Bills: HB2894, HB3418, HB3415, HB3413, HB3414, HB3416, HB3417, HB3419, HB3420, HB1739, HB1752, HB1979, HB2941, HB2992, HB3075, HB3086, HB3177, HB3269, HB3278, HB3279, HB3497, HB3644, HB4432, HB3720, HB3849, HB3882, HB3919, HB3941, HB4118, HB4141, HB4268, HB4342, HB4428, HB4429, HB4434

Keywords: HB2894, Oklahoma Rural Jobs Act, rural jobs, rural investment, tax credit, capital investment tax credit, state tax credits, economic development, rural fund, rural investor, qualified investment, eligible business, Department of Commerce, rural business, investment certification, tax liability, credit cap, workforce development, small business finance, rural development

Transcript Highlights:

• program evaluation and performance audit.
• versus a performance audit.
• versus performance audit—do you, in your opinion, think that a performance audit could be done of a
• versus a performance audit.
• performance audit do you in your opinion do you think that a performance audit could be done of a legislature

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The subcommittee hearing focused on whether the Office of the State Auditor may constitutionally audit the Massachusetts Legislature under Chapter 250 of the Acts of 2024 and what such an audit could include under generally accepted government auditing standards. Chair Cindy Friedman opened by explaining the background: voters approved Ballot Question 1 in November 2024, the law took effect in January 2025, and the Auditor then initiated audits of both chambers. The chair said the subcommittee was seeking expert testimony because the proposed audit scope, constitutionality, and possible bias concerns remained unresolved. Public testimony was invited, but no members of the public pre-registered; written testimony remained open for a short period after the hearing. The hearing then proceeded with invited experts on constitutional law/state government and auditing-related issues. Professor Lawrence Friedman testified that the ballot initiative’s approval by the Attorney General and by voters did not resolve constitutional questions, and he argued Chapter 250 violates the Massachusetts Constitution. He said the Legislature has constitutional authority to set its own rules and manage its proceedings, and that an executive-branch audit would intrude on legislative deliberation, speech and debate protections, and separation of powers. He also warned that even audits of supposedly administrative matters could become a vehicle for repeated document demands and litigation that would indirectly burden legislative functioning. In questioning, senators pressed him on the line between administrative and deliberative functions, the role of the Attorney General versus the courts, the possibility of retroactive audit scope, and whether prior legislative consent to audits mattered; he said prior consent would not bind future legislatures and that constitutionality is ultimately for the courts. Professor Ray La Raja also opposed the audit, framing it as a threat to institutional independence and representative democracy. He argued that allowing an executive-branch official to audit the Legislature without consent would upset separation of powers, chill internal debate, and create a precedent for broader executive intrusion. He said voters often support “transparency” reforms without fully appreciating institutional consequences, and that legislatures should defend their autonomy, especially amid what he described as broader executive overreach nationally. Senators asked about chilling effects, the practical distinction between administrative and core legislative functions, and whether the courts or the Legislature should resolve the issue; he said the courts would ultimately adjudicate disputes, but the Legislature should not waive its constitutional authority lightly. Jean Kempthorne took the opposite view, arguing the audit is permissible and should proceed. She said the state auditor is a constitutional officer accountable directly to the people, that the audit power can be expanded by statute, and that separation of powers does not require watertight compartments. She contended the audit would not displace core legislative powers because the auditor can only evaluate operations, report findings, and make recommendations. She also argued the Legislature itself already conducts audits of other branches, so it is inconsistent to claim an audit of the Legislature is unconstitutional. In response to senators’ questions, she said there are guardrails against truly intrusive requests, but that the administrative-versus-legislative distinction is not a workable bright line; she suggested disputes should be handled case by case, with objections, negotiation, or litigation if specific requests go too far. No votes or formal actions were taken at the hearing.

Bills: HR153, HR154, HR155, HR156, HR157, HR158, HCR57, HCR58, HCR59, HR133, HR134, HR135, HR136, HR137, HR138, HR139, HR140, HR141, HR142, HR144, HR145, HR146, HR147, HR148, HR149, HR150, HR151, HR152, SCR28, SB141, SB169, SB206, SB233, SB417, SB421, SB429, SB437, SB477, SB510, SB521, HR1, HR17, HCR5, HB55, HB385, HB394, HB396, HB406, HB608, HB622, HB676, HB772, HB897, HB902, HB943, HB1030, HB1035, HB1038, HB1045, HB1049, HB1056, HB1058, HB1059, HB1092, HB1100, HB1117, HB1160, HB1161, HB1162, HB1177, HB1180, HB1189, HB1216, HB1239, HB1240, SB127, HB284, HB1, HB2, HB3, HB312, HB313, HB383, HB314, HCR3, HB983, HB1126, HB21, HB24, HB29, HB31, HB39, HB45, HB77, HB136, HB150, HB263, HB273, HB299, HB315, HB376, HB377, HB431, HB444, HB450, HB519, HB533, HB538, HB559, HB562, HB663, HB664, HB715, HB717, HB805, HB822, HB823, HB834, HB864, HB867, HB1017, HB1018, HB1068, HB1134, HB1137, HB1234, HB1235, HB1236, HB211, HB27, HB71, HB214, HB225, HB241, HB244, HB306, HB345, HB366, HB446, HB511, HB514, HB655, HB730, HB743, HB1027, HB1037, HB1043, HB1082, HB1091, HB1096, HB1103, HB1167, HB1174, HB1175, HB1230, HB1237, HB1238, SB162, SB349, SB350, SB382, SB383, HB401, HB51, HB58, HB140, HB982, HB1010, HB132, HB193, HB635, HB690, HB1003, HB750, HB911, HB151, HB180, HB192, HB310, HB961, HB1146, HB977, HB181, HB901, HR20, HR74, HB9, HB393, HB459, HB577, HB582, HB605, HB614, HB615, HB682, HB733, HB773, HB996, HB1113

Keywords: commendation, robotics, high school, competition, education, Tomato Festival, community celebration, Our Lady of Prompt Succor, fundraising, local heritage, Holocaust, remembrance, Yom HaShoah, Jewish history, condolences, community service, law enforcement, legacy, Shreveport, D.A.R.E. Program

Transcript Highlights:

• include financial audits, operational audits, performance audits, and attestation examinations.
• In the intervening year, another CPA performs those audits and we review the audit report.
• a couple performance audits.
• a couple performance audits.
• . required performance audits include the local government financial reporting system audit and an audit

Summary: The Joint Legislative Auditing Committee met to receive annual overviews of its oversight responsibilities and the work of the Auditor General and OPAGA. Committee staff reviewed the committee’s authority over state and local governments, enforcement of audit-report filing requirements, repeated audit findings, Transparency Florida reporting, and lobbying compensation audits. Auditor General Cheryl Norman described her office’s independence, audit standards, quality control, and major audit areas, including the state’s annual financial and single audits, school district and university audits, operational and performance audits, and attestation work. She also noted staffing shortages, recruitment efforts, and a request for carry-forward funds to study salaries. Members asked about whether audits can quantify recoverable dollars, how school district spending comparisons are handled, and how to raise concerns about DCF-related audits or a local city audit that has been pending for years. Norman said her office can quantify findings when possible, sometimes compares costs across districts in operational audits, and that members can bring specific concerns to the appropriate deputy auditor general or the committee. She also explained that citizen or local-government audit requests may require payment of audit costs. OPAGA Coordinator Kara Collins-Gomez outlined OPAGA’s role as a legislative research unit that conducts studies directed by law, the presiding officers, or the committee, and described its policy areas, methodologies, contract monitoring, and recurring statutory reports. Deputy Auditor General Matthew Tracy explained how to read operational audit reports, including findings, criteria, condition, cause, effect, recommendations, and management responses. Deputy Auditor General Greg Senators explained financial audit reports, including audit opinions, required supplementary information, internal control and compliance findings, federal program compliance, and management letters. The meeting concluded with thanks to the presenters and a motion to adjourn, which passed without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• reports and our December 2024 performance audit follow-up report. ...audit reports and our December
• 2024 performance audit follow-up report.
• Through our work on the school safety special audits and other school district performance audits that
• 2027 and 2028 school district performance audit schedule.
• the amount of time between performance audits for school districts.

Summary: The committee first heard an update on Topok Elementary School District’s long-running noncompliance with Arizona’s Uniform System of Financial Records. The Auditor General’s office explained the USFR noncompliance process and reported that Topok had made substantial progress, correcting many deficiencies in areas such as open meeting law, procurement, payroll, attendance reporting, property control, and information technology. The district’s superintendent and staff described the corrective actions they had taken, the use of outside consultants, and their plan to maintain compliance through stronger leadership, training, and consistent procedures. Members praised the district’s progress and asked about the remaining deficiencies and the status of the 3% state-aid withholding, which the Auditor General said would be addressed by the State Board of Education. The committee then considered a request for a fourth school safety special audit, tied to concerns raised by Representative Martinez about Phoenix Union High School District and school violence response practices. The Auditor General said the proposed audit would be a new topic focused on policies and procedures for responding to credible threats of violence and allegations of staff misconduct affecting student safety, and could include Phoenix Union in the sample. Representative Martinez described a fatal 2024 shooting, weapons incidents, and concerns about district oversight. The committee approved the motion 10-0. Next, staff presented the fiscal years 2027-2028 school district performance audit schedule, describing 26 randomly selected school districts and career and technical education districts, plus 84 planned follow-ups. The Auditor General said the schedule is intended to shorten the average time between audits and that the school audits division is now fully staffed. Members asked about county coverage and the inclusion of ESA accountability, but the schedule was ultimately presented for review rather than approval. The committee also heard a detailed federal compliance audit presentation on the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) administered by DES. The Auditor General reported repeated findings involving missing provider documentation, questioned costs, and FFATA reporting errors, including a 2024 sample that led to questioning $2.88 million in costs. The office recommended stronger documentation, record retention, reporting procedures, and staff training; DES concurred and said it would correct the findings in 2026. Members discussed the limits of the single-audit scope, the possibility of a broader special audit, and the federal government’s recent actions on CCDF oversight in other states. Finally, the committee considered and discussed a special audit request for CCDF that would broaden review to provider oversight, licensing, site visits, and billing accuracy across multiple state agencies, with estimated costs of $547,000 to $625,000 and a projected report date of July 31, 2027.

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee's Initiative 900 performance audits by the
• I just want to say that these are both very important performance audits.
• Thank you very much for the presentation and the great work doing the performance audit.
• With that, we will go to our second performance audit, which is improving performance management in economic
• Today we are presenting the results of our performance audit that looked at improving performance management

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:

• In November 2022, a performance audit follow-up report was issued.
• reports and our December 2024 performance audit follow-up report.
• Through our work on the school safety special audits and other school district performance audits that
• Through our work on the school safety special audits and other school district performance audits that
• reduce the amount of time between performance audits for school districts.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Committee to Hear State Auditor's Office Performance Audits, the Subcommittee of the Joint Legislative
• Present. ...performance audits hearing. Representative Barnard. Present. Representative Berg.
• I'm the Assistant Director of Performance Audit at the State Auditor's Office.
• SAO Performance Audits, is adjourned.
• The Committee to Hear SAO Performance Audits is adjourned.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee subcommittee held a hybrid hearing to receive three State Auditor’s Office performance audits. The first audit examined implementation of the Law Enforcement Training and Community Safety Act. Auditors said the Criminal Justice Training Commission had developed most required training, but six community/cultural topics were still unfinished, the patrol tactics curriculum was incomplete in one area, and the agency lacked a systematic project management approach. They reported that most officers had not completed the 40 required hours, with low participation in patrol tactics training, weak communication, limited data to track compliance, and ineffective incentives or consequences. Committee members questioned staffing, liability, and enforcement, and the Commission said it generally agreed with the findings and had begun implementing recommendations, including improving training development and communication. The second audit reviewed Washington’s digital equity planning. Auditors concluded the state lacked a comprehensive, unified digital equity strategy, a designated lead, and reliable funding. They said the existing PEAR/Impact Plan, BEAD five-year plan, and NTIA-approved digital equity plan each addressed parts of the issue but none provided a full statewide framework with clear authority across agencies. The Department of Commerce’s Broadband Office and the Office of Equity said they agreed with the findings and were open to working with the legislature and the Digital Equity Forum on a more structured approach. A public witness described local and regional digital equity planning efforts and emphasized the importance of coordination and community-based work. The third audit focused on Commerce’s management of the Digital Navigator Program. Auditors said Commerce did not consistently use a competitive process, did not adequately vet grantees and subgrantees, wrote contracts that lacked clear deliverables and monitoring requirements, failed to enforce reporting, and paid $10.7 million without sufficient documentation to verify reimbursement eligibility. They said agency staff had raised concerns that were ignored and that some payments and contract expansions occurred despite warnings. Commerce officials said new leadership had already begun major contract-management reforms, including centralized oversight, risk assessments, clearer documentation standards, and staff training, and they said they would pursue recapture where appropriate. Committee members expressed strong concern about accountability, and the hearing ended after public testimony and committee discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Committee to Hear State Auditor's Office Performance Audits, the subcommittee of the Joint Legislative
• These performance audits were conducted solely and independently by the State Auditor's Office under
• I'm the Assistant Director of Performance Audit at the State Auditor's Office.
• SAO Performance Audits, is adjourned.
• The Committee to Hear SAO Performance Audits is adjourned.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee subcommittee heard three State Auditor’s Office performance audits: implementation of the Law Enforcement Training and Community Safety Act, Washington’s digital equity planning, and the Department of Commerce’s Digital Navigator Program. In the law enforcement training audit, the State Auditor found the Criminal Justice Training Commission had developed most required training content but had not developed all required topics, lacked a systematic project management approach, and had weak tools to ensure participation and compliance. Auditors said most officers had not completed the required 40 hours, patrol tactics training was a major bottleneck, and the Commission’s reporting did not clearly show statewide compliance. The Commission said it generally agreed with the recommendations and had begun implementing some changes. Committee members raised concerns about staffing, liability, incentives, and whether the law had enough enforcement “teeth.” In the digital equity audit, auditors said Washington lacked a comprehensive, unified statewide plan, a designated leader, and reliable funding for digital equity efforts. They said existing plans were fragmented, with the NTIA-approved plan the most complete but no longer fully funded after federal changes. The State Auditor recommended the legislature establish oversight authority and require a lead organization to coordinate and evaluate statewide digital equity efforts and develop a unified plan. The Department of Commerce and Office of Equity agreed with the need for clearer leadership and coordination, and a public witness described ongoing coalition and local planning work. Committee members asked about best practices from other states and whether the auditor could provide additional research on coordination models. In the Digital Navigator Program audit, the State Auditor concluded Commerce did not consistently follow core grant-management practices, including competitive award processes, vetting of grantees, clear contracts, performance monitoring, and reimbursement controls. Auditors said Commerce expanded grants without a new competition, lacked adequate documentation and reporting, and paid out millions without sufficient support; they also cited management decisions that overrode staff concerns. Commerce said it had already begun major contract-management reforms, created a new contracts and compliance structure, and was working on risk assessments, documentation standards, and staff training. Members pressed Commerce on accountability, possible recoupment of improper payments, ethics issues, and whether the agency had clear performance metrics for the program. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended after public testimony and committee discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• We perform financial audits of colleges, universities, and district school boards.
• We audit our audits on a three-year rotation.
• And these type of audits, these charter school audits, these are not performed by our office.
• We are the, we receive all the charter school audit reports from, they are performed by external CPAs
• audits, these charter school audits, these are not performed by our office.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Auditing Committee received a presentation from Auditor General staff on recurring findings from audits of district school boards, colleges, and universities. For school districts, the main issues discussed included missing or outdated safe-school officer training documentation, weak purchasing-card controls, vendor banking-change fraud risks, incomplete background screenings and disqualification-list procedures, missing website budget disclosures, excessive or untimely IT access, late deactivation of former employees’ access, missed emergency drill deadlines, inaccurate capital outlay and resiliency education records, weak tangible property inventories, adult education reporting errors, untimely bank reconciliations, and improper use of workforce development funds. The auditors said many of these issues are repeated from prior years and are summarized in their annual report on significant findings and financial trends. For universities and colleges, the auditors highlighted similar control weaknesses, including vendor information change controls, IT access issues, cash and investment reconciliation problems, purchasing and procurement deficiencies, personnel and compensation issues, and student fee compliance concerns. Specific examples included a UF consulting contract totaling about $6 million, FAU underreporting carry-forward balances by about $77 million, UCF’s payment loss of about $107,000 from an email scam tied to vendor changes, and a North Florida College unauthorized transfer involving a few hundred thousand dollars. The committee asked questions about the UF consulting work, the FAU carry-forward issue, and whether the listed findings meant every named entity had every issue; auditors clarified that the lists reflected entities with findings in those categories, not necessarily each specific problem. The committee then turned to enforcement for entities with long-standing uncorrected audit findings. Staff reported 144 entities with 197 findings repeated in three or more successive audit reports and recommended sending letters requesting updated corrective-action status, including for late-filed 2022-2023 reports where appropriate. The committee approved the staff recommendation and directed letters to be sent. The meeting ended with members emphasizing the importance of audit oversight and taxpayer accountability.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that is it for the status of ongoing performance audits.
• I'll just mention we did do a Fish and Game performance audit.
• performance audits, financial audits as well.
• , not just performance of our audits, not just performance audits,<00:24:21.200> financial<00:
• audit because the and the performance audit because the audits<00:32:31.200> are<00:32:31.360

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee organized itself by electing Representative Griffin as chair and a senator as vice chair, then approved the prior meeting minutes. Director Young then gave status updates on several ongoing performance audits. The New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights audit was reported complete, with presentations already made to the fiscal committee and House Judiciary. The special education oversight audit is still in progress, with 17 observations already sent to the department, responses received on 14, partial concurrence on 12, and a full draft report expected in late summer or early fall. The education freedom accounts audit is also underway, with fieldwork focused on eligibility controls and expenses; staffing shortages at the department have slowed the work, and a draft report is hoped for in the fall. The Doorway program audit is in the planning phase, with a report targeted for the end of the year. Members then discussed whether the committee should do more follow-up on completed audits. Several members said audits often identify issues that remain unresolved for years, and suggested a more active review process, similar to the Health and Human Services Oversight Committee, where agencies would return to report on what audit findings have been fixed and what remains outstanding. Staff noted that any such follow-up would take time away from new audit work, but said they were willing to consider the committee’s direction. Members also discussed using Transparency New Hampshire updates and agency self-reporting to help track progress, and there was general agreement to move toward a system of periodic follow-up on recent audits. The committee also reviewed suspended and potential audit topics. Two Department of Health and Human Services audits, involving the Bureau of Elderly and Adult Services and out-of-date placements, remain suspended because of ongoing litigation. Two other DHS topics, contract management and the Bureau of Developmental Services, remain on the potential audit list. A member raised a possible Fish and Game topic based on constituent concerns, but agreed to wait after speaking with the new director. The committee concluded by agreeing that the audit division should compile a list of audits completed in the last 10 years, with members to identify which ones they want to revisit first.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think it's now pretty self-explanatory: it's the Committee to Hear SAO Performance Audits.
• I'm the Assistant Director of Performance Audit at the state auditor's office.
• Chair, of the Performance Audit Work Plan, if that is your prerogative.
• So agenda item one is the audit work plan, and then we will hear the performance audit on charter school
• we have conducted numerous audits through our performance audit function and our accountability audit

Summary: The committee meeting began with a brief explanation of the renamed Joint Legislative Audit Review Committee subcommittee, now called the Committee to Hear SAO Performance Audits, and a presentation from the State Auditor’s Office on its current biennium performance audit work plan. The auditor described how topics are selected from a large pool of potential audits and highlighted several ongoing or planned audits, including the Liquor and Cannabis Board, oversight of authorized entities serving students with disabilities, the Quality Home Care Initiative, Medicaid managed care versus fee-for-service costs, the Housing Commission tenant ownership follow-up, DSHS vendor payment patterns, implementation of the Since Time Memorial curriculum, and the Washington State ferry system. Members asked about coordination with JLARC to avoid duplication, and the auditor said the offices exchange work plans, monthly updates, and quarterly coordination meetings. The committee then heard the State Auditor’s performance audit on how charter schools identify and support at-risk students. Auditors reviewed four charter schools—Catalyst Public Schools, Innovation High School, Pinnacles Prep, and Rainier Prep—and focused on English language learners, homeless students, and special education students. The audit found the schools met nearly all legal requirements reviewed, with only one area where two schools partially met a language-access requirement. The schools also used several promising practices, including small-group instruction, culturally responsive environments, and multi-tiered systems of support, though the auditors recommended better documentation of procedures to improve consistency. Families interviewed generally reported positive experiences, while noting resource constraints. Committee members asked about how the four schools were selected, whether the audit compared charter populations to home districts, and how MTSS requirements applied to the schools reviewed. The State Auditor’s Office said the sample was chosen for geographic diversity, student population characteristics, and representation from both authorizers, and that K-2 MTSS requirements were not evaluated because they applied to only one school. Representatives from the Charter School Commission and charter school advocates responded positively, emphasizing technical assistance, collaboration, and sharing best practices across schools. Two public testifiers also supported the report and said it highlighted effective practices that could be expanded across charter and traditional public schools.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, as far as the audit is concerned, it's both a financial and a performance audit.
• So, performance audit? No, not that I know of. Okay.
• A performance audit would be whoever conducts the performance audit; it would still be a performance
• /c><00:15:52.360> knowledge um performance audit not to my knowledge um performance audit not
• <00:32:47.360> audit auditor to conduct a performance audit auditor to conduct a performance

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The meeting covered several Senate resolutions related to the University of Hawaiʻi system, the East-West Center, and related education and workforce issues. On SCR 178 and SR 48, testifiers strongly supported the East-West Center, describing it as an important Hawaii asset that promotes cultural exchange, global citizenship, diplomacy, and ties to the University of Hawaiʻi. Speakers said the Center has helped train leaders and bring international connections and investment to Hawaii, and they urged continued funding despite federal cuts. The chairs then recommended passage with technical amendments, and both resolutions were adopted by the committees. The committee also heard testimony on resolutions calling for audits of University of Hawaiʻi operations. On SR 32 and SCR 50, the University of Hawaiʻi said it supported the resolution and had already begun work on establishing a Bachelor of Science in nursing at the UH Maui campus, with additional staff available on Zoom to answer questions. On SR 160 and SCR 142, which sought a financial and performance audit of UH Mānoa facilities, UH Athletics said it already undergoes annual financial audits required by NCAA bylaws but not performance audits, and discussed its internal evaluations, contingency planning, and efforts to address concerns raised by student athletes and staff. The committee then took up SCR 138 and SR 55, requesting a management and performance audit of the UH Office of the Vice President for Academic Strategy. Vice President Deborah Halbert and P20 Director Steve Shotz said they did not oppose the audit and believed it could provide clarity, while explaining that the office is relatively new and works collaboratively across campuses on articulation, transfer, grants, and workforce alignment. They described grant programs including Perkins, GEAR UP, preschool development, and data-sharing efforts, and said they are focusing more resources on teaching, health care, and skilled trades. The discussion also touched on SR 54, a proposed performance audit of the UH Foundation, where foundation representatives said they already undergo annual financial audits, acknowledged some donor communication issues, but emphasized improved stewardship and growth in fundraising over recent years.

Transcript Highlights:

• , we need to perform an audit or we performed an audit, and they are referencing an evaluation of some
• The distinction that I will rest on for my remarks is that audits are performed work that's performed
• The Secretary of State's team may come in and audit an agency, especially in performance settings, and
• annually, use that risk assessment to develop an annual audit plan, perform at least one audit from
• that plan, what we call a risk-based audit, and perform a governance and risk management audit at least

Keywords: 907, all

Summary: The Joint Interim Committee on Legislative Audits met on June 17 for informational presentations. The Department of Administrative Services, through Chief Audit Executive Eli Ritchie, gave an overview of statewide internal audit requirements and the fiscal year 2025 report. He explained the difference between internal and external audit, described Oregon’s statutory and rule-based internal audit structure, and reported that 30 agencies had internal audit functions, with most meeting required standards. He said 73 audits and 49 advisory/consulting engagements were completed statewide, with strong compliance overall, though a few agencies were rebuilding audit committees after vacancies. No committee questions were raised after the presentation. The Secretary of State’s Audits Division then presented its Government Waste Hotline annual report. Director Steve Bergman and audit manager Olivia Rekhed described changes made to align the hotline with statute, including renaming it the Government Waste Hotline, creating a review panel, improving anonymity protections, removing fraud reporting from the hotline’s scope, and adjusting reporting timelines. They said hotline volume increased modestly in 2025, most reports were referred elsewhere or closed for insufficient evidence, and two reports were substantiated, including questioned costs of about $856 for personal use of a state vehicle and about $2.9 million tied to the Preschool Promise program. Committee members asked about hotline staffing, cost, anonymity, and follow-up on findings; staff said the hotline is lightly resourced, uses a contracted intake service, and referrals or recommendations are followed up through management letters and later reviews. The committee also heard an audit of the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department’s safety inspections and asset tracking. The Secretary of State’s office reported that OPRD had not consistently conducted or documented quarterly OSHA safety inspections and had incomplete asset records, including missing acquisition dates and costs for many assets. The audit made eight recommendations covering safety inspection policies, asset management guidance, tagging, reconciliations, disposition controls, training, and a new asset management system; OPRD agreed to all recommendations. OPRD officials said they had already begun training staff, improving inspection procedures, and working toward a replacement asset system, while noting operational challenges from a large, dispersed park system and manual processes. Committee members asked about what kinds of assets are tracked, how tagging works, whether items were actually being lost, and how much tracking is necessary for low-value tools; OPRD said the main issue was inconsistent classification and documentation rather than widespread loss. The meeting ended with no votes or formal actions taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• QUICK BACKGROUND ABOUT US AND THE TYPE OF REPORTS AND THE FINDINGS, WE PERFORM FINANCIAL AUDITS FOR COLLEGES
• WERE NOT PERFORMED AT ALL.
• HE MENTIONED WE DID SIX UNIVERSITY AUDITS THIS ON A CYCLE. WE FINALIZED 4 OF THOSE AUDITS.
• Pizzo: MY UNDERSTANDING AND YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, THEY'RE PERFORMING AN AUDIT DURING BANKING
• WE RECEIVE ALL THE CHARTER SCHOOL AUDIT REPORTS PERFORMED BY EXTERNAL CPAS SO WE ARE PLACING THEIR REPORT

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• audits they are performing.
• So, again, this performance audit is the first audit or review of this entity since 2018.
• So, again, this performance audit is the first audit or review of this entity since 2018.
• The performance audit for the period ending June 30th, 2024.
• A performance evaluation that is being conducted and a performance audit with the auditor's office.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• specific to the audits they are performing.
• In addition to the financial statement audit, we perform a single audit for Housing Finance Agency because
• As part of the audit, because it's performed under government auditing standards, we issued a report
• So, again, this performance audit is the first audit or review of this entity since 2018.
• So maybe this year, the Health and Human Services audit, performance audit, it may be something where

Summary: The committee met to receive a series of audit presentations, beginning with the statewide Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for fiscal year 2025. The State Auditor’s Office and OMB reported a clean, unmodified opinion for the state, with strong financial results including a $40.6 billion net position, $30.99 billion in assets, $1.81 billion in liabilities, and continued Legacy Fund growth. OMB also explained the new GASB 101 compensated-absences reporting change and discussed pension-liability fluctuations tied to discount-rate assumptions and investment performance. Members asked about how the state compares to others and about the effect of short-term commodity price swings, and OMB said the report reflects actual fiscal-year results rather than forecasts. The committee then heard the University System audit, which also received a clean opinion but included four findings: misreporting of Strategic Investment and Improvements Fund revenue, insufficient monitoring of service organizations at CTS, NDSU, and UND, improper bank reconciliations at Dakota College of Bottineau, Dickinson State, and Williston State, and investment/cash reconciliation problems at Bismarck State College related to bond proceeds. University officials agreed with the findings and said corrective actions were underway, including internal review of bank reconciliations. Members raised questions about NDSU’s use of certificates of deposit, and university staff explained that CDs are used to earn interest on funds being accumulated for future projects. Several other audits were presented, most with clean opinions and no findings, including the State Auditor’s Office, Workforce Safety and Insurance, Housing Finance Agency, Housing Incentive Fund, Job Service North Dakota, the Retirement and Investment Office, PERS, the Center for Distance Education, the Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigents, the Ethics Commission, and the Office of Administrative Hearings. Notable exceptions included a State Fair Association audit with an adverse opinion on the foundation component unit because its financial statements were not available for audit, and a Securities Department performance audit finding that performance-based pay increases and bonuses were issued without required evaluations. The committee also discussed the State Auditor’s future needs, including more staff capacity, data analytics, cybersecurity reviews, possible subpoena authority, independent legal counsel, and whether some audits—such as the Ethics Commission and State Fair—should be handled by independent third parties or under different statutory arrangements.

Transcript Highlights:

• Today I'll present key information from our September 2021 report that included the performance audit
• Commission implement the recommendations to the findings of the Auditor General's 2025 performance audit
• My presentation will include some key context for the performance audit and sunset review, information
• Rather, statute requires the auditor general to conduct a performance audit of the authority every five
• This will be my sixth performance audit.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The House Commerce Committee of Reference heard sunset reviews and a performance audit presentation for the Arizona Department of Gaming, the Racing Commission, the Boxing and MMA Commission, and later the Arizona Barbering and Cosmetology Board. The Auditor General reported that the Department of Gaming and the commissions generally met some statutory duties, but identified several problems: the department did not consistently obtain and review independent audits for event wagering and fantasy sports operators; the department and commissions had gaps in conflict-of-interest disclosures; the department and Boxing and MMA Commission lacked comprehensive complaint-handling processes; the department was late distributing some compact trust fund payments; and there were additional issues involving IT security, horse-racing license checks, fee reviews, public records practices, and licensing compliance. The Auditor General said the department agreed to implement all 36 recommendations, the Racing Commission agreed to six recommendations, and the Boxing and MMA Commission agreed to 13 recommendations. The department director said many fixes were already underway, including updated guidance, complaint tracking improvements, and a historical look-back on operator reporting, and she also discussed efforts to combat illegal gambling and educate minors and families about gambling risks. Committee members questioned the department about third-party audits, penalties for underpayments, public records handling, conflict-of-interest screening, and the department’s position on prediction markets and suitability standards for licensees. The director said the department would review past reports, could assess fines if violations were found, and would generally wait for final adjudication or final action in other jurisdictions before taking Arizona licensing action. After discussion, the committee voted to recommend the Department of Gaming be continued for two years until July 1, 2028, the Racing Commission for six years until July 1, 2032, and the Boxing and MMA Commission for six years until July 1, 2032. The Department of Gaming motion passed 7-4, the Racing Commission motion passed 10-1, and the Boxing and MMA Commission motion passed unanimously. The committee then heard the Auditor General’s report on the Arizona Barbering and Cosmetology Board. The audit found the board timely processed many licenses and complaints and had adopted curriculum rules, but it inconsistently applied its disciplinary guidelines, sometimes issuing different sanctions for similar violations without documenting the reasons for deviation. The report also found problems with reciprocity education requirements, application review controls, inspections, and compliance with open meeting, public records, and conflict-of-interest requirements, and it suggested possible statutory changes on aesthetics scope of practice, cease-and-desist authority, and training standards for I-LEST technicians. The board agreed with the findings and said it had already updated disciplinary parameters and documentation policies, with more recommendations in progress; committee members asked about discretion in discipline, audit funding, and service efficiency, and the board highlighted its licensing volume, call response, inspections, and complaint handling performance.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:07:26.360> the performance audit we conducted of the performance audit we conducted of
• audits kind of they conduct performance audits kind of control<00:12:03.200> compliance<00:12
• audit of the released a performance audit of the state<00:15:32.160> auditor's<00:15:32.720><
• Financial audits and performance audits tend to be released September to December.
• audit performance audits like financial audit performance audits like this<01:42:03.080> one<

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee first heard Senate File 563, a bill to change the board makeup of the Northern Koochiching Area Sanitary District. Senator Hild said the proposal had been heard the previous year and had broad support from local officials and stakeholders. Cali Briggs, the district’s executive director, explained that the board structure no longer reflected current populations and sewer service patterns: International Falls now holds six of eight seats after earlier consolidations, while East Koochiching has grown through sewer expansions and should receive additional representation. The bill would reduce the board to seven members, with International Falls having three seats, East Koochiching two, Rainier one, and one at-large member chosen by the board. The committee raised no substantive objections, and Senator Gustafson moved the bill to pass and go to general orders; the motion prevailed. Members then briefly joked about the topic and moved on to an overview from the Office of the Legislative Auditor. Legislative Auditor Judy Randall described the office as a nonpartisan legislative branch agency serving both chambers, with a mission of strengthening oversight, promoting accountability, and producing objective, useful reports. She outlined the office’s structure, including financial audits, program evaluations, and a growing special reviews unit, and explained the Legislative Audit Commission’s role in appointing the auditor and selecting program evaluation topics. Randall also emphasized the office’s broad access to records and data, its independence, and its responsibility to protect nonpublic information. Randall answered questions about the office’s authority over entities such as the University of Minnesota, explaining that OLA has audit authority there but often relies on the university’s internal audit function and can also conduct special reviews and program evaluations. She noted that public employees are required to cooperate and that subpoenas are available if needed, though the office prefers to maintain cooperative relationships. Special Reviews Director Katherine Tyson then described how her unit handles complaints and allegations involving misuse of public funds, data, or noncompliance with law, including preliminary assessments, communications with complainants and agencies, and deeper reviews when warranted. She said allegations and reports have increased steadily, with 481 received from 2020 through 2024 and nearly 10 per week on average last year, contributing to a heavier workload for her small team.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm a senior performance audit manager for the LBA audit division.
• I'm a senior performance audit Grady.
• And uh I go through performance audit."
• So it was done performance audit.
• Either a performance audit from here or a performance audit from the legislature—both go directly to

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from the March 6, 2026 meeting and then received updates from the Legislative Budget Assistant audit staff on several ongoing audits. Christine Young reported that the special education audit was in report-writing stage with 39 of 80 observations completed and a draft expected in the second quarter, the education freedom accounts audit had 27 of 42 observations completed with a draft also expected in the second quarter, and the Doorway program audit had a draft report with 15 observations sent to DHHS on March 30, with responses due April 24 and presentation expected at the May fiscal committee meeting. Members asked about the size of the special education report, and staff estimated it would be over 800 pages and roughly three pounds. The committee then reviewed prior audit responsiveness from the Human Rights Commission. The commission reported that 22 observations had been completed, with remaining issues focused on timely case processing, a formal risk assessment, and a performance measurement system. Officials said staffing shortages were improving, a risk assessment manual had been drafted, a scorecard system was nearly complete, and the commission’s rules were moving through the public hearing process. Members asked about the timeline, and the commission said case processing was averaging 20 to 22 months and that the remaining items were expected to be resolved over time. Police Standards and Training also reported progress on prior audit items. The director corrected one status designation and said the job task analysis for curriculum development was substantially resolved, with findings and recommendations being prepared for the council. He said work on fitness testing was on hold pending legislative action, the performance measurement and strategic planning item remained a priority, and the council was focusing first on updating administrative rules. He also said the corrections advisory committee likely needed a statutory amendment to better reflect members with practical corrections experience. In response to questions, he said the council does not certify county correctional officers but reviews county curriculum annually, and he said the agency would be open to discussing consolidation or a pathway for county officers to become state-certified. The Department of Corrections then updated the committee on parole board-related audit items, saying 11 of 13 DOC-related findings were resolved. The remaining issues involved implementing a structured decision-making process for the parole board and improving data collection for recidivism tracking; the board had applied to the National Institute of Corrections for training, and manual data collection was underway. DOC also said it had created a HIPAA-compliant release form to share substance use disorder treatment information with the parole board. Finally, OPLC reported on the mental health workforce audit, saying six findings were fully resolved and six substantially resolved, with most remaining items tied to rulemaking and application processing. The office expects to complete its backend system migration and improve timeliness metrics by the end of the year, and it recently launched a jurisprudence exam for the mental health board. Under potential audit topics, staff said two items remained suspended because of litigation, and the committee discussed whether to keep DHHS contract management on the list. Representative [name unclear] proposed adding two new education freedom account audit topics: verification of residency and eligibility, and a record of educational attainment while preserving student privacy. Members supported adding them, but staff warned the expanded scope could delay the report and would require coordination with the Department of Education and approval by the Fiscal Committee. The chair said staff would work with the commissioner and LBA to draft the revised scope for further committee action.