
Arkansas Code states that all expenses may be reimbursed to the board members and stipends shall be payable from maintenance funds appropriated for the Division of Correction and Division of Community Correction. Additionally, Arkansas Code allows the board to reassign staff from the divisions it governs for short or long-term service to the board. Operating cost and salary associated with board staff for fiscal years 23 and 24 are shown in Exhibit 1 and 2, respectively, on page 2 of the report.
This report had two objectives. The first objective was to document the process required of a state agency for procuring outside legal counsel. According to Arkansas Code, state procurement law applies to any agency of the state supported by appropriation of the state or federal funds except an exempt agency. In the event a state agency needs the services of an attorney, the matter should be certified to the Attorney General for attention. If certain circumstances exist and the AG is unable to assist an agency, the AG may
approve the hiring of outside legal counsel. Once the AG provides approval, the mandated procurement method is a request for qualifications. An RFQ requires interested parties to submit qualifications or specialized expertise but does not include pricing information. The RFQ is sent to those vendors registered with the Office of State Procurement or recommended to OSP as best suited to perform the work specified. Additionally Arkansas Code requires that the public be notified.
Once the solicitation parameters are finalized, all information and documents are posted to the OSP website and responses are received either by OSP or the agency. The agency should select three qualified firms and begin contract negotiations with the firm that is best qualified and capable of performing the desired work. Only after the most qualified respondent is identified does cost become a factor in determining the award. At the conclusion of contract negotiations, both parties should complete a state services
contract in any relevant certification forms. If required the agency should work with OSP to ensure that the state services contract is on the agenda for legislative review. The second agenda or objective of this report was to establish and document the timeline around the board's decision to procure outside legal counsel and the process used in making this selection. Based on testimony provided to the joint performance review committee the board chose to hire outside legal
counsel due to changes in its authority with the passage of acts 185 and 659 of the 2023 regular session these acts amended state law whereby the secretary of the department of corrections would serve at the pleasure of the governor and the directors of doc and dcc would serve at the pleasure of the secretary prior to the effective date of these acts the secretary and the division directors served at the pleasure of the board after a board meeting held on april 25th 2023
a board member and the board chair discussed the potential need to hire outside council for guidance on personnel issues with the secretary based on the passage of the previously mentioned acts and the board member offered to make some inquiries based on our review of board meeting minutes the first discussion of the issue in an open meeting occurred on December 8th, 23, when the board adopted a motion to hire outside legal counsel and a motion to sign an engagement agreement with the attorney selected to represent the board.
After the December 8th meeting, department procurement staff expressed concerns regarding the board's agreement with legal counsel as the state's procurement process was not followed and these concerns were brought to the attention of the department's CFO. litigation on behalf of the board commenced on december 14th with the filing of a declaratory judgment lawsuit at a special board meeting convened on december 22nd the board adopted a motion to expand the scope of services to be provided by the attorney including representing
the board in the lawsuit claiming freedom of information act violations over the following weeks department staff researched the board's potential violation of state procurement law and requested input from osp and dfa during this same period the board received the first invoice tolling over 51 000 for services provided by the law firm in december of 23. after receiving the invoice the department cfo provided a memo to the board chair regarding the
proper method for paying attorney fees incurred by the board the memo explained that the board does not receive an appropriation and has no funding source. All expenditures incurred by the board are paid by the department which must follow procurement law. Citing Arkansas Code, the CFO stated in a memo that he could not approve payment of the invoice. The board met on January 31st of last year and adopted a motion to reaffirm the contract with the law firm and pay fees submitted by the firm. The board also expressed understanding that there may be additional fees.
As part of the ratification process, the department CFO submitted a letter to OSP on February 5th requesting a legislative review of the board's contract for legal services. On March 5th, an incomplete state services contract was uploaded to the OSP portal by department procurement staff to serve as a placeholder. Later the same day, department staff received an email from OSP identifying the missing or incomplete information in the contract and stating that the department had a deadline of 3 p.m. to provide OSP with all information.
As a result of communication among OSP, the department, the board, and the outside legal counsel, the state services contract was completed on March 6th. the board chair signed the contract and it was forwarded to OSP the contract was reviewed by the Arkansas Legislative Council review subcommittee on March 12th and subsequently withdrawn from consideration after subcommittee requested additional information at the Legislative Council meeting held on March 15th a motion was adopted to refer the contract to this committee and JPR
for review. JPR held hearings over multiple days in April of last year and issued a letter to the co-chairs of the ALC review subcommittee stating that the board operated with disregard for public transparency and lacked financial and statutory authority to enter into a contract for legal services. The ALC review subcommittee acknowledged the letter from JPR at this meeting on May 28th but took no action on the contract during meeting held on November 4th the
board provided approval for the board chair and secretary to sign a letter with outside legal counsel reflecting their agreement and understanding to rescind the procurement document dated March 6th 24 and reaffirmed the engagement agreements dated December 8th and 22nd of 23 during review of the events outlined in objective to legislative audit drew the following conclusions as a best practice decisions on appointments and other board business should be made in an open forum prior to beginning activities of the position
additionally we were unable to verify the board members appointment as legal liaison prior to unanimous approval by the board at its meeting held in late December 23 although the board member began acting as a liaison in April of 23 during JPR hearings a board member testified that over several months he considered multiple attorneys to potentially advise the
Speaker 167
1:06:25
board however the evaluation process was not documented as
Speaker 153
1:06:31
previously mentioned the board did not
receive an appropriation or funding in fiscal years 23 or 24 therefore its only mechanism to pay for services provided was through the department which must comply with state procurement law. No documentation could be provided that the RFQ process was used to contract for legal services or to support any evaluations made by the board and its vendor selection. We reviewed board meeting minutes, emails between state employees and board members, and other documentation to corroborate the assertions provided by the board
during JPR hearings and noted no exceptions. However, based on our review of recordings, Outside legal counsel was present and spoke at several board meetings, which was not indicated in the meeting minutes. The incomplete state services contract uploaded to the OSP portal included a procurement method of RFQ that was not used by the board. And because the state services contract and the procurement method section of the portal contained fixed options, there was no ability to enter an alternate procurement method.
This inaccurate information regarding procurement method was presented to the legislature during the approval process. Additionally, the terms for the length of the contract and the total costs were not addressed in the engagement agreements with legal counsel. Finally, the board never voted to approve the state services contract. Legislative audit recommends the following. All board business, including appointments, should be presented in a public meeting with all members provided an equal opportunity to participate.
Furthermore, the board should consider amending its bylaws to include this requirement regarding liaison appointments. Prior to beginning any procurement of goods or services, the board should consult with department procurement staff and OSP for direction on complying with all rules and regulations. The board should adopt a motion approving all contracts for services and any other documents that obligate state resources. Additionally, contracts and related documents should include all relevant details such as contract length and total cost, including reimbursable expenses.
The board should use complete and accurate information when submitting contracts for review by OSP, and OSP should consider adding the option or ability to modify procurement method in its portal. In summary, the board signed engagement agreements with outside legal counsel without establishing how the board would pay for these services, as the board has no appropriation or funding, and neither the department nor OSP was consulted prior to the execution of this agreement. as of report date the state services contract had not been ratified outside legal counsel had
submitted invoices totaling over $230,000 to the board and as of February 11th of this year all invoices were unpaid Mr. Chair this concludes my presentation management response is provided in appendices J and K and representatives from the Board of Corrections and OSP are present to respond to committee's questions okay thank you mr. camp do
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:09:39
i have a motion to file the report okay senator dismayne has a question first it's really just a comment so if you want to move
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:09:55
through the motion process you can but i do have a comment when
we're in discussion okay so do I have a motion motion second we're gonna have discussion after the motion in the second but if you I mean questions of the board members okay
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
1:10:28
representative Mayberry I just wanted to make
sure we've got board members here who might want to have comment and I just wanted to make sure that we
weren't skipping over that that's all that was not the plan but thank you for at this point I guess we could go ahead and offer that opportunity if there are board members from the board of Corrections that would like to make a comment or respond if you could approach the table
All right, if you would introduce yourself and who you're with and you may proceed. Turn your mic on, would you? Hold on just one second.
all right staff has advised me that we need to withdraw the motion that was originally made
in the second so do I have whoever made that motion all right and then we need to swear we need to vote on the motion to withdraw the motion
all those in favor of withdrawing the motion say aye any opposed and now we need to
swear in the the witness here so you've stated your name and who you're with if you would raise
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:12:29
your right hand do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole
Speaker 96
1:12:37
truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you you may proceed again my
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:12:46
name is lee watson i'm on the board of corrections i've served on the board for
about five and a half years and i the the i can be pretty short about this what i wanted to point out is when the board moved to higher counsel, we did so under an Arkansas code section 25, 16, 7, 11, which provides for in certain circumstances, in this instance, where the board as a constitutional, as constitutional officers had a difference of opinion with the attorney general about the
interpretation of the Arkansas constitution and these statutes to move with hiring special counsel 7-eleven doesn't say anything about procurement it is standalone and it further says that anything in in the conflicting with it is repealed so this audit was focused on the process that we would normally follow and I will tell you the board approves contracts every month you know for purchase of equipment farm equipment grain I mean seed whatever whatever the department needs
this was an unusual circumstance there were exigent circumstances basically an emergency whereby we were of the opinion that had we not acted that people's lives would have been at risk people whether they're inmates or officers and the general public because what was happening was our governor and our secretary were moving forward with moving prisoners into overcrowded facilities where based upon our collective experience we believe that that would endanger
the people in that facility and the general public nearby so that's why we took the action that we did again under 25 16 7 11 which allows for the hiring of special counsel and the statute goes on say that that council shall be paid a reasonable fee this was new this has never happened except one time before that I know of and the statute allows for what we did now granted I agree with the report for the most part if this were a
normal contract that's all exactly that what should happen that's what we do every month of every year that I've been on the board and but again we had exigent circumstances that fit the again 25 16 7-11 and we move forward and both the circuit court agreed with us the Supreme Court has agreed that there were exigent circumstances and just yesterday moved that back to the circuit court for further action we're the opinion that will prevail on that and again at that
point any sort of payment will be presented to 25 16 7-11 but that's about all I have all right
thank you and I think it's important to point out that anything related to existing litigation was
left out of this or well and I think you may have touched on it just a little bit towards the litigation side but I just wanted to
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:16:06
clarify for the members on that well and I understand that and I appreciate it when we met with
auditors I and our attorney Abton Metazodigan they explained that
they were instructed not to get into the litigation side of things well the problem is you can't really do that it's like saying well get inside the egg and do some work on it but don't break the egg and that just you know doesn't work and so we tried to provide a more complete picture and that's in our response to the audit it's been attached I just while we were sitting here we received that online and I noted that it does not include all of our exhibits and I would ask you
all to read it carefully read our response and I think it better explains what is going on but this is also still pending before the Pulaski County Circuit Court and hopefully we'll have a resolution soon and frankly the Attorney General ought to want that same quick resolution because there there is a question here that needs to be answered it's a question that we had for months and after this statute was passed i know the auditor talked about in in any of the meetings this wasn't discussed but what was discussed in executive sessions was the performance of
our secretary and then that came to a head when he basically said he was going to add prisoners despite what we had instructed him all right thank
you uh senator dismayne i believe you have a question or a comment so and
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:17:36
i wasn't planning on asking any questions um but i just want to make sure because this is a little con
you you think that the procurement you're not litigating the procurement process no of the attorney so i mean i don't which is all that this pertains to right
what i'm saying i want to make sure everybody in the room and i didn't feel like i needed to but we're not this is apples and oranges as far as discussion goes yes it may involve the same attorney and it may involve the same board but this is not part of what's being questioned or litigated right now now maybe it should be referred to the prosecutor or someone else like we refer everything else um but but again that's a whole nother conversation but i just i want to go to and i and members this is j21 in your packet it's the conclusion there's 30 pages to look at in the
response which is a very different response than anything that you've ever seen i think as far as audit committee members but in that response j20 it says as a as a supplemented ala should revise its report and find that the board acted lawfully reasonably and appropriately in its selection of counsel and that's your position i just my question is that that is is that's your position as a board member but maybe not of the board as a whole correct okay and i think the issue here
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:18:56
you know to your point is the board again this was a one-off situation we'd never been involved in this before and that's why we got into the procurement process in hindsight you know hindsight's always 2020 we should never submitted this to begin with because we were covered by 25 16 7 11 and I don't think it was appropriate or would be appropriate if this sort of exigent circumstances happened again to follow hope was that
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:19:29
that you would not say that my okay I
mean again I'm not going to debate it I what my intention was not to belabor it I think and I hope that you have billboard members that have testified that they feel differently about following the procurement process I hope that when y'all have your board meeting that they they they take a closer look at this audit report than maybe you have and that they're able to come to a different conclusion.
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:19:57
Well I agree we should always follow the procurement process when it applies.
any other questions of the witness if not somebody just popped up representative
Gassaway you're recognized thank you mr. chair and I didn't intend to
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:20:20
ask any questions about this either and I certainly don't want to belabor it but so I guess my question is has the contract been paid my understanding is this came before ALC and maybe it wasn't approved this may be be a
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:20:36
question for staff it has not been paid I can tell you that much okay it was
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:20:43
mr. Watson yes okay all right and what there was some issue you know it's kind of all coming back to me now it's been a while since we've looked at this but there was some issue about the contract had been changed maybe without the board's awareness and there were some issues that were brought before ALC and JPR about that, specifically about, I think your attorney had removed some provisions about the state having sovereign immunity and being able to sue the state, and that was taken out of the
contract, and specifically for the purpose of allowing him to sue the state to recover his
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:21:22
fees. Do you recall this? I do, but I also realize that, again, we fell into somewhat of a trap there of starting on one route, if you will, under 7-Eleven, and then when we became more concerned about the actual payment process, we stepped off on the wrong foot. But to be clear,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:21:45
your attorney removed provisions from the contract.
Was this with your knowledge or without your knowledge? I wasn't involved in that. Well, hang on. Removed provisions from the contract, specifically related to the state's sovereign immunity, for the purpose of allowing him to sue the state to recover his fees. Was that change made with your knowledge or without your knowledge? Without. I did not know of the changes. But you're only speaking for yourself. You
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:22:11
don't know about other members of the board. I don't. Yep. All right. Fair enough.
But I do know that that whole process shouldn't have been followed to begin
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
1:22:34
with. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. Thank you. I read it briefly, and I know that this might be getting off in a little bit of a tangent. I skimmed the article this morning. Can you just update us on what the Supreme Court ruled yesterday and explain that in
your words so we're all updated?
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:22:52
Sure. Basically, the Supreme Court found that there was no error in Judge James' action in granting the preliminary injunction. They did not address the attorney general's motion to disqualify our attorney. Judge James had already said he's our attorney under 7-11, that it was appropriate, that our actions were appropriate. There was a constitutional issue conflict. Judge James had
already found all those things in her initial hearing. And so what this does, the action yesterday moves it back to circuit court for the circuit court to determine the question we wanted answered almost two years ago and that is and forgive me I don't mean this to be light-hearted but you know being an attorney I can tell you that you know and I have friends here in the legislature and I know that everybody's always saying oh that's going to be unconstitutional that's going to be unconstitutional I can also tell you that we could probably take a semester
off law school if legislatures and governments didn't ever pass unconstitutional laws. And sometimes they're constitutional at the time they were passed and then later found to be unconstitutional. But be that as it may, we needed that question answered. When we were in our executive sessions discussing our secretary's actions, because I'm an attorney, board members would turn to me and say, "Can we discipline him? Can we terminate him if necessary?" These were discussions purely about personnel issues. And I said, well, because of this statute, we don't know.
And that's the question we wanted answered and that's the question that the court will answer for us is where we stand as far as the constitutionality of, as it applies to the board's management of the secretary and its directors. So we're kind of, we've almost stepped back a year and a half in a lot of ways to get to the answer that we wanted answered a
long time ago. All right, I'm going to stop that. Representative Gattisway has a question, but I'm going to
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:24:57
remind the members that we're not talking about the litigation matters. We're talking about the audit report, and I suspect, as with all good attorneys, there's probably a different opinion to some of the statements that have been made, and so I want to keep us on task on just this report, not the litigation, and not necessarily what the Supreme Court says, because uh the attorney general might have a different opinion as mr watson i'm i'm pretty sure he probably does so uh
with that i'm going to let uh representative gazaway ask his question
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:25:29
well thank you mr chair and and i agree with the chair's assessment of what the issues are however in light of mr watson's comments i do think that there are some things that need to be put on the record at least clarified based on what you've said here today you referenced the most recent ruling in the Supreme Court, but to be clear, that ruling was not a ruling on the merits. No. No, absolutely not. I mean, as an attorney, which you've acknowledged, there was another ruling on Judge Fox's ruling from the Supreme Court that did discuss this contract,
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:26:02
and would you care to discuss what they said about it? Well, that situation is slightly different. When we initially hired Mr. Metazodigan, it was under 25, 16, 7, 11. Immediately thereafter, we were sued by the Attorney General. We're his client. So it put us in this position where, in the first instance, we couldn't go to him for advice and counsel.
And on the second, we couldn't. As obvious, we were adverse litigants. And we believed then and still believe that the appropriate thing to do was because the facts were so interwoven, because it was all about those employment decisions, we made the decision to hire Mr. Metazodagan to represent us in that second action. And he was willing to expand what he was doing for us to represent us.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:27:08
there's no point belaboring it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I
appreciate the latitude. All right. Any other questions of the witness? If
not, you are dismissed. Thank you. so now do i have a motion to file the report
motion second and second any discussion and it
looks like senator dismayne has a discussion thank you mr
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:27:45
chairman um i mean i guess i'll say i'm disappointed i mean if you look at this
response it is telling you as members that the appropriation process doesn't matter the procurement process doesn't matter just read it okay i mean it flies in the face of what our staff i understand there are multiple things happening in here and all i was looking for in a response was hey we were in uncharted
territory we didn't know what we were doing and you know what we should have followed the procurement process but that's not what the conclusion in the 30 page response says the conclusion says as a supplemental ala legislative audit should revise its report and find that the the board acted lawfully reasonably and appropriately in its selection of special counsel i mean some of us weren't here when this discussion was originally happening but when you were in jpr and i can't remember whether what other venues we had discussion on it but if
you went through the time frame it was very clear that board members were taking actions on behalf of the entire board without the rest of the board even knowing what was going on it was clear you had other board members testify to that that in and of itself is inappropriate again i wasn't here i didn't think that we were going to have kind of the back and forth and i really didn't anticipate reading the conclusion that i read or having a 30 page response uh pretty
much disputing things that weren't even really in the audit report uh but again so i just my comment is just one of on record of disappointment not what i anticipated or expected one of the things and if you haven't had a chance to read this is all mr watson board member watson's conclusion not the board itself my hope is the rest of the board probably takes to heart what's in the recommendations brought forward by legislative audit and acts appropriately and
institutes the procedures that it says should be instituted so these types of things don't happen again. Clearly open meetings requirements were violated in the hiring of the attorney. Clearly the appropriation process was violated in the hiring of the attorney. Those things were found in this legislative audit and
I'm just still astonished they were disputed. Thank you. Thank you Senator
Dismaine. Seeing no others, we have a motion, we have a second. All those in
favor say aye any opposed say no motion
passes all right next uh for other business our next meetings of legislative joint audit committee will be held on july 10th and 11th any new business seeing none we are adjourned
Agenda
A. Call to Order by Chairman
B. Selection of Seating for 2025 – 2026 Meetings
C Adoption of Minutes
D. Reports of Executive and Standing Committees: 1. Executive Committee 2. Counties and Municipalities 3. Educational Institutions 4. State Agencies
E. Review of Reports:
1. State of Arkansas Annual Comprehensive Financial Report – Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024 (Early Released January 30, 2025)
2. State of Arkansas Single Audit Report – Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024 (Early Released March 25, 2025)
3. Special Report – Review of Procurement Process for Selecting Legal Counsel – Arkansas Department of Corrections – Board of Corrections – For the Period December 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024
F. Other Business:
The next meetings of the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee will be held July 10 and 11, 2025.
G. New Business
H. Adjournment
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — LEGISLATIVE JOINT AUDITING, Jun 6, 2025 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Jim Petty Chair
Unverified
Speaker 13
Speaker 14
Speaker 15
Speaker 19
Speaker 17
Speaker 24
Speaker 29
Speaker 33
Speaker 34
Speaker 38
Speaker 21
Speaker 44
Speaker 49
Speaker 58
Speaker 78
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Lee Watson
Unverified
Speaker 107
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
Speaker 117
Speaker 121
Speaker 125
Speaker 126
Speaker 131
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Speaker 135
Speaker 147
Speaker 153
Speaker 167
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
Speaker 96
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified