Bills: HR113 , HCR121 , HR152 , HCR162 , SB2835 , HR61 , HCR67 , HR94 , HCR102 , HR20 , HCR19 , HR98 , HCR106 , HR57 , HCR63 , HR96 , HCR104 , HR132 , HCR140 , HR133 , HCR141 , HR77 , HCR85 , HR90 , HCR98 , HR155 , HCR165 , HR156 , HCR166 , HR74 , HCR82 , HR190 , HCR200 , HR15 , HCR13 , HR83 , HCR91 , HR117 , HCR125 , HR193 , HCR203 , HR119 , HCR127 , HR114 , HCR122 , HR116 , HCR124 , HR22 , HCR22 , HR120 , HCR128 , HR32 , HCR32 , HR115 , HCR123 , HR138 , HCR146 , HR182 , HCR192 , HR88 , HCR96 , HR50 , HCR54 , HR169 , HCR179 , HR170 , HCR180 , HR31 , HCR31 , HR86 , HCR94 , HR23 , HCR24 , HR7 , HCR8 , HR12 , HCR10 , HR136 , HCR144 , HR108 , HCR116 , HR33 , HCR33 , HR175 , HCR185 , HR129 , HCR137 , HR192 , HCR202 , HR194 , HCR204 , HR19 , HCR18 , HR131 , HCR139 , HR163 , HCR173 , HR109 , HCR117 , HR56

Keywords: Hawaii, House Resolution, HR113, Mermaid Caves, Nanakuli, coastal hazards, sea caves, shoreline safety, public safety, digital maps, navigation apps, Google Maps, Apple Maps, point of interest, recreational destination, emergency response, drownings, rescues, cave safety, DLNR

Transcript Highlights:

• HCR number 102 by Harris, urging Congress to preserve sections 45U, 45Y, and 48E of the Internal Revenue
• Members, the kids in our juvenile justice system are under our care and control.
• HB3666 by King, relating to global professional standards for internal auditing. Thank you, Mr.
• Members, as of January 2025, the Global Internal Audit Standards were replaced with standards for the
• professional practice of internal audits.

Bills: HJR98 , HJR8 , HJR133 , HB23 , HB33 , HB144 , HB 109 , HB 103 , HB148 , HB3809 , HB1686 , HB2217 , HB2156 , HB220 , HB2421 , HB2363 , HB3773 , HB421 , HB2584 , HB2615 , HB2455 , HB3711 , HB2559 , HB3747 , HB2775 , HB2886 , HB3126 , HB3666 , HB3595 , HB3260 , HB3506 , HB1638 , HB3376 , HB3826 , HB3628 , HB1349 , HB3770 , HB1831 , HB1762 , HB2614 , HB3113 , HB267 , HB322 , HB431 , HB869 , HB 1203 , HB 1201 , HB 1244 , HB1875 , HB1950 , HB2152 , HB2290 , HB2341 , HB2436 , HB2809 , HB2856 , HB3012 , HB2954 , HCR56 , HCR102 , HB 107 , HB1587 , HB3684 , HB658 , HJR99 , HB1399 , HJR5 , HJR2 , HJR6 , HJR31 , HB1971 , SJR3 , HB1775 , HJR72 , HB502 , HB3109 , HJR98 , HJR8 , HJR133 , HB 118 , HB388 , HB 114 , HB205 , HB2789 , HB2791 , HB499 , HB2960 , HB3163 , HB3135 , HB2427 , HB1618 , HB1672 , HB1722 , HB1338 , HB787 , HB2618 , HB879 , HB 1126 , HB4134 , HB3513 , HB718 , HB1536 , HB1445 , HB1640 , HB1893 , HB1734 , HB3229 , HB3306 , HB 1276 , HB3272 , HB3276 , HB3516 , HB4145 , HB1585 , HB4810 , HB2989 , HB2558 , HB3014 , HB2742 , HB1695 , HB23 , HB33 , HB144 , HB 109 , HB 103 , HB148 , HB3809 , HB1686 , HB2217 , HB2156 , HB220 , HB2421 , HB2363 , HB3773 , HB421 , HB2584 , HB2615 , HB2455 , HB3711 , HB2559 , HB3747 , HB2775 , HB2886 , HB3126 , HB3666 , HB3595 , HB3260 , HB3506 , HB1638 , HB3376 , HB3826 , HB3628 , HB1349 , HB3770 , HB1831 , HB1762 , HB2614 , HB3113 , HB267 , HB322 , HB431 , HB869 , HB 1203 , HB 1201 , HB 1244 , HB1875 , HB1950 , HB2152 , HB2290 , HB2341 , HB2436 , HB2809 , HB2856 , HB3012 , HB2954 , HCR56 , HCR102

Keywords: Article V, federal government, fiscal restraints, constitutional amendment, term limits, nuclear energy, electric generation, funding, Texas nuclear development fund, advanced reactors, HJR 133, Texas constitutional amendment, ad valorem tax, property tax exemption, homestead exemption, surviving spouse, veteran, veterans benefits, service-connected death, presumed service-connected condition

Bills: HB145 , SB37 , HB279 , HB292 , SB35 , SB48 , SB20 , SJR1 , SB38 , SB41 , SB73 , SB100 , SB111 , SB132 , SB152 , SJR7 , HJM1 , HM7 , HM17 , HM4 , HM22 , HM23 , HM24 , HM26 , HM2 , HM16 , HM32 , HM13 , HM47 , HM20 , HM51 , HM1 , HM31 , HM35 , HM36 , HM46 , HM53 , HM54 , HM39 , HM29 , HM43 , HM59 , HM30 , HM52 , HM11 , HM14 , HM21 , HM34 , HM50 , HB2 , HB70 , HB180 , SB151 , SB240 , SB273 , HB95 , HB247 , HB332 , HB8 , HB253 , HB4 , HB96

Keywords: high-wage jobs, tax credit, job creation, New Mexico, economic development, high-quality literacy instruction, science of reading, structured literacy, reading instruction, literacy assessment, dyslexia screening, phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, biliteracy, English language learner, ELL, bilingual education

Transcript Highlights:

• internal controls controls prioritizing internal controls right<00:37:06.560><c> and</c><00:37:06.760
• <01:00:09.640><c> controls</c> internal controls internal controls statutes<01:00:12.359><c> um</c><01
• </c><01:07:14.000><c> control</c> there's just five internal control there's just five internal control
• Control and Accountability Unit rebranded our Internal Control Roundtable to the Internal Control and
• The internal control staff does present there on the basics of internal controls.

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:31:22.960><c> controls</c> promote strong internal controls promote strong internal controls
• </c> need to um strengthen an internal need to um strengthen an internal control. control. control.
• internal controls and um the internal internal controls and accountability<00:39:57.600><c> team</c>
• </c> those internal controls. those internal controls.
• </c><01:40:43.520><c> controls</c> the agency with internal controls the agency with internal controls

Committee: House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:04:36.000><c> controls</c><00:04:36.479><c> to</c> leadership on internal controls to leadership
• Chair, Senator Draheim, the internal control team is the internal controls unit.
• Chair, Senator Draheim, the internal control team is the internal controls unit.
• Chair, Senator Draheim, the internal control team is the internal controls unit.
• seeing our internal that they're seeing our internal controls<00:24:13.919><c> team</c><00:24:14.240>

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• controls, what are your internal structures and different things like that.
• It is really designed to apply a numeric score to internal controls and allow the granting organization
• controls, what are your internal structures and different things like that.
• controls, what are your internal structures and different things like that.
• controls, compliance issues, internal controls, compliance issues, and<00:02:53.040><c> really</c><00

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:04:28.240><c> control</c> established appropriate internal control established appropriate internal
• ><c> ensure</c> Stronger internal controls to ensure Stronger internal controls to ensure progress<00
• ><c> ensure</c> Adding internal controls to ensure Adding internal controls to ensure invoices<00:31:
• </c><00:53:36.360><c> controls</c> uh why were internal controls uh why were internal controls not<00
• </c> internal controls that we're expecting. internal controls that we're expecting.

Committee: House Human Services Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• controls and accountability internal controls and accountability that's<00:59:44.920><c> where</c><00
• </c><01:04:49.839><c> internal</c> internal control in since the internal internal control in since the
• So we are always working to strengthen our internal controls.
• So we are always working to strengthen our internal controls.
• > we</c><01:37:36.080><c> learn</c> internal control meetings what we learn internal control meetings

Committee: House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• control compliance with departments and agencies.
• control compliance with departments and agencies.
• control compliance with departments and agencies.
• </c><00:08:29.960><c> controls</c><00:08:30.280><c> that</c><00:08:30.360><c> were</c> that those internal
• controls that were that those internal controls that were recommended<00:08:31.400><c> are</c><00:08

Summary: State Representative Jim Nash and Representative Kristin Robbins discussed a package of fraud-prevention bills, centered on House File 3 and a separate whistleblower-protection measure. HF 3 would require annual reports based on Office of the Auditor (OA/OLA) findings to be sent to ranking members of relevant committees, with the goal of giving appropriators more information about internal controls and follow-up on audit recommendations. Nash said the bill is intended to help reduce waste, fraud, and abuse, cited the Feeding Our Future case as an example of weak controls, and noted that the OA helped draft the proposal and supports it. He also said the bill’s language is modeled in part on Colorado and on earlier recommendations for more information to be shared with decision-makers. Robbins said her bill would expand whistleblower protections for state employees, including unclassified employees, and add new protected reporting channels and definitions. She said employees are often afraid to come forward because of job and career concerns, and that the bill would better protect reports made to legislators, the OA, governmental bodies, and law enforcement. She and Nash said they were working with DFL members and committee chairs on bipartisan amendments to define “fraud” and “misuse,” and to align the language with the Inspector General bill and prior law. In questions, Robbins explained that current law protects only certain employees and that her bill would broaden coverage and make it easier for employees to report concerns without fear. She said the OA supports the effort and that the added reporting pathways would help with follow-up on agency recommendations. Nash and Robbins both emphasized that the measures are part of a broader fraud-fighting package and expressed hope for bipartisan support, though Nash criticized DFL leadership for not backing the bills more openly. No votes or final actions were taken in the exchange shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that can be as internal controls.
• ><00:15:26.399><c> office</c> adequate internal controls, the office adequate internal controls, the
• </c> believer that internal controls are key. believer that internal controls are key.
• an</c> internal controls that create an internal controls that create an opportunity<00:58:27.440><c
• You should be internal controls.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:48:45.640><c> controls</c> audits again the the internal controls audits again the the internal
• internal controls.
• </c> so our conclusion regarding internal so our conclusion regarding internal controls<01:03:59.440>
• </c> genely did not have adequate internal genely did not have adequate internal controls<01:04:04.720
• gaming um internal their internal gaming um internal control<01:29:59.639><c> system</c><01:30:00.400

Committee: House State Government Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• In my case, that's the global internal audit standards that are defined by the Institute of Internal
• auditors can do this work as well internally, and then internal auditors have a greater focus on advisory
• control.
• Senator Lieber, members of the committee, and Senator Robinson, I think the internal control of that
• Senator Lieber, members of the committee and Senator Robinson, I think the internal control of that is

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:

• So we have our report on internal control and compliance.
• We had one material weakness in internal control.
• So a couple within the internal controls, I just want to point out.
• I just want to point out the internal controls and the methodology that we looked at.
• The monitoring was focused on several internal controls.

Committee: Joint Legislative Audit and Fiscal Review Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• control that.
• If owning and managing adjacent ports means that China somehow has operational control or strategic control
• earth that China can control the Panama Canal.
• We can get into the semantics of the port authority versus the control, but operational control. of the
• It doesn't matter what control means.

Committee: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• So if they can prescribe or dispense controlled substances.
• Would medical interns be able to access this information? Yes. Yes. Interns.
• Would medical interns be able to access this information? Yes. Yes. Interns.
• Would interns for these other facilities? Yeah, yes, interns.
• Would interns for these other facilities?

Committee: House Joint Committee on Administrative Rules

Summary: The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules met with a quorum and approved the minutes from the prior meeting. Members announced that two Department of Natural Resources rules had been withdrawn, leaving only the Missouri Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) rule proposal for consideration. Public testimony focused on a proposed expansion of PDMP access to additional licensed behavioral health professionals, including licensed clinical social workers, licensed master social workers, marriage and family therapists, professional counselors, and psychologists, along with related clarifications to delegate access categories such as medical assistants and clinical nurse specialists. Testimony from the PDMP director and supporters from Compass Health and the Department of Mental Health argued the changes would improve care coordination, medication reconciliation, and overdose prevention within multidisciplinary behavioral health teams, especially in CCBHC settings. They said access would remain limited to licensed Missouri professionals working under supervision or collaboration with a prescriber or dispenser, and that the system is intended for treatment-related, view-only use. Opponents and skeptical committee members raised concerns that the rule would expand access beyond the original statutory framework without legislative change, could create privacy risks or misuse in non-treatment contexts such as custody disputes, and might exceed the committee’s rulemaking authority. One public witness opposed the rule, warning it could deter patients from seeking counseling and arguing the change should be made, if at all, by statute. After testimony, committee members debated whether the proposal was a permissible clarification or an impermissible substantive expansion of the law. Supporters of disapproval said the issue was legality, not the merits of PDMP access, and urged the department to seek a bill sponsor if it wanted the change enacted. A motion was made and seconded to disapprove Rule 1 CSR 60-1.010 on the grounds of lack of statutory authority, conflict with state law, and arbitrariness/capriciousness. The committee then took a roll-call vote and approved the motion by 7 ayes to 1 no, disapproving the rule and adjourning with no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• The findings are disclosed in our report on compliance and internal controls over financial reporting
• Operational audits evaluate internal controls and management's performance, both in establishing and
• Often it's not a quantifiable thing if it's an internal control deficiency.
• It looks at internal controls and what controls management has established to promote compliance, economic
• and internal control for those entities that receive and spend over $750,000 in federal assistance.

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:

• They have an internal audit at each institution.
• The fact that there's an internal organization, an internal auditor that works for the institution, and
• The fact that there's an internal organization, an internal auditor that works for the institution, and
• So you would look for your board to enforce and set the example for having a strong internal control
• We do have an internal auditor whose main function is internal compliance.

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee met to hear interim charges on higher education transparency and on preventing fraud, waste, and abuse in state government. The chair emphasized accountability for taxpayer dollars and asked witnesses to address financial reporting, audit practices, and whether more frequent or comprehensive audits would improve oversight. Legislative Budget Board staff described how public university systems and most community colleges respond to requests about internal audit practices, noting that university systems generally follow a similar annual audit timeline and that community colleges use a more varied mix of internal and external audit arrangements. Members focused on gaps in reporting, especially Texas Southern University’s missing submissions for several years and Collin County Community College’s nonresponse to the LBB survey. The State Auditor’s Office then outlined its higher education audit work, including mandatory statewide single audits, DEI compliance audits, HUB and State Use Program audits, benefits proportional audits, and discretionary audits based on risk. The auditor said the office has released 43 higher-ed audit reports since fiscal year 2021 and has two audits in progress, and explained that internal audit reports from institutions help guide future audit selection. Senators pressed the office on the lack of enforcement authority, the value of internal auditors at each institution, and whether community colleges should have more standardized reporting and audit requirements. The auditor and general counsel said the SAO can refer suspected fraud to law enforcement but cannot itself enforce findings, while several senators suggested stronger clawback authority and more robust internal audit structures. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board explained that it collects annual financial reports, sources-and-uses data, and community college finance reports, and uses them for funding formulas and other reporting. It also trains governing board members and said it has limited regulatory authority, though community colleges must certify compliance annually and can lose eligibility for state funds if they do not. Members questioned the reliability of self-attested data, the adequacy of board training, and whether a single reporting structure would be more efficient. During public testimony, a ScholarShot representative argued for clearer, student-facing financial transparency so students can see total cost of attendance and the gap they must cover before enrolling.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we have our report on internal control and compliance.
• We had one material weakness in internal control...
• So a couple within the internal controls, I just want to point out.
• So a couple within the internal controls, I just want to point out.
• The monitoring was focused on several internal controls.

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:

• It's equally important to document the internal controls put in place to ensure correct operations.
• We found OSPI lacks comprehensive documentation of internal controls and data information flow.
• That allows us to utilize new tools for internal controls. All of that is absolutely true.
• That allows us to utilize new tools for internal controls. All of that is absolutely true.
• We also agree that we've got work to do on internal controls, mostly system internal controls.

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.