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
We, if we can just see something that'd be great members, if you'd go ahead and uh start to find your seats, we're gonna
The uh legislative joint audit Committee for Friday, June 6th will begin. Uh, our
first order of business is selection of seating for the 2025, 2026 meetings and we are going to follow Mr. White, uh, and go in order of seniority. So listen, listen for
Speaker 13
4:21
your name. So the selection is going to go based on order of
Speaker 14
4:27
seniority, um, first person is representative RJ Hawk. He has chosen seat number 76.
Speaker 15
4:35
Second is Senator Dotson. Not saying Senator. Do you want to
Speaker 17
4:50
we can assign that to the. Yeah, go see what number this
Speaker 14
5:01
is. Senator Dodson, seat 54. Next is representative Womack.
We'll just move. Next is Senator Caldwell. Nexus representative Eaves. Next is Senator English. Next is representative ladyman. 47
Speaker 29
5:48
Next is Senator Hester. Next is representative
Speaker 14
6:13
Carolyn Brown. Next is Senator Scott Flippo.
Speaker 29
6:25
Next is representative Gazaway. Hm Next is Senator Wallace. I got you. Next is Representative Barker. Yes We did not Not
Speaker 14
7:05
is Representative Barker, not seen Representative Barker. Next is Senator Mark Johnson. Not saying Mark Johnson next as
Speaker 34
7:20
represent. 55. Senator Mark Johnson is 55. Nexus Representative Johnny Ry.
Speaker 14
7:26
Representative rise, seat number
46. Next is Senator Kim Hammer. Senator Hammer, seat 88. Next is Representative Carol Dalby Rebson Dolby has chose seat 64. Next, the Senator Dan Sullivan. 57 Senator Sullivan has chose seat 57. Next is Representative Carlton Wing. Representative W Wang has chosen 66.
Next is Senator Ben Gilmore. Senator Gilmore, seat number 53. Next is representative Stan
Speaker 21
8:26
Barry. Representative Barry has chose seat 43. Next is Senator Murdoch.
Speaker 44
8:46
Representative Murdoch is seat number 23. Next is Representative Mayberry.
Speaker 14
8:55
Representative Mayberry has chose seat 44. Next is Senator Matt McKee. 5 Senator McKee has chose seat 59. Next is representative Cameron Cooper Representative Cooper has
Speaker 29
9:40
Next is Representative Harlan bro. Representative Harlan Bro. Not seeing rips in Harlem Bre next to Senator Joshua Bryant. Senator Bryant is seat 89. Next is representative Brian Evans. All right.
Speaker 14
10:20
Next, the senator Crow. 84 Senator Kroll is seat 84. Next is representative McIlroy. Not seeing representative McIlroy next as Senator Matt Stone. Senator Stone is seat 58. Next is Representative Furman. 39.
Speaker 49
10:48
Ruston Firman is seat 39. Next is Senator Des. 5 51 51 is 551 is Hester. I'm sorry.
Speaker 21
11:28
Next is Representative Wayne Long. That Next is Senator Frederick Love.
Speaker 29
11:37
Center love is seat 62 Next is representative.
Speaker 14
11:46
Makalendon 41 Wayne I'm sorry. Representative Wayne. Long is seat 41?
Next is Senator Jamie Scott. Senator Scott, a seat 24. Next is Representative Matthew Brown. OK. Representative Brown is seat 38.
Unknown speaker
13:00
Representative Hope Duke is seat 40. Alright.
Speaker 34
13:32
Next is Representative Steve Unger. Representative Unger as seat 21. Next is Representative Brad Hall. Representative Brad Hall is seat 20. Next is Representative Steven Meeks. Representative Steven Meeks is seat 19. Next is Senator Missy Irvin.
Speaker 14
14:12
We're gonna keep going. Next is representative Lane Jean. Representative Lane Jean is seat 63. Next is Senator John Jonathan Desma. Senator Desma in seat 81. Senator Irvin is seat 60.
Unknown speaker
14:46
Next is representative Matthew Shepherd.
Speaker 34
15:20
Sniff Shepherd is seat 71. Nexus Senator Alan Clark. Next is representative Wardlaw. Representative
Speaker 29
15:29
Orla, seat 70 next is Senator Stubblefield.
Unknown speaker
15:50
Next is Representative Ron McNair.
Speaker 58
16:33
Representative McNary seat 68. Senator Hickey
Speaker 14
16:55
is seat 83. Next is Representative Mary Bentley.
Speaker 29
17:05
OK Senate next is Senator Blake Johnson. Senator Blake Johnson is seat
Speaker 58
17:39
86. Next is representative Dwight Tosh. Representative Tosh is seat 69. Next is Senator Brianne Davis. Mm 87 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, uh, speed this along and we'll assign it after this if you've, uh, if you guys don't mind. Next is
Speaker 14
18:28
Senator Ricky Hill. Next is Representative Kenneth Ferguson. 43. Next is Senator Clark Tucker.
Speaker 29
18:48
Next is representative Fred Allen. Representative Fred Allen, seat 34. Next is Senator Clint Penzo.
Speaker 14
19:22
Next is Representative Lee Johnson. 25 for. Next is Senator John Payton. Next is Representative Howard Beatty.
Speaker 34
19:52
Description of Beatty is seat Representative Fred Allen in seat 32. Next is Representative Keith Brooks.
Speaker 14
20:24
Next is representative Rebecca Burks. Next is Representative Stetson Painter. Next is Representative Matt Duffield. Next is Representative Paul Childress.
Speaker 34
21:05
Representative Childers is seat 75. Next is Representative
Speaker 14
21:12
James Eaton. Next is Representative Diana Gonzalez
Speaker 29
21:14
Worthen. Last as representative Randy Torres.
Senator Clark is seat 90. Alright, 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 2. All those in favor, let it be known by I. Those opposed same motion carries. Next, we are going to uh work on adoption the reports of the executive and the standing committees and first up, Representative Hawk is going to deliver the report for the
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
22:40
executive committee. The executive committee met Thursday, June 5, 2025 and adopted the minutes from the meeting held December 5, 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. The 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 Mountain Berg School District 4. City School District kept Delta Public schools and Watson Chapel School District, a request for a special report regarding fiscal impact statements was uh was
deferred until July, um, of 2025. In other business, the request was approved for staff to perform selective 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 10th or at the call of the chair, I move for adoption of this report. All right. Thank you,
Representative Hock. Do I have a second?
Uh, any discussion? If not, all those in favor, uh, let it be known by eye. And he opposed by the same side. Motion carries.
Lee Watson
Unverified
24:02
Next up is the Staining 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
Speaker 107
24:56
Uh Hold on just a second. That's OK. You ready, now we're ready. I see a green light. All right. The committee adopted
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
25:18
the minutes of the meeting held December 5, 2024. The committee was updated on the status of the town of Gilmore, knew that 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, uh, do is paid in full. The committee was notified that, that the 3 remaining entities. It did not responded with the current status of their 2022 water and sewer as required by 453 of 2023 have provided engagement letters for those reports to be completed. The committee was notified that after the staff's follow-up visit to the town of Oil Trough,
the town is in substantial compliance with uh municipal accounting law. The committee reviewed 12 deferred reports and 318 reports officials from 11 entities were present to address repeated findings, 9 previously deferred reports were filed, and 3 were deferred of the 318 current reports reviewed 24 were required for prosecuting attorneys and the attorney General and former certified to the governmental bonding board.
The committee filed 309 current reports and and 8. allow officials to answer questions or provide further information at a future meeting. The committee deferred the report for the city of Helen the West Helena to the full committee meeting scheduled for July 11th and requested that legislative auditor subpoena city officials to be present to answer questions and provide further information. Mr. Chair, uh, make a, uh, make a motion to adopt this report. Is there a second?
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
27:02
Here a second, any discussion? Senator Love Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to go back to, uh, Senator Stone's report on, on the city of, you said the city of Gilmore?
OK, um, with, with that city, you said they're having an issue with the term back and turn back is always a big issue when it comes to smaller municipalities kind of spending the time back for general revenue or whatever the case is, um. Did you, did you all have the, the elected body or elected board there. Questioning them. And
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
27:56
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
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
28:08
they can't or won't do it. OK, and so I have the, so has it turn back been held for two consecutive periods right now? I'm not sure about that, honestly. OK, I just want to kind of, um, because usually the, the, the process is we, we continue to hold the turn back that we hold the turn back again and then we go after their, their, their charter, so I'm just trying to see where we are in the process. That's, that's what I was trying to ascertain we're at the point where where we're gonna hold the turn back
in the process. OK, so we're, so this is the point in which you we're holding to turn back. OK.
All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm gonna ask staff to also add a little additional
Speaker 125
28:47
clarity to your question, if that's OK. Thank you, sir. Uh,
Speaker 126
28:51
Joe Archer's staff. Joe Archer's staff, uh, City of Gilmore, uh, owes, uh, 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. Uh, this was just an update for the new committee since the committee
changed since December. There's uh 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
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
29:22
full. So they, they have not entered into an agreement to for repayment.
Speaker 131
29:26
Actually they did but they failed to comply with their
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
29:29
agreement. OK. All right. Thank you. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Love. All right. Any other discussion
or questions? If not, uh, all those in favor, let it be known by eye. In opposed by the same sign motion carries. Next up is the committee
on the Educational Institutions. Senator Dees
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
29:55
is going 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 30th, 2023 and June 30th, 2024. And as a side
note, 133 school districts were audited with no findings and no issues, so congratulations to them. You know, uh, uh, 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, KIPP Delta Public Schools, Mountain Pine School District, Strong School District, Hope Academy of Northwest Arkansas, OCOS 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 refer to the respective prosecuting attorney and attorney general. The audit report for Fouke School District, Osceola School District, and Western Yale School District contained findings which were referred to respective prosecuting attorney and the attorney general. The Fouke 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 a 160 reports and deferred the one. Before stated audit report for the July meeting, uh, uh, Mr. Chair, I move for adoption of this report. All
right. Is there a second? All right, here in a second, uh, any discussion? Seeing none, uh, all those in favor, let it be known by eye. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right, and last up is the uh standing Committee on state agencies to be delivered by Senator McKee.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
31:44
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, 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 loss. in a couple of revenue offices. The governor's mansion made leave payouts to some employees prior to their leaving employment 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 to 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
33:03
Is there a second? Second, any discussion? If not, uh,
all those in favor of the motion, let it be known by I.
And he opposed say nay. Motion carries. Next up our
Lee Watson
Unverified
33:23
review of some, uh, very exciting reports for those of you non-accountants as we deliver the, uh, annual comprehensive financial report and the uh single audit report, uh, we're going to, uh, let Matt Welch, uh, go through the, uh, Arkansas Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, and then we'll, uh, pause for questions there.
Speaker 135
33:49
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This presentation covers the audit of the state of Arkansas's annual comprehensive financial report or act for for the year ended June 30, 2024. The 2024 A was was completed by the staff of Legislative audit. The deadline for filing the 2024 Afor 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 act for which includes all the financial statements and notes of 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 actor's financial statements, which were prepared by the Department of Finance Administration include the following entities. All state agencies across the state. 5 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.
Let's leave a issued unmodified or clean opinions on the state's 2024 ACTA. We audited all the financial statements included within the Act for except for the fallen entities which were altered by private accounting firms. The 3 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 3 reportable findings for fiscal year 2024. All three findings were considered to be material weaknesses. I'll 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 questions. Cost section. And as I mentioned earlier, the single art will be presented next. The next 6 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 never receivebus 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 that pension liability and other post and point 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 5 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 AARPA. The 4.3 billion increase in assets from fiscal years. 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 5 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 page 20 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 We're just under 12.5 billion. Taxes such as income and sales were at 10.3 billion and charged for services were consistent with the prior year at just over 5 billion. This state, the state's total expenses were just under 28 billion. The major functions or programs making up these expenses for health and human services at 11 million.
Colleges, universities as 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 5 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 and 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 ACA decrease causing a 1.4 billion decrease in revenue. Expenditures For the past couple of years remained constant. The next 5 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 the of these assets include cash at $900 million investments were almost 35 billion. And collateral received from security lending. transactions was over 1 billion.
The retirement systems had liabilities totaling 1.5 billion, which is also shown on page 35 of the report. The major liability. was for obligations under security leaning agreements for both public employee and teacher retirement systems. This chart shows the trend of the retirement systems, assets and liabilities over the past 5 fiscal years. The variation in assets were due to large fluctuations in asset in rates of return in the
financial markets for stocks and other investments over the past 5 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. My abilities for the retirement systems experienced only slight fluctuations over the past 5 years. The increase in 2024 result of was the result of minor increases in both investment principal payable and
obligations under securities lending. The retirement systems had total additions of 5 billion as shown on page 36. As you can see, the majority of the amount was from net investment income which increased by 1 billion from the prior fiscal year to 3.7 billion. Total deductions were almost 2.5 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 5 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 due to the coronavirus pandemic. Investment income for the last couple of years has shown an upper twin with 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 warren activity.
Due to these issues, two fraudulent warrants redeemed in fiscal year 2024.1. For over 609,000 was redeemed in July. And another for 3600 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 per the treasurer's office, the $3600 warrant. Was 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 timeframe for the state to be reimbursed. The second finding involved the processing of fraudulent tax returns at the Department of Finance and Administration.
Over 1500 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 refrons were issued through bank credit cards, state warrants, To other state agency 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 the we recommend DFA enhanced 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 3rd 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 AR.
In prior years, DFA converted its tax processing software from information management system to airs, which resulted in converted bounce mismatch mismatches such as ow penalties, interest, credit adjustments, or payment balances. Approximately 4500 taxpayer accounts for the year for the 2006 through 2009 tax years contain these converted by mismatches. As of January 7, 2025, DFA had
had recovered over 319,000, leaving approximately 43,000 still outstanding. This finding was also referred to the prosecuting 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, DA should continue exploring all options for recovering any warrants inadvertently issued.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my presentation and I believe the agency officials are here to
Lee Watson
Unverified
47:13
answer any committee questions. Thank you, Mr. Welch. Uh, members, there's also a handout from
DFNA that summarizes some other uh uh data and uh they are available for questions or to make a statement if, uh, so desired. So, With that, uh, I would. Entertain emotion to file the report. Motion 2nd. Uh, any discussion on the motion?
Not seeing any, all those in favor say aye. In the
Lee Watson
Unverified
47:46
opposed say no. Motion passes. Our next item on the agenda is, uh, the state, uh, Arkansas single audit report, which is
Speaker 147
48:18
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 5 objectives. First is to determine if the financial statements of the
state are fairly presented. Mister Welch addressed this objective during his presentation. Second is to determine if the schedule of expenditures of federal awards or CIFA is fairly presented. We determine that the 2024 CIFA 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 5th is to plan and perform testing of internal control over compliance for major programs. State agencies and state supported institutions of higher education dispersed 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 reviewed for 2024. These programs represented 62% of the state's total federal expenditures. The State Department's shown on this slide expended the federal award received by the state. The Department of Human Services expended 61%, followed by the
Department of Education at 11%. The Department of Transportation at 9%. The University of Arkansas's system at 6%. The Department of Commerce at 2% and other state departments at 10%. 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% 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 6 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 9 federal programs, 11 findings or 34% were repeat findings. These included 7 repeat findings for the Department of Human Services, 3 for the Arkansas Economic Development Commission and one for the Arkansas Department of Education. Non question cause 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 noncompliance 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. 6 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 2 contributed to the qualified opinion known question calls totaled over $6.8 million. The remaining 3 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 and question calls totaled over $40,000. An additional 6 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. Uh, do I have a
motion to accept the report motion. I have a second. Uh, any discussion? Any questions for agency? Looks like
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
55:06
Senator Love. Thank you Mr. Chair. I just have
a general question, uh, if she could pull the slide back up any of it. I, I just have a, what is a qualified opinion. What
Speaker 147
55:23
do you, what do you mean when you A qualified opinion happens whenever there's non-compliance that has determined to be material. To the program as
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
55:35
a whole. OK. OK. I think I, I think I understand the concept. Thank you.
Anyone else? See none. All those in favor of the motion, let it be known by eye. Any opposed
Motion carries All right. Uh Mr. White
is going to have a follow up here if you don't mind. I Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 14
56:07
Chair, for the brief moment. Um, one thing I'd like to mention is these two
reports that we just covered, um, 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, uh, executive branch, all these individuals working together with us to complete these two important reports just kind of for perspective, these reports are, um, 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 or take a lot of time, take a lot of cooperation with the 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, and other uh areas as well. So our uh last uh report is a special report, the review of the procurement process for uh selecting
Lee Watson
Unverified
57:07
legal counsel for the Arkansas Department of Corrections are really the, the board of corrections for the
period December 1st, 2023 through April 30th, 2024, uh, and Mr. Charlie Camp is going to carry us through that report. Thank
Speaker 153
57:24
you, Mr. Chair. This report 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 7 members, each of whom serves a term of 7 years.
Arkansas code states that all expenses may be reimbursed to the board members and stop and shall be payable for 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 that governs for short or long-term service to the board. Operating costs and salary associated with board staff for fiscal years 23 and 24 are shown
in exhibit 1 and 2 respectively on page two 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 3 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 in 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 counsel 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 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 or 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 an 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 of 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 30 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. During a meeting held on November 4th, the board provided approval for the board chair and
secretary to sign a letter with outside legal counsel reflecting the agreement and understanding to rescind the procurement document dated March 6, 24, and reaffirm 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 member's 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 20 during JPR hearings, a board member testified that over several months he considered multiple attorneys to potentially advise the board.
Speaker 167
1:06:30
However, the evaluation process was not documented. As previously
Speaker 153
1:06:36
mentioned, the board did not receive an
appropriation or funding in fiscal years 23 or 24. Therefore, it's 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 were reviewed by OSP and OSP should consider adding the option or ability to modify procurement method in his porch 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.
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:09:45
OK. Thank you, Mr. Camp. Do I have a motion to file the report. my OK. Senator Dimain has a question first. And it's really just
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:09:59
a comment. So if you want to move through the motion process, you can, but I, I do have a comment when we're
in discussion. OK. So, do I have a motion? Motion 2. We're going to have discussion
after the motion in the 2nd, uh. But if you, I mean, Questions of the board members. OK. Representative Maberry. I just
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
1:10:36
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, uh, at this point, I guess we could go ahead and, and, 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, uh, approach the table. All right, if you would
Unknown speaker
1:11:21
introduce yourself and who you're with, and you may proceed. Turn your mic on, would you? I'm new to this. My name is hold on just one second.
All right. Uh, staff has advised me that we need to, uh, withdraw the
motion that was originally made in the 2nd. So do I have whoever made that motion. All right. And uh, 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. And he opposed. And
now we need to swear in the, uh, the, the witness here so. Um
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:12:35
You've stated your name and your, and who you're with, uh, if you would raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm
Speaker 96
1:12:42
that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:12:51
the truth. Thank you. You may proceed. Hm Again, my name is Lee Watson. I'm on the board of corrections and served on the board for about, uh, 5.5 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 council. Um, we did so under an Arkansas code section, uh, 25, 16, 7-Eleven, which provides for in, uh, 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.
Uh, to move with hiring special counsel. 7-Eleven doesn't say anything about procurement. It is stand alone 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 we 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, uh, 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-Eleven, which allows for the hiring of special counsel and the statute goes on to say that that council shall be paid a reasonable fee. Um, This was new. This has never happened except one time before, uh, that I know of. And, um, 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 what should happen. That's what we do every month of every year that I've been on the board. And uh, but again, we had exigent circumstances that fit the, uh, again, 25, 16, 7-Eleven, and we moved forward and both the circuit court agreed with us, um, the Supreme Court has agreed that there were, uh, exigent circumstances and just yesterday moved that back to the circuit court for further action.
Um, were of the opinion that will prevail on that and again at that point, any sort of payment will be presented to 25, 16, 7-Eleven. 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 report, and I think you may have touched on it just a little bit towards the litigation side, but I just wanted to clarify for the
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:16:12
members on that. Well, and, and I understand that and I appreciate it. When we met with
the auditors, I and our attorney Abton metazottigan. 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, um, we tried to provide a more complete picture and that's in our response, um,
To the audit that'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 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, uh, when he basically said he was gonna add prisoners despite what we had instructed him. All right, thank you, uh, Senator, dismay, I
believe you have a question or a comment. So and and I wasn't planning on
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:17:44
asking you questions, um, but I just wanna make sure because this is
a little. You, you think that the procurement pro you're not litigating the procurement process of the attorney. So I mean I don't. Which is all that this pertains to, right? I'm so I, I wanna 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 I maybe it should be
referred to the prosecutor or someone else like we refer everything else, um, but, but again, that's. A whole another conversation, but I just, I wanna go to, and I, and members this is J 21. 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 council. And, 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
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:19:00
whole. Correct. OK. And I, I think the issue here, you know,
to your point is, The board Again, this was a one-off situation. We've 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 have submitted this to begin with. Because we were covered by 25, 16, 7-Eleven, 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
1:19:33
that you would not say that my OK, I, I mean, again, I, I'm
not going to debate it. I wouldn't my intention was not to belabor it. I think, and I hope that you have board 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, they take a closer look at this audit report than maybe you have, um, and that they're able to, uh, uh, uh, come to a different conclusion. Well, I, I agree.
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:20:02
We should always follow the procurement process when it applies. Any other questions of the witness?
If not, Some money just popped up. Representative Gasaway, you're recognized. Thank you,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:20:25
Mr. Chair. And I didn't intend to 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
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:20:41
may be a question for staff. It has not been paid. I can tell you that much.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:20:49
OK, that was Mr. Watson. Yes, OK. All right, and there was some issue, you know, it's, 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. Uh, the board's awareness and there were some issues that were brought before ALC and JPR about that specifically about Uh, 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
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:21:27
the state to recover his fees. Do you recall this? I do, and, but I also realized that again, We fell into somewhat of a trap there of fall starting on one route, if you will, under 7-Eleven. And then when we became, you know, more concerned about the actual payment process, we, we went off, we stepped off on the wrong foot.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:21:50
But to be clear, 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. Remove 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. With that, I did not know
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:22:16
of, of the changes. I was only speaking for yourself. You don't know
about other members of the board. Yep. All right. Fair enough but I do know that that whole process. Shouldn't have
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
1:22:39
been followed to begin with. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. Thank you. Um, I read it briefly and I know that this might be getting off in a little bit of a tangent, I, I skimmed the article this morning. Can you just update us on what the
Supreme Court ruled yesterday and, and explain that in your words, so
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:22:57
we're all updated the Supreme Court found that uh there was no error in Judge James' action in granting the preliminary injunction. They did not address, um, the Attorney General's motion to disqualify our attorney, um, Judge James had already said. He's our attorney under 7-Eleven 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 to answered almost 2 years ago, and that is, and forgive me, uh, I don't mean this to be lighthearted, but, you know, being an attorney, I can tell you that, you know, and, and I have friends here in the legislature, and I know that everybody's always saying, oh,
that's gonna 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 the 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. 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, I'm gonna, I'm gonna stop
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:25:03
that Representative Gattisway has a question, but I'm gonna remind the, uh, 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, uh, to some of the statements that are, that have been made, uh, 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 gonna let, uh, Representative Gasaway ask his question. Well, thank you, Mr.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:25:36
Chair, and, and I agree with the chair's assessment of what the issues are. Uh, however, in light of Mr. Watson's comments, I do think that there are some things that need to be put on the record and at least clarified based on what you've said here today, you referenced the ruling, most recent ruling in the Supreme Court, but To be clear, that ruling was not
a ruling on the merits. No, absolutely not. I mean as an attorney, what you've acknowledged, there was another ruling on Judge Fox's ruling from the Supreme Court that did discuss
Lee Watson
Unverified
1:26:09
this contract and, uh, would you care to discuss what they said about it? Well, that situation is slightly different. When we initially hired Mr. Matazottigan, it was under 25, 16, 7, 11. Um Immediately thereafter, we were
sued by the Attorney General. We're his client. So, It, it put us in this position where on the, in the first instance, we couldn't go to him for advice and counsel. And on the 2nd we couldn't. It's obvious, we, we were adverse litigants. And, uh, we believed then and still believed that the appropriate thing to do was because the facts were so interwoven. Um, because it was all about those employment decisions, uh,
we made the decision to hire Mr. Ratazottigan to represent us in that second action. And he was willing to expand. What he was doing for us to to. Represent us. There's no point belaboring
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:27:20
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 2nd. And second, uh,
any discussion and it looks like, uh, Senator Dimain has a discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:27:50
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. OK, I mean, it, 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 thirty-page response says the conclusion says as a supplemental ALA.
Legislative audit Should revise its report and find that 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 with you and JPR and I can't remember what, 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, 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 thirty-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, and I'm just still astonished they were disputed.
Thank you. Thank you, Senator Dimay. Seeing no others, uh, we have a motion, we have
a second, uh, all those in favor, uh, 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, uh, 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 29
Speaker 34
Speaker 21
Speaker 44
Speaker 49
Speaker 58
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Lee Watson
Unverified
Speaker 107
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
Speaker 117
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