Legislative Joint Auditing

Good morning folks. Thank you all for being here. All to order First Adam is adoption of the minutes of the October 11th. Hey, gentlemen. Folks, you're welcome to take it outside. Can you hear me now? Wonderful. It will start over. Glad to have you all here today. First album was called to order by the chair. We've done that. Next item is adoption of minutes of the October 11th, 2024 meeting. Do I have a motion? I have a motion. Do I have a second? I see a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed say nay. We have adopted those. Moving on to Executive committee. The executive committee met Thursday, December 5th, 2024 and adopted the meetings from the meeting held October 10th. Staff reported to the committee, the audit and special reports scheduled to be presented to the standing committees and the full legislative Joint Audit Committee this month. Staff also noted reports that are anticipated to be completed by the end of the year. And new business, a request for a special report on the Fountain Lake Volunteer Fire Department was deferred to the May 2025 meeting. Another business Serra Wallace introduced Center Jim Petty as the next, uh, chair of, of joint audit. And Mr. Kevin White presented the 2025 audit calendar, which has been previously approved. With no additional business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. This next meeting of the committee is scheduled for Thursday, May 8th, 2025, or at the call of the chairs, and I moved for adoption of this report. And I have a 2nd on oh thank you, all in favor say aye. Any opposed? And that has been approved. We'll next recognize representative Lusstrom to We're still given this new system a test flight. Good morning. 15 reports were on the committee's agenda yesterday. 5 reports with the following findings were presented. The attorney general erroneously made a career service payment to an employee, and that was corrected. The Department of Human Services could not locate all the equipment items sampled incorrectly posted investment activity to foster care accounts and did not properly account for credit card purchases. The Labor Department and licensing did not obtain the special authorization needed for a board meetings, meals. Properly and reimburse travel expenses to employees and did not properly record or account for various licensing fees. The Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism did not properly calculate sick leave payouts and reports to lost receipts. At one of the museums. Finally, Game and Fish commission reported various steps of property. Various agency staff members presented reports on how the agencies intended to address the audit findings and to answer committee questions. During the meeting, the committee filed 15 reports, moved to adopt this report. I have a motion. Do I have a second? I have a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Say nay. And it has been adopted. Moving on to the standing Committee on County in in municipalities or Representative Rye. The committee adopted the minutes of the meeting held October 10, 2024. The committee was updated on the status of water and sewer audits staff sent certified letters to the mayors, treasurers, clerks, and all council members at 5 entities that are delinquent in submitting reports, reminding them to submit written plans for how these reports will be obtained two entities provided written responses and the the committee approved a motion. for the state treasurer to escrow state turnback funds for the 3 remaining entities until they obtain the required reports. Officials for the town of Gilmore were present to address questions regarding the town's failure to meet the requirement of its approved plan for repaying misused straight funds. The committee noted, or excuse me, the committee voted to notify the state treasurer and the town officials that the town's highway revenue will be withheld until the balance due is paid in full. Officials for the town of Ur were present to address questions regarding the town's noncompliance with municipal accounting law. The committee approved the motion to give town officials 30 days to reach compliance as required under Arkansas code annotated 1459 117. The committee Reviewed 16 deferred reports and 155 current reports. Officials from 7 entities were present to address repeat findings 15 previously deferred reports were filed of the 155 current reports reviewed, 8 were referred to the prosecuting attorney and the attorney general and one was certified to the governmental bonding board. The committee filed a 144 current reports and deferred 11 to allow officials to answer questions or provide further information. At a future meeting. And Mr. Chair, I, I move for adoption of this report, sir. Thank you, Representative. Do I have a second. I see a second all in favor say aye. In the pose, say nay. In the report has been adopted. Moving to our next uh Adam The standing Committee on Educational Institutions will be briefed by Senator Petty. And Jim, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The committee met yesterday to review 6 audit reports, including on included on the agenda. Representatives from the Lone Oak School DistrictIP Delta Public Schools in Arkansas State University were present and answered questions from the committee related to findings contained in their audit reports. The Lone Oak School District. Report was deferred from the October meeting and the KIPP Delta report contained a repeat finding. The audit report of Arkansas Tech University was certified to the governmental bonding board as well as referred to the applicable prosecuting attorney and attorney general. The audit reports for the Arkansas State University system in Blytville school system were referred to the applicable prosecuting attorney and attorney general. The committee filed the 6 audit reports that were brought before it, Mr. Chairman, I move for adoption of this report. remembers, I have a motion and I have a second, all in favor, say aye. Any opposed say nay. Say none. This report has been adopted. Moving on to item D, summary of intercollegiate athletic revenue and expenditures. And I'm going to recognize. Mr. Nick Fuller. And sir, you will introduce yourself. Good morning. I'm Nick Fuller. I'm the assistant commissioner for the Division of Higher Education, you're recognized. This report I'm presenting to you this morning is the details of athletic expenditures and revenues for each higher education institution for fiscal year 2324. This report has been approved from the Higher Education Coordinating Board at our October meeting. And is presented to you once that approval was passed. This includes all generated revenues from the athletic programs and the expenses associated with those. As you'll note, the institutions are allowed to transfer up to 2% of their educational and general revenues. Two athletics to cover any expenses. For fiscal year 24, total athletic expenditures for universities was $254,887,000. And for the two-year colleges, it's 5. $5.4 million. The total of $260 million is an increase of almost $14 million over the prior year. Which is a 5.6% increase. Mainly associated with the increased costs of travel. Across the institutions. There wasn't an increased amount of travel, but the cost of the travel increased across the board so that the cost went up and that's the main, uh, correlation for that increase. Comparing the 24 expenditures to the 24 budgeted. Revenues and expenses that institutions submitted for the year. There was a the institution spent 9.7% more than what they had planned and submitted for a budget. the 24 fiscal year. This ranged from almost 40% below planned budget to almost 76% above that budget. I will mention that while these exceed their budget, this is just a small portion of expenses that are paid out of their larger approved cash appropriations that you all approve. So it's not, they're not exceeding authorized appropriation levels. This is just the budget amount specific for athletics that is presented to our coordinating board that they're going over the planned budget that they, they started at the beginning of the. And then you'll see that the chart at the back of the presentation that details all the types of revenues and then the associated expenditures that correlate to those. If there are any questions you might have. Members, do you have any questions? See none? Do I have a motion to approve. I have a motion. Do I have a second? I have a 2nd. All in favor say aye. Any opposed say nay. And, uh, this has been reviewed. Moving on to item E. This is uh special report. And review of the transactions and services of Solution Tree. And with that, uh, Miss Rachel Raglan is recognized. Thank you, Mister Chair. This report is issued in response to a request approved by this committee for legislative audit to review expenditures made by the Department of Education, public school districts, education service cooperatives and higher education institutions to solution tree and its affiliates. Act 427 of 2017 requires that Additional funding in professional development be used for professional learning communities for the benefit of school districts. The Office of State procurement authorized ADE to initiate special procurement of a contract with Solution Tree starting July 1, 2017 without seeking bids. The purpose of this contract was for solution tree to train Arkansas teachers and administrators in the PLC at work process referred to in this report as the PLC project. To expand the PLC project ADE awarded a grant of just under 5.1 million using federal AARPA funds to the Arkansas Association for Educational Administrators with a grant award period of July 1, 2021 through September 30th, 2024. Additionally, higher education institutions, schools, and co-ops have contracted directly with Solutiontree and affiliates to provide professional development services. Established in 1998 Solution Tree offers events for educators, virtual and on-site professional development resources such as books, videos, and online courses and programs such as PLC at work. It primarily operates from headquarters in Indiana and maintains offices in 6 other states including Arkansas. The two solution tree affiliates discussed in this report are Marzano resources and results coaching Global. Objective one was to provide payments made by ADE schools co-ops and higher education institutions to solution tree and affiliates. During the review period, Solution Tree and affiliates received a total of 144.6 million, including 80 million from ADE 63 million from schools and co-ops and 1.6 million from seven higher education institutions in the state. During physical year 2023, nearly 36 million was paid to Solution Tree and affiliates with approximately 47% coming from federal sources, 51.7% from non-federal sources and 1.4% coming from unclassified sources as shown in Schedule 2 on page 11. Objective 2 was to determine services provided by Solution Tree and affiliates to ADE and assess compliance with Arkansas procurement laws as previously noted, the OSP director authorized ADE to initiate special procurement of a contract with Solution Tree without seeking bids to execute a special procurement and unusual or unique situation must make competitive bidding contrary to public interest. The OSP director stated that the limited amount of time, ADE had to implement PLCs for the school year as required by Act 427 created an unusual and unique situation. All non-exempt contracts for services as defined in Arkansas procurement law must be presented for legislative review if they have an annual contract amount that that equals or exceeds $50,000 in any contract year or a total projected contract amount of $350,000. OSP submitted the solution tree contract and subsequent amendments to legislative council annually. The contract term and corresponding amounts are provided in exhibit one on page 3 of the report. Since August 2017, schools in six cohorts have participated in the PLC project as shown in Schedule 3 on page 12. Additional PLC networks or programs were developed to support various schools, co-ops, higher education institutions and educational renewal zones not part of the PLC project cohort. Based on a review of solution tree invoices payments totaling 16.5 million under the PLC contract for physical year 2023 are consistent with services outlined in the contract. A summary of monthly services provided to 31 individual schools and non-districts is provided in Schedule 4 on page 13. Certain commodities and services specified in Arkansas code are exempt from standard procurement procedures, educational books were purchased from Marzano Resources as an exempt commodity based on the review of invoices for fiscal year 2023, Marzano Resources was paid just under $4000 for books and instructional tool kits for AD. Office of Special Project staff and $3300 for speaking fees for two statewide virtual conferences. As previously mentioned, ADE awarded a 5.1 million ARPA funded grant to AAEA to form the PLC Regional Network, which utilized Arkansas practitioners previously trained by Solution Tree to lead schools and districts in the state. AAEA contacted 31 Arkansas practitioners, mainly principals during the grant period to request that each practitioner provide at least one day of on-site coaching per month to a member of the PLC Regional Network. In addition, 19 teachers participated during the grant period to lead collaborative teams virtually after conclusion of the school day. In total, individuals and school districts had received over 642,000 from AAEA as of December 31st, 2023. Based on review of invoices, contract documentation, and other supporting documentation, we determine that these services, as well as the contract and payments for services rendered comply with Arkansas procurement laws. Objective 3 was to obtain and review fiscal year 2023 school and co op contracts with Solution Tree and affiliates to determine services provided in compliance with Arkansas procurement laws. School districts traditionally do not procure professional development services through a bidding process due to the specific nature of the services being provided. Arkansas code requires bid solicitation for purchases of commodities unless otherwise excluded at or above the purchasing threshold, which was $23,100 for 2022, 2023 school year. We reviewed invoice documentation provided by a sample of 30 school districts and co-ops for payments to Solution Tree and affiliates in fiscal year 2023. Payments reviewed comprised 69% of the 17.7 million. million total expenditures to these vendors by schools and co-ops as shown in Schedule 6 on page 15 and schedule 7 on page 16. Of the 30 districts reviewed 18 paid non-refundable advance deposits totaling 1.2 million in compliance with their contract terms. However, paying advance deposits from public funds is not a recommended business practice. We concluded that contracts and payments for services reviewed complied with Arkansas procurement laws. Objective 4 was to determine whether employees of ADE schools and co-ops are employed by or perform contract services for. Solution tree and affiliates and identify potential conflicts of interest. Based on our inquiry of AGE management and review of invoices, no ADE employees are employed by Solution Tree or its affiliates. It should be noted that an associate deputy commissioner published one book and provided a one day training through Solure and properly disclose these services. For physical year 2023, we reviewed payments totaling over 670,007,200 made by ADE to solutionre and Marzano Resources respectively, in addition to the contract-related payments. We noted no purchases of books authored by AD employees and no conflicts of interest in the authorization and approval of invoices and contracts. None of the authors or speakers listed on these invoices were found to be employed by ADE or. Arkansas schools. Based on review of the Solution Tree website. We identified 15 practitioners who provided services and were employees of Arkansas schools or ADE. Of this 1510 were employed by schools selected for for testing and objective 3 and 1 was employed by ADE. All 11 were disclosed by the 7 respective schools and by ADE. In addition, a school disclosed one employee who was not listed on the Solution Tree website as having a relationship with Solution Tree, bringing the total number of employees examined to 12. We reviewed invoices for physical year 2023 contracts and responses from schools for the 12 employees and noted the following. One school purchased 5 copies of a book authored by an ADE employee and published by Solution Tree. Two school employees provided coaching services through Solution Tree to other Arkansas schools, though neither was involved in school contract procurement. Two school employees and an administrator were identified by their respective schools as participating in the school's procurement process of contracts with Solutree and affiliates. However, none were listed on any invoices reviewed as a coach instructor or author of services and products purchased. Solution tree provided the information illustrated in exhibit 2 on page 7 and on this slide regarding compensation to 16 Arkansas practitioners who were utilized as independent contractors during the years 2021, 2022, and 2023. During 2021, 3 Arkansas practitioners were compensated for services during 2022, non-Arkansas practitioners were compensated during 2023, 14 Arkansas practitioners were compensated. Additionally, book royalty payments between $1000 and $10,000 were made to a practitioner in calendar year 2023 and an ed tech contributor payment totaling 500 or less was made to a practitioner in calendar year 2021. These payments are not included in exhibit 2. We also examined supporting documentation for 10 AAEA grant expenditures, none of the employees examined were identified on solutionsree's website as having a relationship with Solution Tree. Additionally, the employee schools were reimbursed a daily rate for any training that occurred on a contract day. Based on a review of fiscal year 2023 invoices from the 30 sample schools, none of these employees were listed as a coach, instructor, or author of services and products purchased. Overall, we determined that no roles or responsibilities of the practitioners examined who are associated with ADE schools co-ops and AAEA appear to conflict with Arkansas ethics requirements. In summary, solution tree and affiliates received a total of 144.6 million from ADE schools, co-ops, and higher education institutions during the review period of the employees identified with the relationship to Solution Tree, no roles or responsibilities appear to conflict with Arkansas ethics requirements. Finally, services and products purchased from Solutiontree and affiliates appear to comply with Arkansas procurement laws, however, making advance. deposits using public funds is not, is not a recommended business practice. Mr. Chair, this concludes my presentation. ADE's response to the report is provided in Appendix A and ADE representatives are present to respond to committee questions. Thank you, Rochelle. And Senator Hemmer. You're first up in the queue, and you are recognized, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could the staff restate or reread that section that was given as far as It being a unique event that justified the expense. Or where is that in the report? Great. Thank you, uh, Senator. So on page 3 of the report. is where we speak about the unusual and unique situation. It's underneath objective 2, solution tree and contract, um, like I say, in, in stated in the report in the aforementioned letter, OSP director stated that the limited amount of time AD had to implement the PLCs for the school year as required by 427 created an unusual and unique situation. OK. And then, uh, at the appropriate time, she'd like to ask the agency a question. The Practitioners that were, uh, paid funds. Do we know though that they did they or did they not take personal leave time, uh, from their schools so as to not be a conflict. I know some have taken personal leave time and In order to be able to For the practitioners who were, um, compensated through the AAEA grant. They were compensated. Um, a different amount if it was a non-contract day and they were compensated a lower amount if it was a contract day because they did receive their normal payment from each school, but the school was reimbursed for, um, their daily rates and fringe benefits. All right. So, there was, there was no case then based on what you said and how you described it, there was no case of double dipping what I'd refer to as double dipping. They were Functioning appropriately within what was allowed for them to be able to take. Payments as you described. Yes, the schools were made whole for that grant. OK. All right. Um, Mr. Chair, appropriate time, agency question, please. Yes, sir. Senator Chesterfield, you're recognized, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and, uh, having been one of those who asked for it. It is nice to know that um There's nothing nefarious that seems to jump out. I'm just amazed at the amount of money. That has been paid from so many so from various sources, would you repeat to me how much came from the school districts or from the Department of Ed. How much came from school districts. How much came from co ops, how much came from higher ed? The total for the entire review period was $144.6 million ADE paid 80.1 million. We do not have the breakdown between schools and co-ops, but schools and co-ops combined with 63 million and then higher education institutions was 1.6 million. I see, so. One more time. Total 144.6 million ADE 80.1 million schools and co-ops combined 63 million higher education institutions, 1.6 million. Could you, could you tell me why we didn't differentiate between the schools and the co-ops because they are, they are two different entities. Why was that? Was it just inconvenient or? Am I missing something there? Uh, Senator, uh, there's, I guess, no real reason that we distinguished between the two other than they, they came from the same system, both of them come from the ASCA system, both schools and co-ops, so it was pulling from that system combined as opposed to AD is pulling from a separate system, which is AI, the statewide system, and then the higher education amounts, we had to reach out to the institutions of higher education individually and compile that and combine it. I see. Thank you, and I'll, I'll await hearing from higher ed, but let me just say as one of those who was around when we started this thing, we were told that they were the only ones available to provide the services, not that it was of such. Such a rush, if, if my memory serves me correctly, that it was such a rush that we had to do it because it was the only thing that was available at the time and we needed to get this procurement thing going. I was under the impression that they were the only ones who were providing the services only to find out later that that was not the case. But It was unusual and a unique situation is what I'm hearing here, reading here on page 3, and because it created an unusual and unique situation, then we needed to forego ordinarily ordinary procurement practices, but at one time, the procurement director raised issues about solution tree and the process itself was that looked at at all? I'm, I'm sorry, Senator, I'm not aware of that situation, those concerns being raised. All right. Thank you. I'll, I'll get back in the queue, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. Representative Eubanks, you are a recognized, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As someone else that has been involved in this from the very beginning, uh, that, uh, The reason for that special procurement, because I spoke with the, uh, OSP, uh, director. Myself about that because we had passed the legislation enabling this, uh, program to get started and it was, uh, we were, we didn't have the time in order to go through the, uh, a regular bidding process that time because we were wanting to implement it for that. coming school year. The other problem was that the legislation didn't have an emergency clause on it which caused us additional uh uh issues with regard to the amount of time that would have been needed in order to do that. Also, the contracts were renewed each year. So I think by this body, so I think if there had ever been any real concerns about how that process, uh, proceeded that they should have been brought up at those times. Uh, this started when, uh, Speaker Gillam sent a group of legislators to one of the solution tree conferences in Phoenix, Arizona, uh, that group, I think was unanimous in the fact that they were very impressed with what they learned, not from the, the solution tree themselves, but from the attendees, the, uh, teachers, administrators that were there and there was approximately 1500. educators at that conference, uh, Our sole purpose in, in, in trying to implement this program in Arkansas was to try to do something that was going to reach the needs of our kids where they are, whether they are, uh, struggling or whether they needed enrichment of some sort, but I believe the ADE identified solution tree is probably the best. Provider of those services at that time. Uh, I think when this went out for uh bids this past, uh, this past year that The scoring indicates that they are the best in the country with regard to the services that they provide. They're not the cheapest by any stretch. We can see that, and we know that from what the, uh, how the bids came in. But if we are genuinely interested in addressing public education and the needs of our children. Then I think we need to put our money where our mouth is and the reason people ask me why I've been so passionate about This process, and it's because of the, the educators that have come to me voluntarily of their own accord and told me that they thought this was the best professional development that they've ever been offered in the state of Arkansas. I personally invited schools. And administrators to come here and share that information with the members of this committee and the Education committee, so they could hear it firsthand from those practitioners that were doing it in the field. I think the vast majority of the people that have been involved in this PLC process would agree that they are seeing progress. With their within their schools and with the students that they are responsible for, uh, I was disappointed that This audit was even asked for because I felt, and I may be off base here, but I felt it was almost an attempt to impugn the reputation of solution tree. I believe They do provide the best services in the country. The people that they hired to be associates to be these coaches in these schools have to prove that they are capable of doing the PLC process. They have had to have implemented it in their schools for a minimum of 3 years and shown that they can be successful. Consequently, I think that was why some of the people in, within the state, within schools were asked to go out and coach other schools. I think we were reaching a, uh, a point in our, in the state where at some point, I think at the end, Of what that proposed contract was that we would have had the capacity within the state. That we wouldn't have to rely on an outside contractor in order to provide these services. And like I said, if we're truly interested in improving public education and addressing the needs of our students. I think we have to look at uh what's available across the country. I think, and I would once again ask you to contact some of the schools that I personally contacted and had come here. To testify to Education Committee and to, uh, the review. Committee, so that you would know firsthand. What the people that are actually doing the work, how they felt about it. So, I would, uh, I, I think solutionre personally deserves a, uh, An apology here because I think people were actually trying to impugn their reputation as Whether they are qualified to offer these services, but I want to thank them personally for the work they've done in the state. And I for one, want to see public education succeed in this state. Senator Sullivan, you recognize, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I think, uh, I appreciate what the representative said, um, They were very meticulous solution tree was and making sure we followed, um, procurement laws and it seems like they're, uh, they did a good job with that, um. You know, I think, however, every audit is not an attempt to impugn anyone. Every audit is they're just there to audit to show us what the facts are, and I trust our legislative audit to show us what the facts are, and that's what this did. There was clearly, uh, uh, uh, significant web of interaction. And again, they follow the law, but it was very entangled, and I think, you know, whatever happened in the past, the legislature has addressed. Which is our job, uh, to provide the best education and I think a month or so ago, uh, we made steps in that direction and if schools want a higher solution tree to, uh, go forward. They're very welcome to do so. I would ask Mr. Chair of the of the uh chair in the report, it mentions a lot of names and ranges of payment, you know, we hired these people and they hired those people. That information would seem to be be subject to Foya. Can the names that are, can the Individuals that are mentioned here as being paid by a solution tree. Is that public information and available to the legislature. I mean it says in some places they were paid $1000 to 10,000 and some paid more than 10,000. I'd like to know the names of those people and the exact amounts they were paid. Senator. Kevin White legislative auditor, you know, we would, um, we would not feel comfortable at this time providing those names, that information, there's a potential constitutional privacy right that those individuals might have in relation to that compensation, um. If, you know, we'd like to talk about this more offline. Um, so that, so these are contracts that the state has with the company. Who then contracted with state employees, according to properly procurement law and confidentiality. And then those employees provided a service to the school, so they actually showed up at a school and provided a service and were not allowed to know who those people are. My apology center, I misunderstood your question. I was, um, as far as the individuals that provided services to Arkansas schools. Um, I mean, we would know the names of those individuals if they were on the face of the invoices that we looked at and those invoices would be public record, um, that would be public information, um. OK, can we get a copy of those invoices? In a report and provide that to us. Yeah, we can get you that information. If it's the information you're looking for is those individuals listed on the face of invoices that were paid by public school districts just for the record, I'm not trying to impugn anybody's reputation, but just like we as legislators, uh, sign off and this public information and what we do, it should be the same for all public employees when they, uh, sign paperwork and they provide a service to a school, uh, at a public contract that should be, uh, public information and asking for public information should not be construed as trying to impugn someone's, uh, character. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, sir. Center hammer, sir, you are recognized. Thank you. I'd like to ask staff for clarification and I'd like to ask the agency a question, please. On, on page 4. You know, the scope of the audit on the first page says to review expenditures made by the Arkansas Department of Education, public school districts. Really the scope of the audit, as I understand it, isn't to argue for or against whether or not solution tree. Provides services of value as much as is just to make sure that the, the, the funding. Has been appropriated and spent. Properly according to procurement. Am I correct on that, Mr. Chair or staff? Yes, that is correct. OK. So with that statement then on page 4, I'd like to make sure I'm interpreting it correctly. It says these practitioners were to be paid at a daily rate of $1000 for school, non-contract days or 500 for school contact days, plus the practitioners normally normal daily rate of pay. So am I to interpret that, that if, uh, an individual is providing services. Offered by Solution Tree. That they would be receiving potentially up to $1000 a day for those services. Yes, sir, that is correct. And would I be interpreting it correctly. That the majority of these people somewhere right in here, I think, are principals. That are operating under those terms, or am I misinterpreting that. You are correct. They are principles. The ones receiving that amount of compensation. There were, in addition, 19 teachers that participated, um, after hours, and they were paid $500 per semester. OK, but if it's a principle, the principal's being paid. Potentially up to $1000 a day to provide those services and For receiving that $1000 a day, they also received what was allowed them under their contract that they were operating under with the school? No, if they received a $1000 a day. It was for, it was a non-contract day that they did not get paid by their school. OK, so did you verify in the audit. That those principles that received that money had supplied proper documentation to show that they actually Uh, took that day off with their districts or was that within the scope of this audit? No, we did not verify that information. If it was a non-contract day. Mr. Chair, would that be under the purview of this auditor, that'd be a separate request, I guess, to determine or just verify. That for all those days, uh, that they were, they actually completed the proper paperwork with their individual districts. Center humor, I, I would think that we could ask for that. Sir, I think that we could ask for that. OK, I think that'd be appropriate in line of scope of what we're looking at here. Um, and then at the appropriate time, I would like to ask the agency a question, please. All right, sir. OK Center Chesterfield. You're recognized, ma'am. Well, let me try it again. There you go. When is the appropriate time to hear from the Department of Ed? Anytime we can call them up now. I'd appreciate it. Do I have a representative from the Department of Ed's. Sir, if you would announce yourself, you're recognized. Greg Rogers, Department of Education. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Greg, you've been around here for a long time and so have I. So Chesterfield, bear with me, ma'am. I'd like to swear in our witness. Sir, you will stand. Sir, if you will state your For name, employer, and position. Greg Rogers, Department of Education CFO. You raise your right hand and do you saw me swear or affirm that the Tesimo you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, sir, thank you so much. Am I recognized, Mr. Chair? Yes, ma'am, you are. Thank you. Um, Greg, would you tell us the difference between formative and summative evaluations. That is way beyond my expertise, let me try as an old classroom teacher. A formative evaluation is how people feel. About things that are going on a summitative evaluation tells us exactly how they are performing. How much increase in test scores has happened since the lucree has been here for 7 years. Do you know? I don't have that with me, but I'd have to get it for you. I appreciate that because I remember when we were dealing with the Bureau of Legislative Research during adequacy studies, there was no appreciable. Increase. In the um performance of those students. The average The average test score. For children in reading is about 37. Is that about right? You don't know? Why are you up your grade I don't have that with then allow me to just pontificate a minute, Mr. Chair, and I'll let Greg go. I have been asking for years for summative evaluations. Of about Solution tree's work. People feel good about solution tree, but how much of students progress since they've been here. Has there been an appreciable increase in the performance level of students who are there in Solution tree. We still don't have 40% of our kids reading at grade level. We don't have 40% or a little maybe 40% of our kids who are who are performing at grade level on math tests. I don't care how people feel. I want to know how kids are doing. And if that's not the whole purpose of this whole thing, then we are wasting our time. It is about time for us to make sure that at the higher ed level. Our teachers are being taught the science of reading. So that when they come into the classroom they can teach Johnny how to read, because if they can't come out of college teaching Johnny how to read, then what's the purpose? Johnny, whether it's IE or Y, is not reading better. They're not performing math better. And this thing has been going on for 7 long years. That's why I wanted to know where the money was going, how it was being spent. I've heard teachers say, oh, we just feel so good, we are working together better. I think that's great. But I'm not seeing an appreciable increase in the test scores of our children over 7 years. They have been here since 2017. And here we are in 2024. And we have too many DNF schools across the state that have used this program. That's my concern since we're pontificating, I thought I'd take that personal pri point of personal privilege, Mr. Chair and pontificate a minute myself. It is not an insult to ask how state monies are being spent. The governor has to say how her money is being spent. The treasurer has to say, and it is not untoward to ask an entity that's been with us for 7 years and has been given over a $100 million to see where that money goes. There's nothing untoward about that. It should have been done each and every year that they were given money, in my view. And I'm not gonna ask you to agree or disagree, but I do think that we ought to look at what has happened as a result of 7 years of solution tree. Johnny Steele can't read. 7 years, 50% or more of our children should have been able to read at grade level and they should have been able to perform math at grade level and they cannot. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I feel better. Thank you, Senator. Representative Duke, you recognized, ma'am. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. It's kind of hard to follow the senator there, but I, and several of my points have already kind of been made. I would say as being someone who also asked for this audit. It was not to impugn anybody, if I remember correctly, I thinklu Tree actually came out and said they welcomed it, which of course I would as well if I don't have anything to be concerned about. And so, um, I think that needs to be remembered and I think to take it a little bit further than what'senator Chesterfield said it's not the state. money, it's the taxpayers' money and we have a responsibility in my opinion we have an obligation to make sure we know where that money is going, especially, I mean, that's a big number, $144 million over seven years in our public school systems. And so I believe it was Ronald Reagan that said trust but verify. That's been my practice with my teenagers and, um, I think that's my practice as a school board member and I think that should be our practice as legislators is absolutely we want to trust these organizations, but we have a responsibility to verify what's going on with that and we need accountability. We have accountability every time we're re-elected, you know, whether the, the taxpayers think we're doing a good job or not, and there should be accountability. I, I believe personally, in every dime that's going through those public schools to help educate our kids and that accountability is results and, um, as the senator referenced, we did receive reports. On that and the education committee. There was no real negligible difference between um solution tree cohort schools and schools who were not, we saw that from the BLR report. We saw that from the um uh the education purport, the other entity from the University of Arkansas, I believe that did that. And so we've seen that consistently. So the question in trying to do this in in getting this audit was to make sure what was going on with that money. We need accountability for it so we can see in 2025, what we might need to do differently because it is a statute that has these PLCs in place in our, in our school systems and in our co-ops and so we do need to be able to have all of that information. I think this audit helped provide some insight on that and also if we need to make some changes in some of our procurement laws or other things that we are doing to make sure. there's better accountability for all vendors going forward because there's a lot of money. I mean, this is PD money and this is in counting the other buckets of PD money that we're using. This is additional professional development money. And so that's an important piece to know. Are we utilizing that money effectively and do we need to make sure there's higher accountability, uh, with these vendors moving forward because public education as we all discussed recently is is a significant amount of money that we use in our state and we need to be using it effectively. Um, I can't elaborate more on what she said the test scores or anything like that, but I do think that we need to remember, I, I've heard good and I have heard consistently since 2017 concerns from school officials about Solure, about PLCs and about the amount of time and not just what the PLCs do. I mean, it's good to have effective teacher meetings. That's great. Um, but there's also other things that go into place that come out of those teachers meeting other policies, other programs that have evolved out of that in the 7 years, I don't think we we have seen that those have been effective and we can't keep we'll wait another year, wait, you know, 2 more years. These kids are graduating every single year in our state and having to get remediation when they go on to college on reading and math, and we cannot continue to do that, so making sure these entities are spending their money is important correctly. And as far as the emotion piece, when I do hear people talk about that, I think Solution Tree can be a tool in your tool belt. It shouldn't be the only tool in your tool belt, um, but we should not be guided by emotions, they are good engines but terrible drivers. And so we need to be looking at hard facts and how this money is being utilized. Now I have a couple of questions in relation to this audit and I don't know if you can answer this or not, um. These may be better for offline. I don't know, but one of them is when you were looking at the As the educators who were going to other schools to provide training. Did you just look when they went to Arkansas schools to provide training, or did we look when those they were going to other states to provide training and if so, do you know what, what that is. And, um, let me see what my other one was. Well, I'll just go with that one and get back in the queue. We did not look at any other states other than Arkansas, um, and for Arkansas, we used our sample of 30 school districts as our driver to determine, um, if any of those individuals presented at those 30 schools. We did not look at any other schools that were not in our sample. Follow up, please. Go right ahead. Just to make sure I understood you correctly. So these Arkansas educators who might have traveled to California to give a presentation or to do something that was not included in looking to see where they might have, whether it was versa compensation or were gone in that time period. It would just have been if they had gone to a local Arkansas school. Could you repeat that? I'll try. I'll try to do a better job of, of rephrasing this. So if an Arkansas principal or teacher, whomever these were that you have, I guess, pulled out to look at what they have been doing for Solution Tree. The way it read to me was these were teachers or principals that were going to local Arkansas schools, and this is their work within the state, but we know, at least I'm aware that they also travel outside of the state of Arkansas to provide services for Solution Tree, whether it going to conferences to be presenters or go to other schools to train. Was that included looking at whether they had gone out of state somewhere to do it, or was it only looked to whether they remained in a in state school to provide services for Solution Tree. We only looked at Arkansas, however, on page 7, exhibit 2 for the compensation, that is all compensation, including Arkansas and anywhere else they may have gone. And may I have, I'm sorry, the compensation levels are not just for Arkansas. Go ahead. And my last question, it would be the amounts that are over $10,000 that they receive compensation for. Can you give us the highest range? Was it just like $10,000 or was it much significantly more that or just close? These were the ranges that were provided, um, 1000 to 10,000 and more than 10,000. So we don't know if there was a 20,000 or 12,000 different over correct. And Senator Hammer, you're recognized, sir. Uh, and Mr. Chair, I'd like to address staff and then address Greg, please. Go ahead, sir. In, in reading the report, I can't find anything that would conclude that any procurement laws or any activity of anyone involved in all of this, whether it's the individuals or whether it's Solution tree or their affiliates. Have done anything outside of what is allowed by procurement laws or by other laws that would govern this. Am I correct in that interpretation? Yes, Senator, you are correct. We have identified no violation. OK, so the purpose of the audit is to review expenditures made by the Department of Education, yada yada, to, to make sure of that. So we're concluding that there's been no agreed grievous activity, egregious activity on the part of anybody. We're down to the debate of whether we're spending our money wisely. Um That's, that's an opinion. Greg, let me ask you this, uh, couple of things. One, And I think somebody said a while ago, who, what, what's AAEA's involvement in the administration of this. So AAEA received a grant from us, from federal funds. Uh, it was the first round of our ER funds, which was to, um, help. Train and expand current Arkansas educators in the PLC method. So we had our contract with uh So trade with the and when everything was going on with the ER funds, we were looking to expand, um, train within the schools, so as I mentioned earlier, kinda grow your own within the PLC method. OK. Do you know what AAEA got paid for that or, and I, I'm trying to, why, why them? We contracted with them because they, we gran granted funds the uh federal funds to them because they were the closest entity to have with the administrators, those that had been in the PLC process and the most knowledgeable of it. OK, and then the, and I remember a couple of months ago, we hashed this out for several hours one day about should we do solution tree or should we not? What, what was, what's the justification? I cannot remember. That's why I'm asking, what was the justification for the urgency. That we had to get the procurement contract rolled out as quick as we did. Just refresh my memory as to why, because that's been cited in the report as justification. And it was because it was at the time when the, uh, the PLC I think it was called PLC and at work, which is the slow stream method was adopted in the, uh, adequacy recommendations and the timeline for getting that started to be able to have it implemented by the uh Time School started that, uh, the previous OSP director made the recommendation based off our information that we sent that it was unusual and we did meet the thing for special procurement. for that first round, which is we did it for that seven-year contract, which is why this last 7 years, this last time we went to it, we did go through the RFP process, so we did that the first time to get it started, but then we did do an RFP for the next one. And any other entities out there that would offer the same thing that Solution Tria offers that it should have been put out for competitive bid. I, uh, this last time we did an RFP, I want to say there were 5 or 6 different organizations that did respond to the RFP, but during the evaluation period, uh, Solution Tree was the one that received the high score, right? And that, now I remember the debate was based on the percentage and weighted allotment for, for the various components of who would get that. I think, was that, am I right on that? That, that was part of this discussion, yes, sir. Yeah, OK. All right, so I guess my point is, did we create the unique event or Did we manufacture the unique event or to the unique event occur as a result of something else other than being self-manufactured. it was at the time there was self-manufactured when we had to get this started and get it put out based off trying to follow the law that was passed for getting the PLC method implemented. This is how this was the best route we could go at the time to get that started in the time frame we had. OK. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator, and members, I've allowed a lot of leeway on this. I've got, uh, 3 more individuals in the queue. I'm one allow them their opportunity and then we're gonna move on to the next. Uh Part of business here and with that Senator Beatty, you recognize her? I have been promoted. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, well, demoted something enjoyed Um, well, demoted something enjoy enjoy enjoy it for the moment, sir. I, I, I will. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I guess my comments come back in and, and my, my questions are more for staff, um, how many hours and how many staff members were involved in this audit? Uh, Senator, I'm don't have the info. sorry, yes, representative 80. I don't have that information in front of me. Thank you. Yes, sir, don't have that information in front of me. We had, uh, a couple of staff members who are kind of dedicated to it a little in the early period, um, at the Department of Education level. Then we had, uh, one primary staff person here sitting beside me who was dedicated in on the school side, uh, during the summer period, um, we had, you know, various other individuals chiming in at times to help out. with it because I think a total of, what was it $16 million. There were a significant amount of invoices that we looked at and reviewed. Right. And, and if I ask you this, since you didn't know how many staff members or how many hours were involved in this audit. So if I ask you the follow-up question to that is how much did this audit cost the state of Arkansas for you to prepare it with your time and your resources of the department, you couldn't answer that either, could you? We could get you an answer to that. I, I, I'd like that answer because I, I've sat through the discussions on solution tree and I was looking forward to the audit today and I ran, read through the audit and all the bold information in here that basically says, Uh, we looked at everything, and it all looked like it met the letter of the law, and it looked like everything was OK. So we, we, we've done a deep dive into solution tree at the state, the contracts, the invoices, everything that's happened. We've done a deep dive and we've looked at it. And I come to the meeting today and what I've heard from members in this room is you want more information. So my question to leg ait is, could you not find something wrong in here that you could report to this body or to members, do you want them to keep looking until they find something wrong because what we're looking at and what I'm focused on is the outcomes that we're getting for our, our, our, our students in Arkansas schools. That's not solution there's problem. They didn't call that. This is systemic over, over long periods of time of, of the results we're getting, and I'd much rather see our time and resources and energies focused on improving those outcomes for our students, then continually digging in deeper till we find something in this report. The witch hunt on Solution Tree needs to end today and let's stop with all these other requests for information and, and more things. And let's move on to important things, important matters. This is the past and will not change future outcomes if this body does not learn from the errors of the past, we approved all these contracts right here in this room, they were approved here. So, so the question is when will this stop and when will we start focusing on the important matters, and that's the outcome for our students in this state, so with that, I would like that information from Leg audit on how many members and hours in the overall cost of this audit, and I think When we as a body sit in this room, we need to think about that too. Because we, we are accountable to folks. We've made it perfectly clear that we didn't like the PLC process, there were questions and concerns about solution tree. And I think that was taken care of in June, on June 30th to 24, when their contract was not renewed and they decided they didn't want to go down that path. So my question is, let's, let's end this today and let's move on to more important things and finding outcomes for our students that work. That's what we're all trying to do here. That's what this process was. I know it's hard, uh, sometimes we look at it and look at it just in that green salve and the dollars that are involved, but there are a lot of dollars that we, we expend around here too. So, let, let's focus on those outcomes and I'd rather hear those discussions about how we improve, uh, those test scores for students than if someone traveled out of state and made a little extra money off the deal. Those things were looked into. Let's move on to important things. Thank you. Senator Johnson, Sir, you recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I, I can't help, but, but start out by saying, I want to thank, uh, Senator Chesterfield and Representative Beatty for for kind of. including a cherry on top of the Sunday here and, and getting to the point. Senator Chesterfield, if I may, I want to thank you for your years of service, and this is just one more example of why I'm gonna miss having you around, uh, because. When you and I believe that, uh, Representative Hodges, and there was another, uh, representative, but it may have been Representative Duke if I'm blaming you or praising you, please take it as you wish, but we had a bipartisan group of legislators, bicameral group of legislators come before our executive committee and say, in effect, hey folks, we got to take a look at this and I don't remember a whole lot of the points they brought out when they. requested that our staff look at this. But I do remember when it went over $100 million that got my attention. And I think about $144 million I think about. The points that Senator Chesterfield made, how many reading coaches could we have hired for that? How many math coaches could we have hired for that. Actually see a change in that number and as when we talk about uh. competency and, and reading and doing math at grade level. I always turn that, that figure upside down. We talk about, well, 34% reading it at, at grade level. That means that 66% aren't reading at grade level. That means 2 out of every 3 kids, we're not educating them. And, and, and. Senator Chesterfield, former Senator Elliott, a lot of us have talked for years about how You could almost find a statistical parallel to those kids that are in that 66% that don't end up in a good trade or in college or in some other meaningful. Situation in their life, they end up costing us on the other end at the Department of Corrections and that's a lot more than $144 million. So I want to praise our staff. They did what we asked them to do, was this in compliance with the procurement law. And to echo the things that, uh, represented Beatty said, what this really is telling me is, we can have all the great procurement laws on Earth and everyone dots every i and crosses every T, uh, I couldn't help but think about that, those $1500 toilet seats, we used to complain about the Department of Defense procuring, but I can tell you those vendors dotted every I and crossed every t. Uh, we got to look at the result, you know, can Johnny Reid, as Senator Chesterfield said, and if he can't, then we need to go back to square one and fix this and doing feel good programs. For our educators. Our great if it helps Johnny Reid. If it doesn't, it's a waste of taxpayers' money and we've got to change this systemically. I appreciate the staff again for getting us the answers to the questions about this, but this goes probably well beyond the audit function. This goes into us doing some self evaluation of, are we really doing our job, and I think this is a challenge to all of us that'll be back here in January. Thank you, Mr. Chair. for indulging me. Thank you, members. Thank you. Thank you, Greg, too. Representative Rye, sir, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I have a question. Um, On page 4, it mentions about halfway down AAEA contacted 31 Arkansas practitioners, mainly principals during the grant period to a request that each practitioner provide at least one day of onsite coaching from month to a member of the PLC Regional Network, and it goes on to say it's $1000 a day for non-contract days. In other words, that would be outside of 178, maybe 100. 80 days a year. Uh, and then $500 for, for, uh, days during a contract. I, I just think we need a little bit better explanation, uh, guys and ladies, uh, of how this is being done because this is added on top of a normal, uh, pay period for all of our teachers and principals and superintendents, you know, statewide. I just wish we could get a little bit more information on it. I think it would probably do the public a lot better good if they knew. That we knew exactly how that process was going on. Thank you Thank you, Representative Rye. And Senator Chesterfield. It is, it, well, OK. You. Or recognized review of the report. Remembers, I have a motion for review. Do I have a second? I have a second all in favor, say I, I, and he opposed? And the matter has been reviewed. Moving on to the next item. This is a special report for the cost-benefit analysis of selected economic incentive projects. Mr. Mett. You recognize, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is our annual review of the consolidated incentive Act economic incentive programs. The objectives of this report were to evaluate the controls over the awarding and issuance of CIA incentives by the Arkansas Economic Development Commission and the Department of Finance and Administration, as well as to determine the overall effectiveness of the CIA programs and the effectiveness of individual selected CIA projects. This chart, which is a part of the exhibit 2 on the bottom of page 3 of the report shows the distribution of CIA funds by region. Incentives awarded to companies for this 10-year period totaled almost $630 million. The remainder of exhibit 2, which is shown on this slide, illustrates the percentages of total incentive funds awarded in each region, which is shown in blue as well as each region's percentage of total population, which is shown in orange. This chart, which appears on page 5 of the report shows the distribution of CIA funds by incentive tight. Uh, statutory incentives accounted for 76% of all incentives awarded and issued. While discretionary incentives accounted for the remaining 24%. Um On page 7 of the report, you can see our conclusions reached on the overall effectiveness of programs based on projects we have reviewed over the last 10 years. As you can see by the green wording on the slide, two of the three statutory incentives, as well as create rebate, a job creation, discretionary incentive. Resulting in a positive cost benefit to the state. The 3 inconclusive discretionary programs are not as actively used and more incentives will have to be awarded and reviewed before a conclusion can be drawn. The two programs that we have concluded result in a negative cost benefit to the state or the statutory and discretionary R&D programs. Both of these programs were altered with legislation in 2019, with some of the key changes being that the statutory R&D program was changed to a discretionary program and is now an award of up to a maximum of 20% of eligible expenditures instead of an automatic 20%. Another big change was the supply expenses, which led to some of the larger incentives in the past are no longer allowed. Eligible expenditures are now limited to wages and benefits. In order to draw conclusions on overall programs, we look at individual projects. This year we looked at 35 projects that covered 6 incentive types. Which are listed on the slide. Of the 35 projects reviewed, 7 had unfavorable cost-benefit ratios. These 7 projects were R&D with 5 being the statutory R&D program and to the targeted business discretionary program. All of the 28 remaining projects had a favorable cost-benefit ratio. Um, we looked at 24 non-R&D projects and for those the state invested an average of just over $10,700 for each of the 2900 new full-time jobs created. There was one finding with this year's report, uh, it is discussed on page 10 of the report. And it is noted in the prior report, we noted deficiencies in internal controls related to AEDC's verification process of the tax credits awarded for R&D programs. We tested 11 R&D projects for this year's report. With incentives totaling $9.7 million awarded from 2017 to 2022. And we noted the following. The 9 of the 11 projects contain no documented audit or review summary provided by ADC explaining how they existence, accuracy, and allowability of the R&D expenses claimed were determined to be eligible. Um, the two remaining projects contain memos summarizing review steps taken by ADC. For calendar year 2022 only. Which did not encompass the entire five-year lives of the projects and Any disallowance is noted for 2022 as a result of the review, we're not uniformly disallowed from prior years. Um It should be noted that one of the two reviews performed by AEDC resulted in a disallowance of $3.3 million in expenses that were originally submitted by the company, highlighting the importance of these reviews. We recommend the AEDC continue to evaluate and approve its internal controls over tax credit awards to ensure that the expenditures for these awards are valid, accurate, and allowable by law. Company expenses should be substantiated by supporting documents to establish a direct tie to research and development. We further recommend the ADC establish clear guidelines and steps for its review process, which would assist in ensuring that a consistent evaluation is performed. Um, we also recommend the AEDC consider a review of previously issued credits and attempt to recover any erroneously awarded credits. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. That concludes my presentation. Uh, there's a management response from ADC providing an Appendix C of the report, and there are officials present from ADC to answer committee questions. Members, do I have any questions? See none, said. I'm sorry, I do have questions. Representative Betty, you recognize her? Thank you, Mr. Chair. But my question, uh, is on, I guess, more on page 8 on the review of the selected CIA projects, uh, you, you make the statement, uh, midway through out of the 35 projects and this is for staff, uh, that were reviewed, uh, the inclusion of supply expenses that were allowed, uh, earlier contributed to the low benefit ratio, uh, return for the state. Uh, did you make a calculation? Uh, excluding those supply expenses to, to see what that return with that, with the expenses out of there, would any of these projects have generated a positive return. And, and how much of an impact did it make on that calculation. Uh, no, sir, we did not look at specifically if you would have excluded those. I, I can tell you just by looking at these over the last, uh, few years that a lot of times the supplies were a very, very large amount, a very large proportion of the expenditures, uh, and with those changes that have been made legislatively, I, I believe it was Act 327 of 2019. So, uh, with this, their 5 year projects. So we're coming up to where Next year and especially the year after we would begin to evaluate those new projects under the new rules and Be able to, you know, form an opinion on, under the new rules, what does it look like with the cost-benefit? Well, and I also think that it's, it's important to note that these are research and development projects, uh, which typically have a longer, uh, time period before you see a return on those projects and the investment of those dollars compared to some of the other programs. So thank you for that, but I, I know the supply side's a huge, a huge portion in that chain should have improved those, um. Those time horizons as far as showing a positive rate. So thank you. Senator Chesterfield, you're recognized, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was going to make a motion for review, but I, I want a quick question if I may, on the front it says AEDC employed an inadequate verification process for research and development program expenses submitted by companies and uh it resulted in the disallowance of 3.3 million in expenses, has that process been improved as you've gone forward or are we still in such a state that The verification process is in need of of continued upgrades. Could you tell me that? Are we doing better? I'm on the front page. Yes, ma'am. Uh, so. With the ones that we've looked at for this year, for the 11 projects, the, the improvement that you see in 2022. to answer your question, that is an improvement we saw where ADC, uh, performed their review. They documented the findings of their review, um, So, to answer your question, there is an improvement and I think they're, you know, they're putting together a list of procedures that they'll consistently apply, um, And The 2022 is kind of the first year for these 11 projects that we saw that review in place. All right. Thank you. Motion at the proper time, Mr. Chair. Thank you, ma'am. Senator Hammer, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The selection process, it says that you selected 35 projects for review. And maybe I missed it in here. How do you, what's the criteria and the, how do you go about determining the projects that you choose to look at. So we, we wait until the projects are complete and all of these projects have different time periods. Some of them 5 years, some of them 10 years. So once the project is complete, we consider it ready for us because we would, we want to wait until they're done before we come in and do the cost-benefit analysis. So hopefully that answers your question. We wait till they're complete, then they're subject to be selected for review. OK, so this time y'all selected 35 projects. other projects were out there that you had. That you could have chosen from like where there, you picked 35 out of 100 or 35 out of 35 or. Yes, sir. I don't, I can't give you an exact answer to that and we, every year we get information from DFA that basically updates the, the running database as far as the, how many projects are complete, uh, it's something I could pull together for you, um, it's a matter of like building the database, updating it, determining what are complete, but I don't have the exact number of, like, how many were eligible to be picked this year and how many we ultimately. That with me today, sir. OK. Um, and the reason I'm wondering is, Do you pick by category by, um, Product manufactured research, is it a variety of things that you pick from and is that identified in the, in the report somewhere, um, as far as the I see the tier system. But as far as the selection to make sure we got a broad perspective of all the projects that are being done. It's not all in one category, is it, or? That is correct. It's across all of the different categories. So any that rule of thumb applies for all if, if it's a completed project, we would, uh, consider it ready for review and you see we looked for this year, the 35 were spread across 6 of the available incentives in the consultative incentive Act, and I believe the law says that we are, we look at each project, so, uh, it's spread across all of the CIA incentive types. You look at all projects are just. The ones you choose to select of all projects, not in this one report, but eventually over the years, we will look at all projects. Yes, sir. OK. All right, well, oh. Have it offline. Thank you. And Senator Chesterfield, if you are recognized for your Uh, can you, can you key up first? Mr. Chair, I move review. Remember, I have a motion for a review. Do I have a second? I have a second on in favor say aye, and he posed say nay. See none, this has been reviewed. Members moving on to other business, but before we get there, I'm gonna take a moment for personal privilege. We have 2 legislators that will not be with us. Uh Next time Representative Hodge, I'd like to recognize you and thank you for your service. I appreciate what you've done. In my deskmate, Senator Chesterfield. Linda Thank you for all that you have done 20 years, maybe 20 years plus. Great service as a legislator. To this great state. Thank you, ma'am. And uh you're recognized. Thank you. Um, yeah, you want to mention that, yeah, and also Lenny fight. Sorry. Representative fight here he stepped down. Oh, OK, but when he comes back in, some somebody holler at me. and I came in together and go ahead, Kevin. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair, I appreciate that. Um, I'd like to take this moment as well and, and speak to the, the co-chairs and just say that it's been an honor and blessing working beside y'all, um, you know, these past 6 months in this position, kind of over the two years in the transition. Um, you know, it feels like I've been drinking from a fire hose, but y'all have been there beside me and I appreciated y'all's leadership, your support, um, not just for myself, but for all of my team at legislative audit truly appreciative of y'all and what you'll have done. Um, you know, I've kind of set the bar for the chairs moving forward in my perspective, so, um, you know, I, I thank you and I just want to take an opportunity. Thank you, thank you for having been in that position. Thank you, sir. Members in Other business, the next meeting. Of the legislative Joint Audit Committee will be held at the call of the chairs. Uh, is there any new business? Seeing none. Members, we are adjourned.