Transcript Highlights:

• The Single Audit Act of 1984 established requirements for audits of states, local governments, and tribal
• Audit findings discovered as a result of our audit procedures are communicated to agency management in
• The single audit is presented to the full Legislative Joint Auditing Committee meeting annually, usually
• Audit findings discovered as a result of our audit procedures are communicated to agency management in
• The single audit is presented to the full legislative joint auditing committee meeting annually, usually

Summary: The Medicaid Subcommittee of the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee met to adopt the November 2018 minutes and receive a primer on the subcommittee’s role and Medicaid oversight in Arkansas. Legislative audit staff reviewed the subcommittee’s history and explained that Medicaid is audited annually through the statewide single audit because it is a high-risk federal program. Staff summarized recent audit findings, including weaknesses in eligibility and data-matching controls, improper use of Medicaid funds for partially non-Medicaid work, issues with incarcerated juveniles’ coverage, the absence of a Medicaid recovery audit contractor program exception request, reporting problems involving MFCU recoveries, and provider eligibility documentation concerns. Staff also noted a DHS departmental audit finding involving employees who improperly received benefits, which was referred for further action. The Department of Human Services gave an overview of Medicaid’s structure, eligibility, delivery systems, and budget. DHS described Arkansas Medicaid as covering about 850,000 people through fee-for-service, managed care, and premium assistance for the expansion population, and outlined major spending categories such as institutional care, long-term services, pharmacy, capitated payments, and supplemental payments. DHS also explained the difference between state plan amendments and waivers, and said it has a beneficiary-fraud unit that refers cases to local prosecutors. The Office of Medicaid Inspector General described its role in detecting and preventing fraud, waste, and abuse, distinguishing between suspensions for credible allegations of fraud and recovery actions for mistakes or overpayments. OMIG said it works with DHS and law enforcement, issues quarterly and annual reports, and has increased recoveries in recent years. The Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit explained that it prosecutes provider fraud criminally and civilly, can also handle long-term care neglect, abuse, and exploitation cases, and works with local prosecutors as special deputies. Committee members asked about court venue, provider suspensions, beneficiary fraud, education of providers, and the status of Medicaid expansion work requirements; DHS said it is preparing to implement community engagement requirements under HR 1 and will begin with a soft launch before full enforcement. No formal votes were taken beyond adoption of the minutes, and the meeting adjourned after questions were answered.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this is our standard performance audit, a full scope audit of a constitutional office.
• Each time we audit a constitutional office, we do what we call a full scope audit.
• who oversaw this audit, audit director who oversaw this audit, Heather<00:02:30.480> Rodriguez,
• include that within that audit. Um and include that within that audit.
• In fact, the audit is worse than some agency audits that have been seen.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from the legislative auditor on a performance audit of the governor’s office and lieutenant governor’s office covering July 1, 2022 through December 31, 2024. The audit reviewed receipts, inventory, payroll, and non-payroll expenditures and found 12 findings, concluding the office generally did not comply with the criteria tested because of internal control deficiencies. The auditor said four of five prior findings that remained relevant were not fully resolved, and that the problems were widespread across financial operations, creating opportunities for waste and fraud, though no evidence of wrongdoing or misuse of funds was found. The main findings involved weak segregation of duties, late vendor payments, inaccurate reimbursements and vendor payments, missing documentation, and poor receipt management. Auditors said one employee handled purchasing, receiving, payment processing, and inventory functions without adequate oversight; vendors were often paid late, resulting in more than $1,000 in late/reactivation fees; reimbursements and some state airplane payments contained errors; and many vendor payments, reimbursements, and purchasing card transactions lacked required support. The office also failed to collect about $12,000 for events at the governor’s residence, did not fully process several deposits, and lacked documentation for some billed or deposited amounts. Members reacted strongly to the repeated control failures and the lack of documentation, with several saying the issues were pervasive and concerning even if the dollar amounts were not large. Questions focused on whether the problems reflected different treatment of vendors versus employee expenses, whether restitution was being sought, and whether legislation was needed. The auditor responded that the state already has the necessary policies and procedures, and that the issue is implementation and oversight by the governor’s office, not new legislation. The auditor also said the governor’s office had been receptive and had begun taking steps to address the findings.

Transcript Highlights:

• Audit Division.
• audit division you know you hear audit audit division you know you hear audit you<00:37:54.880><
• controls audits, and we do some IT audits.
• audit.
• Audits, the legislature has a couple ways of producing audits.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee met on January 16, 2025, for an organizational and informational session. Members and staff introduced themselves, and Chair Jim Nash reviewed committee expectations, including that nonpartisan staff are to be used for factual information rather than political arguments. He also noted the committee rules were a blend of prior chairs’ rules and would be posted without a vote. Helen Roberts of House Fiscal gave a high-level overview of the committee’s jurisdiction and budget structure. She explained that the State Government Finance Committee oversees funding for major administrative agencies, the legislature, constitutional offices, and several boards, councils, and commissions. She emphasized that the committee’s general fund base for fiscal years 2026-27 is about $1.31 billion, less than 2% of the state general fund, and that the largest pieces are the Department of Revenue, the legislature, and pension aids. She also described how all-funds presentations differ from general fund views, highlighting internal service funds such as Minnesota IT Services, Department of Administration services, and other chargeback or reimbursement arrangements. Members asked questions about House and Senate budgets, debt service related to the Capitol Area building project and move costs, and how Minnesota IT Services is funded through fee-for-service chargebacks. Colby Sullivan of House Research then summarized a memo in the packet that outlines the entities within the committee’s jurisdiction and the constitutional and statutory provisions governing them. He pointed members to the memo as a reference and noted that the committee also has jurisdiction over the Legislative Coordinating Commission, the legislative auditor, the legislative reference library, the reviser of statutes, the Secretary of State’s budget and certain duties, and three gambling-related agencies, though gambling policy itself is generally handled by another committee. He offered to help members with bill drafting and amendments and to provide a linked electronic version of the memo. The Office of the Legislative Auditor then began an overview of its work. Legislative Auditor Judy Randall explained that the office is nonpartisan, serves all 201 legislators, and provides oversight through financial audits, program evaluations, and special reviews focused on state funds. She distinguished the Legislative Auditor from the State Auditor, noting that the State Auditor is an elected constitutional officer who focuses on county and local government funds. Randall said the office would also present a deep dive into its November performance audit of the Minnesota State Lottery. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee's Initiative 900 performance audits by the
• The audit identifies The audit identified 52 CARES programs led by a fire agency, as shown on this map
• I appreciate the audit and the audit work.
• Audit.
• I want to start by saying that when I read the audit and the description of um, The audit and the description

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee’s Initiative 900 subcommittee held a hybrid public hearing on two State Auditor performance audits. The first audit examined efforts to reduce non-emergency use of emergency systems through CARES programs. Auditors reported that Washington has 52 fire-agency-led CARES programs in 26 counties, but many communities without programs said they need one. Major barriers included unstable funding, difficulty hiring qualified staff, volunteer-based rural departments, and lack of statewide guidance. The audit also found that only about half of programs tracked both required performance measures, and it recommended that the legislature consider private insurance reimbursement options and convene a statewide work group to develop guidance, standards, and possible changes to the role of the Department of Health. Agency representatives and fire officials largely supported the findings and emphasized that short-term grants and one-year contracts make programs hard to sustain. Committee discussion focused heavily on financing, especially Medicaid reimbursement and accountable communities of health (ACHs). Auditors clarified that the 10% figure cited in the report referred to direct Medicaid reimbursement for treat-and-refer services, which some agencies do not pursue because the $115 rate is too low relative to the administrative effort. Several fire officials testified that their programs rely on grants and ACH support, but that funding is often year-to-year and uncertain. They also described the value of CARES programs in reducing emergency room use, jail detentions, and long ambulance wait times, while noting barriers to sharing patient records across systems. Members asked whether the new public safety sales tax authority could help, but fire district representatives said it is not a direct funding option for them. The second audit reviewed performance management in the Department of Commerce’s Office of Economic Development and Competitiveness. Auditors found that the division does not yet have a statewide economic development strategic plan and that performance management is inconsistent across its 16 programs. In a limited review, all six sampled programs had goals, but only half clearly identified performance measures and targets, and only three tracked outcomes and published results. The audit highlighted leading practices from other states, including strategic planning, regular progress reporting, aligning program goals with agency goals, and using performance-based contracts and grant monitoring. Recommendations urged Commerce to seek stakeholder input, assess internal and external conditions, set goals and measures, align programs with the strategy, and strengthen monitoring and evaluation. Commerce officials agreed with the audit and said the division is already working toward a strategic plan, with a new assistant director to be hired and a target of completing the work by mid-next year. Members pressed the department on how the plan would connect to workforce, higher education, housing, and other economic development systems, and asked Commerce to return to JLARC next year with progress updates. The meeting ended with instructions for submitting written public comments and notice of the next JLARC meeting schedule.

Transcript Highlights:

• Even though we don't audit municipalities routinely, I am over them to make sure they're getting audited
• So that's how we're tackling municipal audits.
• And have never ever had an audit period.
• So that'll all be available audits.
• And I feel aren't getting their audits.

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Audits.
• audits.
• the audit.
• the audit questions.
• audit.

Summary: The committee first adopted its 2025-26 rules on a 7-0 roll call, then approved three consent items—AB 88, AB 240, and AB 313—on a due-pass motion to Appropriations. The hearing then moved to AB 648, which would give community college districts the same zoning authority as the UC and CSU systems to build student and staff housing on property they own or lease. The author and supporters argued the bill would help address severe housing insecurity and homelessness among community college students, while opponents and some members raised concerns about local control, zoning exemptions, and the impact on nearby communities. AB 648 passed the committee on a 5-2 vote and was sent to the Local Government Committee. The committee next heard AB 466, which would require California Community Colleges and CSU campuses to provide organ and tissue donor registry information during student orientation, and request UC campuses to do the same. Supporters shared personal stories about transplants and donation, saying college orientation is a good opportunity to increase registrations. Some members worried about information overload during orientation and suggested campuses have flexibility in how they present the material, but the bill advanced on a unanimous 7-0 vote to Appropriations. AB 326 followed, proposing campus-by-campus external audits of the CSU every three years and public release of the audits. The author, faculty supporters, and a student argued that systemwide audits do not provide enough transparency about how money is spent at individual campuses, citing examples of financial mismanagement and fee increases. CSU opposed the bill, saying it already conducts annual consolidated external audits and that campus-level audits would add cost without added benefit. After extensive discussion about transparency, audit scope, and implementation, the bill passed 6-1 to Appropriations. The committee then took up AB 335, which would create a California Black-Serving Institution Grant Program to support Black student success and broader underserved student services; supporters emphasized persistent equity gaps and low completion rates, while an opponent argued the bill needed to be carefully amended to comply with Proposition 209 and equal protection requirements. The transcript ends during that item’s discussion, before a final vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think the audit is really good.
• And I think the audit is really good.
• Oftentimes we do these oversight requests or ask for these audits, and then the audit report comes and
• As part of this audit, and it wasn't part of our audit objectives or scope, we did not audit the judicial
• During our audit period, we selected three counties as required by that audit.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit Committee held an oversight hearing on the state auditor’s October 2024 report on California’s Forensic Conditional Release Program (CONREP) for sexually violent predators. Members and witnesses discussed public safety, the long delays in finding community housing, the role of local housing committees, and the Department of State Hospitals’ oversight of Liberty Healthcare, which operates much of the program. Several legislators from rural and high-desert districts said their communities have been disproportionately affected by placements and questioned why many placements end up in remote areas. State Auditor Grant Parks said the audit found that CONREP participants were convicted of new offenses less often than sexually violent predators who were unconditionally released, but that 18 of 56 participants had been revoked and returned to state hospitals for noncompliance. He said it took an average of 17 months to place current participants in the community, with 20 additional people awaiting placement for an average of 20 months, and that the program incurred significant pre-placement costs. Parks also said local officials were often unclear about their role, DSH had not given clear guidance at the time of the audit, and California lacks a transitional housing option used in some other states. He reported that DSH had implemented four of the five audit recommendations, while declining the recommendation to explore state-owned transitional housing. DSH Director Stephanie Clendendon and Liberty representative Ken Carabello defended the program as a court-ordered, highly supervised treatment model intended to reduce reoffending and support reintegration. They said DSH is actively involved in placement review, that Liberty searches countywide under statutory restrictions, and that community feedback and court approval are part of the process. DSH said it has now implemented guidance for housing committee designees, formal program reviews, an outcome tracker, and an analysis of whether to separate some Liberty services into different contracts. DSH continued to oppose transitional housing, arguing it would not solve the core siting and statutory problems and would add cost. Several members remained critical, arguing the program is broken, costly, and unfairly concentrated in certain communities, and some called for major statutory changes or suspension of the program.

Transcript Highlights:

• And from the first audit to the third audit, have we seen any compliance?
• So we audit at four. Well, altogether, we have 10 campuses. So we audit at four.
• Hearing the testimony today from the audits, this is the third audit.
• different things than the audit, but the audits never lie, you know.
• These audits help us do that.

Summary: The joint hearing of the Select Committee on Native American Affairs and the Joint Legislative Audit Committee focused on the University of California’s compliance with NAGPRA and CalNAGPRA and the return of Native American human remains and cultural items. Senators and Assembly Members opened by emphasizing the sacredness of repatriation, the ongoing trauma caused by delayed returns, and the need for stronger systemwide accountability. The State Auditor presented the third audit of UC’s repatriation efforts, concluding that UC still lacks the urgency, oversight, and clear timelines needed to promptly return remains and belongings. The audit found thousands of remains and hundreds of thousands of cultural items still in UC custody, new undisclosed collections at several campuses, weak budgeting and underspending, and repatriation plans that often lacked concrete deadlines. The auditor recommended stronger UCOP oversight, performance metrics, proactive searches for undiscovered items, and possible legislative action to tie funding to measurable progress. UC officials responded that the system is committed to full compliance and has accelerated its work since adopting a new policy in 2022. UC Provost Catherine Newman said the system repatriated more than 2,800 ancestors and nearly 80,000 funerary belongings in the past year, and that UC now says 80.3% of Native American remains are either repatriated or available for repatriation. UC announced a new systemwide plan to complete repatriation of human remains by the end of 2028, to finish high-risk campus reviews by June 2026, to recall all loans by January 2026, and to require quarterly reporting to UCOP. UC also said it will spend an additional $8.8 million over three years, expand staffing, improve databases, support tribal consultation costs, and identify potential reburial sites on UC land. Berkeley and San Diego described increased staffing, consultations, and repatriation activity, while Santa Barbara said it had corrected earlier omissions, notified tribes about previously unreported ancestors, and was working toward completing repatriations and updated inventories. Committee members pressed UC on why progress has been so slow, why the audit’s timelines differed from UC’s public reporting, and whether the 2028 goal applies only to human remains rather than all cultural items. UC said the 2028 target is for human remains, while cultural items will take longer, and acknowledged that more work remains. Members also asked about the technical expertise needed for repatriation, the role of tribal experts, and whether repatriation should be embedded more permanently in UC governance or statute. Tribal leaders and representatives then testified that remains and belongings were taken without consent and must be returned with tribal consent and leadership. They criticized the repeated delays, stressed that tribes are the experts on their ancestors and cultural heritage, and urged UC to treat repatriation as a top priority and to return all associated items, not just human remains, so ancestors can truly rest.

Transcript Highlights:

• MANAGER OF THE SCHOOL BOARD FOR OPERATIONAL AUDITS AND PRESENTING IS JAMIE HOELSCHER, THE AUDIT MANAGER
• I WANT TO PUT IN THE BACKGROUND, PUT IN PERSPECTIVE WE AUDIT OUR AUDITS ON A THREE-YEAR ROTATION SO THIS
• HE MENTIONED WE DID SIX UNIVERSITY AUDITS THIS ON A CYCLE. WE FINALIZED 4 OF THOSE AUDITS.
• FIRM, MULTIMILLION DOLLAR AUDIT.
• OF THE 144 ENTITIES WITH 197 AUDIT FINDINGS THAT HAVE BEEN REPORTED IN THREE OR MORE SUCCESSIVE AUDIT

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , financial statements, and audits.
• Completion of the Arkansas legislative audit, financial statement audits for fiscal years 2024 and 2025
• The audits were conducted by a private CPA firm, and the audit reports contain clean opinions on the
• There were 52 audit reports with no findings and five audit reports that contained findings.
• internal audits.

Summary: The Legislative Joint Auditing Committee approved the February 13 minutes and then heard several committee reports. The executive committee report noted that audit and special reports were scheduled for presentation, one requested report remained outstanding, and staff was asked to review selected Benton County circuit court case transfers. The committee also received and adopted reports from the counties and municipalities committee, the education committee, and the state agencies committee. Those reports covered delinquent private water and sewer audits, education audit reports, and state agency findings such as duplicate vendor payments, collateral issues, record-keeping problems, and vehicle log deficiencies. In each case, the committee voted to file or adopt the reports, with some reports deferred for follow-up or for officials to appear at a later meeting. A major portion of the meeting focused on the City of Pine Bluff’s 2024 financial audit. Auditors said the city received a clean opinion overall, but management letter findings identified serious issues in the mayor’s office, Parks and Recreation, and the finance department. The Parks and Recreation finding involved $179,629 in manual receipts that could not be traced to city deposits, missing receipts from several facilities, $48,415 in unallowable purchases, $13,000 in questionable purchases, altered invoices, unapproved vendors, and missing equipment; those matters were referred to the prosecuting attorney, attorney general, Governmental Bonding Board, and Arkansas State Police. The finance finding cited weak cash-receipting and bank-reconciliation procedures and late or missing deposits. City officials, including the mayor, finance director, and parks director, testified that the problems predated the current administration and said they had taken corrective steps. They described hiring a forensic audit firm, creating or updating standard operating procedures, improving receipting and deposit processes, adding procurement oversight, and moving Parks and Recreation to electronic or system-based receipting. Committee members questioned the officials about oversight, nonprofit relationships, and whether theft or system failures were to blame. After discussion, the committee voted to file the Pine Bluff report. The next meeting was announced for June 4-5, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• audit process. audit process.
• So with the audit, how would the audit be conducted?
• per day per audit. per day per audit.
• >> per audit. >> per audit.
• do an audit. do an audit.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The Single Audit Act of 1984 established requirements for audits of states, local governments, and tribal
• The Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 extended the statutory audit requirement to nonprofit organizations
• Audit findings discovered as a result of our audit procedures are communicated to agency management at
• Audit findings discovered as a result of our audit procedures are communicated to agency management and
• The single audit is presented to the full Legislative Joint Auditing Committee meeting annually, usually

Summary: The Medicaid Subcommittee of the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee met to receive a primer on the subcommittee’s history and on how Medicaid oversight works in Arkansas. Legislative audit staff reviewed the subcommittee’s origins in response to earlier Medicaid audit concerns and explained that Medicaid is audited every year in the statewide single audit because it is a high-risk, large federal program. Staff summarized recent audit findings, including issues with eligibility controls, data matching, contractor charging, incarcerated juveniles’ coverage handling, provider eligibility support, and the state’s Medicaid recovery audit contractor exception request. They also noted a DHS departmental audit finding involving employees who improperly received benefits, which was referred for possible prosecution. The Department of Human Services gave an overview of the Medicaid program, describing eligibility groups, delivery systems (fee-for-service, managed care/PASSE, and premium assistance for expansion adults), the size of the program, and the agency’s budget and provider base. DHS also outlined the difference between state plan amendments and waivers and said other committee materials would be sent to members. The Office of Medicaid Inspector General described its role in detecting and preventing fraud, waste, and abuse, explaining that it investigates suspected intentional fraud, suspends providers when there is a credible allegation of fraud, recovers improper payments in mistake cases, and recommends policy changes when trends are identified. The Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit explained that it prosecutes provider fraud criminally and civilly, handles neglect, abuse, and exploitation cases in long-term care settings, and works with DHS, OMIG, and federal partners. Members asked about where cases are filed, how provider suspensions work, whether beneficiary fraud is investigated, and how education is provided to providers. DHS confirmed that beneficiary fraud cases are referred to local prosecutors and said the expansion population will move toward community engagement/work requirements under federal changes, with a soft launch planned before full implementation. The meeting ended with no formal votes beyond adoption of the prior minutes and no other committee actions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Office Performance Audits.
• Big comments and big questions about the audit or policy, we'll let us... ...about the audit or policy
• , IT Systems Assistant Audit Manager.
• OSPI determined ...system, which is the focus of our audit.
• And as a reminder, we meet as a committee of the Joint Legislative Audit Review Committee to hear audits

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The committee heard a State Auditor’s Office performance audit on OSPI’s school apportionment system, which distributes K-12 funding to districts. Auditors said the system and its underlying 2008-era infrastructure are outdated, unstable, inefficient, and at high risk of errors or failure. They also found weak controls over data input, documentation, oversight, and monitoring, with heavy reliance on a small number of staff and vendor knowledge. In limited testing of three districts, the system calculated 2023–24 funding correctly, but auditors identified small discrepancies between state budget inputs and underlying statutory language and said broader system risks remain unresolved. JLARC members asked about the scope of the district testing, whether smaller districts face greater risk, the meaning of the funding discrepancies, and whether the system could support a future change to a simpler per-student funding formula. Auditors said the discrepancies were small but could compound into millions statewide, and that the audit did not evaluate broader policy questions or alternative system owners. They recommended OSPI modernize or replace the system and address current control weaknesses while the new platform is developed. OSPI officials largely agreed that the current platform needs replacement and said a feasibility study completed in 2024 found the system at catastrophic risk of failure. They clarified that the Legislature had approved up to $16 million in the state IT pool for the project, but that funding is released through gated oversight and not all of it had yet been appropriated for the current biennium. OSPI disputed the auditor’s characterization of some rounding and budget-law issues, saying the calculations were consistent with agency rules and legislative inputs, and explained that some manual workarounds are used to handle newer statutory requirements. One member of the public testified in support of modernizing the system and strengthening controls. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The results of the audit were quite focused.
• , this is not a gotcha audit, right?
• This audit was not a sunset review.
• This audit was not a sunset review.
• Although our previous audits of the authority have identified some issues... ...audits of the authority

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee first heard the Arizona Auditor General’s sunset review of the Arizona Barbering and Cosmetology Board. The audit found some strengths, including timely licensing and complaint resolution in the sample reviewed and rules that matched statutory curriculum requirements, but it also identified a major finding that the board had imposed inconsistent discipline for similar violations and lacked documentation for deviations from its disciplinary guidelines. Other issues included missing reciprocity education requirements, weak application quality control, incomplete school and establishment oversight, and compliance concerns involving open meeting law, public records, and conflicts of interest. The report made 25 recommendations total, including two tied to the disciplinary finding and three suggested statutory changes on esthetics scope of practice, cease-and-desist authority, and eyelash technician training. The board’s executive director said the board agreed with the findings, had already implemented several recommendations, updated disciplinary policies and conflict-of-interest procedures, and was working on legislation and rule changes. After questions about enforcement consistency, licensing verification, cash handling, complaint volume, and conflict disclosures, the committee voted 7-0 to recommend the board be continued for six years, until July 1, 2032. The committee then took up the Arizona Department of Gaming, the Arizona Racing Commission, and the Arizona Boxing and Mixed Martial Arts Commission together. The Auditor General reported that the department correctly distributed more than $158 million in tribal contributions in fiscal year 2024 and issued event wagering licenses to reviewed applicants, but found several problems: the department did not consistently obtain and review independent audit reports for event wagering and fantasy sports operators, did not fully comply with conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements, and lacked comprehensive complaint-handling processes. The review also found delays in distributing Compact Trust Fund payments to some tribes, gaps in IT security and horse-racing license checks, and incomplete fee-setting and public-records practices. The report made 36 recommendations to the department, six to the Racing Commission, and 13 to the Boxing and MMA Commission, and all three entities said they agreed and would implement them. In response, the Department of Gaming director said the agency was already making changes, including a historical look-back on operator audits, updated guidance to operators, a new constituent services unit and complaint-tracking process, and improved conflict-of-interest training and forms. She also explained the Compact Trust Fund dispute, saying the department administers the fund but the beneficiary tribes must agree on the revenue baseline formula, which has been complicated by COVID-era closures; no Category Three distributions had yet been made. Committee members asked about possible revenue losses, penalties, and the status of 2024-2025 audits, as well as prediction markets and whether they are legal under Arizona’s event wagering framework. The director said the department had issued cease-and-desist letters to unlicensed prediction-market operators, would review licensed operators for suitability if needed, and would continue to enforce Arizona law. The transcript ends while questioning on prediction markets is still underway, before any vote on the gaming-related reviews is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• In this audit, we looked specifically at electricity infrastructure.
• In this audit, we looked specifically at electricity infrastructure.
• The box on this slide shows the 10 crimes in the scope of our audit.
• The box on this slide shows the 10 crimes in the scope of our audit.
• used and our audit recommendations.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee I-900 Subcommittee heard JLARC’s annual update on the status of legislative implementation of State Auditor recommendations, followed by two State Auditor performance audits. JLARC staff reported that for the 2024 review period there were three new legislative recommendations and three unresolved older recommendations. They said the legislature did not convene a work group on civil asset forfeiture, and no formal action was taken on two water-use-efficiency recommendations. Two recommendations related to concurrent Medicaid enrollments were addressed in a bill introduced this session, but that bill was not adopted. The first audit examined how Washington can ensure climate-resilient electricity infrastructure. The State Auditor found the state has opportunities to better adapt new energy infrastructure by using more site-specific climate information, broader collaboration, and vulnerability assessments. The report recommended expanding climate analyses through the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group if funding is available, using forecasted information in DNR wildfire maps, designating a non-regulatory office to coordinate siting and conflict resolution, and expanding vulnerability assessments in Ecology and Commerce processes. Agency witnesses generally agreed resilience is important but emphasized existing efforts, the need to avoid duplicative requirements, the importance of affordability and efficiency, and the role of current forums such as the Clean Energy Siting Council and SEPA processes. The second audit reviewed fines for human trafficking and related sexual exploitation crimes. Auditors found courts assessed fines inconsistently, collection rates varied, some revenues were sent to the wrong local government, and some jurisdictions did not use the money as required for enforcement, prevention, or survivor services. The audit recommended courts work with prosecutors to improve awareness of mandatory fines, and that King and Pierce County improve coding, templates, and tracking so revenues are routed and used correctly. King County testified that it appreciated the audit and described its existing prevention and survivor-support work. The committee took no votes or formal actions and adjourned after the presentations and testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• This came out of the Management Audit Committee. So is there anybody from Management Audit here?
• management audit here? management audit here?
• Anybody from management audit? Anybody from management audit?
• audit began to click uh at that point. audit began to click uh at that point.
• auditing this time. auditing this time.

Bills: HB0086

Keywords: county officials, election code, misconduct, removal, government accountability, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• performance audits.
• We conducted this audit because I-1163 requires our office to audit the state's long-term in-home care
• This is our ninth audit in the series.
• We conducted this audit because 1163 requires our office to audit the state's long term in home care.
• We appreciate the opportunity to learn from the results of this audit and are pleased that the audit

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee held a public hearing on the State Auditor’s Office performance audit of Washington’s Restoring Quality Home Care Initiative (I-1163). Auditors said the initiative’s background checks and 75-hour training requirement are widely viewed as safety measures, but the state lacks pre-2011 data to directly measure safety outcomes. They also found Washington’s long-term care workforce is still short, though the state ranks better than many others in workers per disabled person, and that some groups and regions have larger gaps between authorized and actually used Medicaid care hours, suggesting access problems for certain clients. The audit focused heavily on the certification process for home care aides. Auditors reported that many applicants never finish certification, that the process often exceeds the 200-day legal deadline, and that delays can cause lost income, job loss, and in some cases repeated employer changes that allow aides to keep working without becoming certified. They recommended that the Department of Health accept applications only after training and testing are completed, move testing into training programs more broadly, and eliminate redundant DOH verification of FBI background checks. Committee members asked about testing contract incentives, language access, and the role of immigration in workforce shortages; auditors said they found no financial performance standards in the Prometric contract, did not specifically study immigration status, and did not focus on language barriers in this audit. Department of Health and Department of Social and Health Services officials largely agreed with the audit’s findings and recommendations. They said they have already made improvements, including expanded in-program testing, more staffing, and rule changes, and that testing has been integrated into more than 110 training programs. DSHS noted testing is offered in 13 languages. Both agencies said they support further streamlining and expect continued collaboration, including possible budget or legislative requests. No public testimony was offered, and the committee adjourned without taking any vote or formal action on the audit.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:42:57.720> manager clinch and I'm a senior audit manager clinch and I'm a senior audit
• findings from our 2019 Financial audit findings from our 2019 Financial audit report<00:45:27.880
• the current status of Prior audit the current status of Prior audit observations<00:49:47.359>
• Anything else on this audit?
• <01:12:11.000> adjustments unadjusted items or audit adjustments unadjusted items or audit

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Fiscal Committee met on February 21 and first approved the January 30 minutes and the consent calendar, with item 2540 removed by the Department of Education and item 25057 set aside for discussion. The committee then took up FIS 25057, a Department of Transportation request tied to a federal grant for building information modeling and related data standardization across DOT systems. Transportation officials explained that the $2.405 million consultant-heavy request would connect surveying, design, construction, and asset management systems, improve efficiency and long-term asset tracking, and help the department catch up with other states. Several senators questioned the lack of immediate, quantifiable budget savings and the reliance on consultants, but the item was ultimately adopted. The committee next approved FIS 25054 for the Department of Health and Human Services after questioning a $16 million shortfall in the Children’s Health Insurance Program. DHHS explained the variance as a budgeting and accounting issue tied to separating CHIP from Medicaid managed care, pandemic-era continuous enrollment, and the new federal requirement for 12 months of continuous coverage for children. Members also approved a Cannon Mountain fee item, where park officials described a proposed price freeze for early-bird passes, a new in-season tier, and modest increases in off-season pricing, while noting operating cost pressures, strong snow conditions, and favorable customer value ratings. That item was adopted unanimously. The committee also approved the Department of Corrections item after discussion of staffing, retirement eligibility, overtime, and recidivism. Commissioner Helen Hanks said retirement-eligible staff had declined slightly, recruitment was improving, overtime hours were down, one housing floor had been closed because of lower population, and the department had reduced reincarceration by 8% over seven years, which she said produced substantial savings. The item was adopted. During informational items, the committee heard a Legislative Budget Assistant performance audit of the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights. The audit found the commission inefficient and ineffective in processing complaints, with average case closure taking 840 days, significant backlogs dating back decades, expired administrative rules, weak management controls, disorganized and outdated procedures, unreliable data, and unresolved prior audit findings. The audit included 25 recommendations, two of which may require legislative action. Commission staff said they appreciated the recommendations and expected the additional resources from the prior budget cycle to help address the backlog and improve transparency and efficiency.

Transcript Highlights:

• Office Performance Audits.
• And Sonia Singh, IT Systems Assistant Audit Manager.
• OSPI determined ...system, which is the focus of our audit.
• That’s just not something we could tackle in a system audit like this.
• And as a reminder, we meet as a committee of the Joint Legislative Audit Review Committee to hear audits

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee subcommittee heard a State Auditor’s Office performance audit on the accuracy and reliability of OSPI’s school apportionment system. Auditors said the system, which calculates and distributes K-12 funding using multiple feeder systems and a core apportionment engine, is outdated, unstable, inefficient, and at high risk of failure. They reported weak controls over data input, documentation, oversight, and staffing, and said OSPI relies heavily on manual workarounds, a few knowledgeable staff, and vendor support. In limited testing of three districts, the auditors found the system calculated funding correctly for the 2023-24 school year, but they identified nine small input discrepancies tied to differences between budget materials and state law, which they said could compound into larger dollar amounts. The auditors recommended replacing or modernizing the system and noted that delays in doing so prolong risk. OSPI largely agreed that the current platform needs replacement and said it has been working toward a new system for years. Agency officials clarified that the Legislature requested a feasibility study in 2022, that the study found the system at risk of catastrophic failure, and that funding for a replacement is now in the state IT pool subject to OCIO/OFM gate reviews. OSPI disputed the audit’s characterization of the rounding and budget-law discrepancies, saying the issue was an agency rule and implementation choice, not an error that caused under- or over-allocation. Officials also said the current system is too old to easily absorb future formula changes, but that the planned replacement should be flexible enough to handle a new funding model if the Legislature adopts one. Committee members asked about the amount and timing of the $16 million project funding, whether smaller districts face greater risk, how many times data is entered, and whether the funding formula should be simplified. Auditors and OSPI both emphasized that formula simplification is a policy question for the Legislature, not the audit. Public testimony came from one online witness, who urged full implementation of the audit recommendations and modernization of the system. The subcommittee took no formal vote and adjourned after the presentations and testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a consolidated audit of all state agency audits.
• Federal single audit, and eventually to a singular audit.
• audit.
• the audit.
• We just changed the audit rule to direct all the auditing firms that I've authorized to audit to do testing