AN ACT FOR ARKANSAS LEGISLATIVE AUDIT OF THE LEGISLATIVE JOINT AUDITING COMMITTEE APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2026-2027 FISCAL YEAR.
HB1042 is an annual appropriation bill for Arkansas Legislative Audit, the audit arm of the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2027. It authorizes funding for personal services and operating expenses, sets the maximum number of regular and temporary employees, and establishes salary classifications for a wide range of audit, administrative, IT, and support positions.
The bill appropriates a total of $49,980,832 from the State Central Services Fund, including funding for regular salaries, extra help, employee matching costs, operating expenses, travel, professional fees, and capital outlay. It also contains standard fiscal controls, requiring compliance with state procurement, accounting, budgetary, and salary laws, and includes an emergency clause making the act effective July 1, 2026 so the agency can continue operating without interruption.
HB1042 does not change substantive law or create new regulatory requirements; instead, it provides the legal authority and funding structure for Arkansas Legislative Audit to operate during fiscal year 2026-2027. Its effect is to authorize spending, define staffing limits, and preserve the agency’s ability to conduct audits and related oversight functions under existing state fiscal and personnel laws. The act also reinforces that disbursements must comply with statewide budget, procurement, and salary restrictions.
The available record suggests the bill was routine and noncontroversial. There are no committee transcripts, recorded votes, or amendments indicating debate, and the bill advanced to become Act 43. As a standard budget measure for a legislative support agency, it appears to have received administrative and legislative support without notable opposition.
No specific points of contention are reflected in the provided materials. Because there are no transcripts or vote details, there is no evidence of disagreement over the funding level, staffing cap, salary structure, or the emergency clause. Any potential concerns would likely have centered on budget size, personnel levels, or the use of State Central Services Fund dollars, but none are documented here.