Transcript Highlights:

• And in fact, we do have a meeting scheduled with Auditor Randall later on this week to do so.
• And in fact, we do have a meeting scheduled with Auditor Randall later on this week to do so.
• And in fact, we do have a meeting scheduled with Auditor Randall later on this week to do so.
• <00:07:37.600> to revise the language with the auditor to revise the language with the auditor
• the they're connecting with the auditor the they're connecting with the auditor because because

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee heard House File 3672, authored by Representative Quam, and the bill was laid over. Quam said the measure is based on findings from past Legislative Audit Commission audits and is intended to clarify state requirements, strengthen agency compliance, and address gaps such as conflicts of interest in grant administration. He said he wants the auditor to work directly with the revisor and agencies so the rules are clearer and less likely to be misunderstood. Betsy Hayes, Assistant Commissioner with the Department of Administration, testified that sections 5 through 11 of the bill would strengthen grants management authorities, reporting, monitoring, training, and conflict-of-interest limits, and said those changes are generally supported and in some cases already reflected in policy. She raised concern about section 3, saying it could sweep too broadly by applying chapter 16B grants-management requirements to all state payments to non-state entities, including procurement payments, which could create fiscal impact and regulatory overlap. She said the department is working with the author, the Office of the Legislative Auditor, and Auditor Randall to refine the language. Chair Clayburn asked for clarification on the difference between grants and procurement contracts and on the relationship between chapters 16B and 16C. Hayes explained that grants are typically reimbursement-based payments to third parties under chapter 16B, while procurement contracts are inward-facing state purchases under chapter 16C. She said section 3 could unintentionally capture procurement and apply grants rules to it. Clayburn said the bill’s intent is good and welcomed continued work on the language before the bill moves forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• Office of the State Auditor, and yes, we have two auditors.
• Auditor.
• think that when you look at an auditor think that when you look at an auditor who<00:20:35.400><
• I'm your state auditor.
• the auditor.

Bills: HF1060, HF1062

Keywords: sports facilities, Minnesota, legislative commission, financial oversight, accountability, HF1062, driver and vehicle systems oversight committee, MNLARS, VTRS, vehicle title and registration system, driver's license system, Minnesota Department of Public Safety, MN.IT, legislative oversight, transportation finance, state government, committee repeal, sunset provision, information technology audit, vehicle registration

Transcript Highlights:

• We have both yourself, Legislative Auditor, and then we have the State Auditor.
• So we are the Legislative Auditor.
• Legislative Auditor, state funds. State Auditor, county and local funds.
• yourself legislative auditor have both yourself legislative auditor and<00:31:20.679> then<00
• The legislative auditor is me.

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:

• I'm going to invite our state auditor, Mr.
• Thank you to our auditor.
• time ever the state's directing the auditor to go audit, ...expedition that the auditor come in.
• necessarily you as auditor, but your office in the history of the state auditor audited a county board
• necessarily you as auditor, but your office in the history of the state auditor audited a county board

Summary: The committee met as a subcommittee for much of the hearing because it initially lacked a quorum, then later established one and began taking votes. The state auditor gave a status update on ongoing audits, including several JALAC-requested audits in progress, other statutory audits, staffing growth in his office, and the number of new JALAC audits his office could start in the coming months. The committee also heard that one audit request on Prop. 28 was held, and another PUC-related request was moved off consent and heard on the regular calendar. Members then heard and discussed several audit requests. Senator Cervantes presented a request to audit California fusion centers, with witnesses from the FBI and ACLU supporting the need for transparency and oversight; opponents argued the request was politically motivated and could interfere with counterterrorism work. Senator Allen presented a request on CPUC enforcement of Rule 21 interconnection timelines for solar and storage projects, supported by industry and school representatives who described long delays and financial harm, while CPUC staff said the issue was being addressed through workshops and a formal proceeding. Senator Perez presented a request to audit Caltrans’ administration of the former SR 710 extension properties and affordable sales program, citing tenant complaints about maintenance, pricing, and transparency; Caltrans said it was working to complete sales and improve administration. Senator Umberg presented a request to audit the Orange County Board of Education over transparency, contracting, litigation spending, charter oversight, and whistleblower issues, while board representatives said there was no factual basis for an audit and that existing legal remedies had not been invoked. After quorum was established, the committee approved the consent-calendar DMV license revocation audit and then approved the PUC utility timeliness audit and the Caltrans SR 710 audit. The fusion center audit was left on call after a split vote, and the Orange County Board of Education audit continued with testimony from the board’s representatives after the committee had already moved on to other business.

Transcript Highlights:

• auditors uh available. auditors uh available.
• What are those two auditors doing?
• Those two auditors, uh, three or four auditors for the special education team?
• three<00:40:49.440> four<00:40:49.680> auditors Those two auditor uh three four auditors
• Chair, again, in face of the fact the two auditors that are freeing up are DHHS auditors basically, auditors

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Legislative Performance Audit and Oversight Committee met to accept prior minutes and receive updates on ongoing audits. Audit staff reported progress on three education-related reviews: special education (34 of 71 observations completed, draft expected in the second quarter and final in the summer), education freedom accounts (22 of 41 observations completed, draft expected in the second quarter and final in the summer), and the doorway program (5 of 13 observations completed, draft expected by the end of February and final by April or May). No committee questions were raised on the audit status update. The committee then discussed possible future oversight topics, beginning with SNAP and concerns about fraud and work requirements. Members suggested inviting DHS officials and contract administrators to explain program operations and compliance, and also discussed whether the Department of Justice Medicaid fraud unit or other experienced officials could provide useful context. Members noted New Hampshire’s existing oversight layers, including the Executive Council and the joint HHS oversight committee, while also expressing interest in hearing more directly from department staff about staffing and contract management capacity. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on whether to pursue an audit of special education at the local school level. Members debated whether to wait for the ongoing statewide special education review and a legislative study commission report, or to begin scoping a local audit now so work could start sooner. Supporters argued that local-level spending, identification rates, and effectiveness vary widely by district and that an audit should examine both costs and outcomes; others cautioned that the scope would need to be manageable given limited audit staff and that the statewide report may help narrow the focus. The committee also briefly discussed a potential audit of the Bureau of Elderly and Adult Services, but no decision was made on that item.

Transcript Highlights:

• is Judy Randall legis ative auditor is Judy Randall legis ative auditor thanks<00:04:30.720>
• <00:08:31.879> to office of the legislative auditor to office of the legislative auditor to
• Their equivalent of the Legislative Auditor in Colorado, what they call the state auditor, produces an
• Their equivalent of the Legislative Auditor in Colorado, what they call the state auditor, produces an
• Their equivalent of the Legislative Auditor in Colorado, what they call the state auditor, produces an

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee heard House File 3, authored by Chair Nash, which would require the Office of the Legislative Auditor to produce an annual report for fiscal committees showing how well agencies have implemented prior audit recommendations, especially those related to financial practices, internal controls, and management. Nash said the bill is intended to give legislators a clearer, ongoing tool to evaluate agencies before making funding decisions and to help prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. He noted the bill would use existing audit information rather than create a new reporting burden, though he said it would deepen the review of implementation. Legislative Auditor Judy Randall testified that the Office of the Legislative Auditor already tracks implementation to some extent through annual information collected by Minnesota Management and Budget, but that current reporting is based largely on agency self-reporting and is not always independently verified. She said the bill would expand that work and provide the legislature with more useful accountability information. A representative from Americans for Prosperity also supported the bill, calling it a transparency and stewardship measure that would help taxpayers and legislators see whether agencies are following through on recommendations. Several members spoke in favor, describing the bill as a common-sense accountability measure and comparing it to audit practices in local government and private organizations. Nash and Randall also discussed Colorado’s similar process, where audit follow-up information is presented during budget hearings. Members raised concerns about fraud and inefficiency in state government, and Nash said the bill is meant to help lawmakers better protect taxpayer dollars. The committee voted to recommend House File 3 and re-refer it to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Transcript Highlights:

• Let's just, I mean, what is the Attorney General, the auditor, the Secretary of State?
• to money, and whether the Ethics Commission needs to be able to oversee the Auditor.
• And the auditor.
• State Auditor.
• Version from Governor, AG, Commissioner, State Auditor, to just State Auditor, Ethics Commission.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Senate State and Local Government Committee reconvened and reviewed the status of several bills. The chair said bill 1377 could not be acted on until the House finished work on campaign finance bill 2156, and bill 1535 likely would not be ready because of unresolved concerns from Representative Davis and planned meetings with Highway Patrol and BCI. The committee therefore focused on bill 1601, which dealt with when the Attorney General may refuse or revoke special assistant attorney general appointments for certain state offices and entities. Members debated the policy and constitutional implications of the bill, including whether it was solving a real problem or creating a potential conflict, and whether statewide elected officials and independent bodies should have their own counsel. After testimony from the Chief Deputy Attorney General clarifying current law and the appropriations process, the committee amended the bill to add the Ethics Commission to the list of entities and to narrow the affected offices to the Governor, State Auditor, and Ethics Commission. The committee also changed one provision from “and” to “or” to clarify the standard for refusal or revocation. The committee then approved the bill as amended on a 6-0 vote and designated Senator Braunberger as the carrier. The chair said the committee would not meet the next morning and would instead reconvene the following week at the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• We thank our auditors, Lisa Park, and Lee To express our sincere appreciation, we thank our auditors,
• And actually, I do believe that the Auditor General, or I should say the auditors, found when they reviewed
• I also want to thank the Arizona Auditor General, Lindsey Perry, and her staff at the Office of the Auditor
• I will the Auditor General. Thank you for covering this.
• Madam Chair, Jeff Gov, with the Auditor General's Office.

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:

• <00:17:50.120> around office of the legislative auditor around office of the legislative auditor
• the office of the legislative auditor the office of the legislative auditor and<00:32:38.399>
• of Minnesota, and I remember Jim Nobles' frustration with legislative auditor reports.
• of Minnesota, and I remember Jim Nobles' frustration with legislative auditor reports.
• realities that the legislative auditor realities that the legislative auditor is<00:43:11.079>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• auditors uh available. auditors uh available.
• Let me ask our auditors a question.
• What are those two auditors doing?
• Those two auditors, uh, three or four auditors for the special education team?
• three<00:40:49.440> four<00:40:49.680> auditors Those two auditor uh three four auditors

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The Legislative Performance Audit and Oversight Committee approved the November 7 minutes with three abstentions and then received status updates on several ongoing audits. Audit staff reported that the special education oversight audit was in report-writing, with 34 of 71 observations completed and a draft expected in the second quarter and a final report in the summer. The education freedom accounts audit had 22 of 41 observations completed, with a draft also expected in the second quarter and a final report in the summer. The Doorway program audit had 5 of 13 observations completed, with a draft expected by the end of February and a final report by April or May. The committee then discussed possible new oversight topics, prompted by concerns about fraud in other states and the need to ensure New Hampshire programs are not vulnerable. Members suggested hearing from DHS officials, contract administrators, and possibly the Department of Justice Medicaid fraud unit about SNAP and other programs, as well as reviewing staffing levels in HHS contract management. There was also discussion of whether to revisit the Bureau of Elderly and Adult Services, though members noted that prior work on that area had been suspended because of litigation. A representative from HHS, Teresa Narrow, briefed the committee on the Bureau of Developmental Services. She said the state had been in compliance with CMS since July 1, 2023 after resolving issues tied to a system redesign and billing changes, and that provider-side billing problems had also been fixed. She also described three existing bodies involved in developmental disability housing oversight, including the Council on Housing Stability, the ABLE Housing Task Force, and a legislative study committee created by HB 168 in 2024. Committee members asked for her notes to be shared. The committee spent substantial time debating whether to pursue a new special education audit at the school-district level. Members discussed the need to examine why some districts have much higher special education rates and costs than others, and whether a statistically selected sample of schools could be used. Audit staff said no new audits could begin until about May or June and that only a couple of auditors would then be available. Members also noted that a legislative study committee is already working on special education and may issue a report later this year, and the committee appeared to leave the school-level audit idea as a potential future item rather than taking immediate action.

Transcript Highlights:

• Will the Auditor General please come to the podium.
• Page 13 of the Auditor General report regarding the rulemaking.
• I'm with the Arizona Auditor General.
• Two specific that are highlighted in the Auditor General report.
• Two specific that are highlighted in the Auditor General report.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee conducted sunset reviews for the Arizona State Board of Pharmacy, the State Board of Nursing, the Arizona Board of Occupational Therapy Examiners, and the Arizona Regulatory Board of Physician Assistants. The Auditor General’s reports praised each board for timely licensing in some areas but identified recurring problems with complaint investigations, public safety oversight, fee analysis, records/documentation, and internal controls. For Pharmacy, the main concerns were weak enforcement of controlled substances prescription monitoring program (CSPMP) requirements and slow complaint resolution; the board said it had implemented some recommendations, was pursuing a new database vendor, and supported legislation to strengthen CSPMP enforcement. For Nursing, the audit found a large and growing backlog of complaints and repeated delays in resolving cases; the executive director said the board was under-resourced and requested 28 additional investigative positions, while nursing stakeholders supported process reforms and cited a bill to improve timelines and fairness. For Occupational Therapy, the audit focused on missing or poorly documented fingerprint clearance card checks, delayed action on a serious criminal-charge disclosure, and other compliance issues; the board said it had accepted and was implementing all recommendations, including new procedures and rulemaking. For Physician Assistants, the audit found weak oversight by the executive director, extensive delays in complaint handling, and an incentive-pay system that did not align with key performance goals; the board said it had already made structural changes, was improving tracking and IT systems, and planned to continue implementing recommendations. After discussion and testimony from board officials, public members, and nursing stakeholders, the committee voted to continue the Arizona State Board of Pharmacy for six years until July 1, 2032, the State Board of Nursing for four years until July 1, 2031, the Arizona Board of Occupational Therapy Examiners for four years until July 1, 2030, and the Arizona Regulatory Board of Physician Assistants for a continued term with statutory changes (the transcript includes the board review and related discussion, but the final motion text for the physician assistants board is not fully captured in the excerpt). The votes on the first three continuations were approved by roll call, with members generally supporting continuation while expressing concern about complaint backlogs and the need for reforms.

Transcript Highlights:

• under the State Auditor...
• Speaker, back in November, we changed the rules to allow the auditor to pick the auditor for what would
• By allowing the auditor to select an independent office, we've done.
• And put it back into professionalism by allowing the auditor to select an independent auditor to audit
• I'll quote a March 7 letter to Speaker Mariano from Auditor DiZoglio.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The House first took up House Bill 58, a fiscal year 2025 supplemental appropriations bill. The chamber adopted a further amendment offered by Rep. Michael Witts of Boston, then concurred with the Senate as amended after a roll call vote of 128-23. The House then moved to the orders of the day and considered the proposed permanent joint rules for the 2025-2026 session (House No. 2026 / Senate No. 18), with Rep. Moran of Brighton presenting the package as a set of transparency and process reforms, including joint committee procedures, a 60-day reporting deadline, public posting of summaries and testimony, and revised formal session timing. A series of minority amendments offered largely by Rep. Jones of North Reading and others were debated and repeatedly rejected, including proposals to require roll call votes for post-July 31 formal business, require two weeks’ notice for such sessions, publish State Auditor audits on the legislative website, require SJC advisory opinions on constitutional disputes, extend poll windows to two hours, require advance notice of electronic polls, and lengthen amendment filing deadlines. Supporters argued these changes would improve transparency, accountability, and member access; opponents said they would slow the legislative process and reduce flexibility. Most of these amendments failed on roll call votes by margins of 128-23 or similar, while a technical amendment from Rep. Galvin was adopted. The House then adopted the joint rules package by roll call, 128-23. The chamber also adopted the House rules package for the 2025-2026 session (House No. 2024) after debate led by Rep. Galvin of Canton, who emphasized modernization, online transparency, in-person participation, and an outside audit and EEO officer. Additional minority amendments on committee reporting, timing of formal business, and poll procedures were debated and defeated, while one technical amendment was adopted. The House later returned to the issue of legislative audits, rejecting an amendment to require House audits by the State Auditor after a lengthy debate over Question 1, separation of powers, and the scope of the auditor’s authority. The session ended with a memorial tribute to former Rep. Carol Doherty and an order to adjourn until the next day at 11 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• She's been the fabric of the Auditor General.
• and the Auditor General's office truly make that difference.
• Then we can, or I guess the Auditor General knows what school that is, so if the Auditor General could
• And the Auditor General says that you're not certified.
• Did you convey this to the Auditor General? Correct.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee opened with remarks about moving JLAC to a more frequent monthly schedule and spending more time on each audit. Members also recognized Melanie Chesney of the Auditor General’s office for 32 years of service, with several members praising her work and her role in school safety and other audits. The meeting then turned to the JLAC-directed Arizona School Safety Special Audit on interoperable communication systems, with the Auditor General’s office presenting the December 2025 report. The audit found that the state had allocated nearly $26 million to interoperable communication efforts, but implementation varied widely. Auditors said all 14 law enforcement agencies used the money for interoperable systems, yet four agencies allowed private or tribal schools to participate contrary to statute, and several agencies failed to submit required expenditure reports. The report also found procurement problems: nine of 14 agencies did not follow procurement requirements or lacked documentation, many contracts lacked accountability provisions, and some agencies had not planned for ongoing costs. The audit estimated ongoing annual costs for an average rural county could range from about $16,000 to $382,000, and recommended that agencies document costs, follow procurement rules, monitor vendors, and plan for future funding. It also recommended the legislature clarify whether non-public schools may participate and revisit statutory system requirements that were vague or inconsistently interpreted. Members questioned the Auditor General about vendor licensing, whether systems could be built in-house, why some functions were not configured, and whether the systems were truly usable in emergencies. The presentation explained that some systems met requirements only in part, that Mutualink had a per-user licensing model affecting access to secure text and file sharing, and that some schools were unwilling or unable to install apps or keep devices logged in. The committee also discussed the difference between the separate school safety grant program administered by ADE and this interoperability fund, and several members expressed frustration with sole-source contracting and weak documentation. In the final portion of the presentation, auditors said only two of eight observed systems demonstrated all five critical emergency functions, while four agency systems could not be tested because they were reportedly not functioning. The committee then began hearing responses from county sheriffs, starting with the Arizona Sheriffs’ Association president, who emphasized county commitment to school safety and noted that some counties had implemented systems across multiple districts, including tribal and rural schools. No votes or formal actions were taken during the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, so, Madam Auditor, welcome to the committee.
• is Julie Blaha I'm your state auditor is Julie Blaha I'm your state auditor excited<00:02:03.439
• leave for your total staff auditor leave for your total staff auditor Blaha<00:15:52.519> uh<
• <00:18:14.720> I'd I had to tell the Iowa state auditor I'd I had to tell the Iowa state auditor
• <00:19:11.120> Blaha that to be a helpful tool auditor Blaha that to be a helpful tool auditor

Bills: HF627, HF474, HF361, HF1837

Keywords: HF627, fiscal note, fiscal notes, Minnesota Legislature, state government, committee procedure, ranking minority member, minority party, standing committee, Ways and Means, Finance Committee, legislative process, budget analysis, fiscal impact, Minnesota Statutes 3.98, committee chair, legislative transparency, HF474, Hubert H. Humphrey, Henry Mower Rice

Transcript Highlights:

• Auditor Blaha is figuring out technology. So, Madam Auditor, welcome to the committee.
• I'm your state auditor, excited to be here with you today.
• And it used to be done by the legislative auditor.
• Madam Auditor, thank you. Another good question.
• Auditor Blaha. Thank you, Chair Nash.

Bills: HF627, HF474, HF361, HF1837

Keywords: HF627, fiscal note, fiscal notes, Minnesota Legislature, state government, committee procedure, ranking minority member, minority party, standing committee, Ways and Means, Finance Committee, legislative process, budget analysis, fiscal impact, Minnesota Statutes 3.98, committee chair, legislative transparency, HF474, Hubert H. Humphrey, Henry Mower Rice

Transcript Highlights:

• The Commissioner's Court has approval of expenditures, the auditors, the treasurers; there are safeguards
• I assume that our auditor would need additional resources in order to do this.

Bills: SB32, SB464, SB996, SB1163, SB1173, SB1277, SB1452, SB1453, SB1548, SB1882, SB1883, SB2016, SB 32

Keywords: ad valorem taxation, tax exemption, franchise tax credit, income production, personal property, SB 464, school buffer zone, tobacco retailer, vape shop, e-cigarette, vaping, nicotine, tobacco products, retail permit, comptroller, Class A misdemeanor, school proximity, youth access, public school, private school

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll have some questions and stuff with the Auditor General.
• Okay, so we will have the office of the Auditor General. We've got Liam Ben Pelt for that.
• My name is Leon Van Pelt, and I'm with the Arizona Auditor General.
• I also want to thank Arizona Auditor General Lindsay Perry and her staff at the Office of the Auditor
• It also timely resolved 30 complaints auditors reviewed.

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:

• I'm an audit manager with the Florida Auditor General's Office.
• Does the auditor keep tabs on this on a more recurring basis?
• Is the internal auditor keeping tabs on this information?
• Are you talking about the university's internal auditor?
• I can't speak to what their internal auditor will do.

Summary: The Higher Education Budget Subcommittee met to hear a presentation from the Florida Auditor General’s office on recent operational audits of four universities and to discuss how audit findings are handled. The Auditor General explained that financial audits occur annually and operational audits at least every three years, with universities required to respond in writing to findings; the office generally follows up in the next audit cycle, though it can audit sooner if needed. Members asked about accountability, whether findings are referred to other bodies, and how internal university audit functions interact with the state audit process. The chair emphasized the committee’s oversight role in ensuring public funds are used appropriately. The audit findings highlighted issues at New College of Florida, Florida A&M University, the University of Florida, and Florida Atlantic University. At New College, auditors cited invoice/payment errors, delinquent student account collection delays, prohibited extra compensation, exceeding state remuneration limits for certain employees, weak purchasing card controls, construction management cost documentation issues, and subcontractor licensing documentation gaps. At FAMU, auditors found investment accounting classification issues, delayed bank reconciliations, late vendor payments, and incomplete annual employee evaluations. At UF, auditors reported concerns over a $6.4 million consulting contract, event and catering spending, president’s office hiring and salary practices, bonus and relocation payments, continued high compensation after the president transitioned to another role, travel expenses including charter flights, and remote work agreements. At FAU, auditors found distance learning fee revenue exceeded allowable costs by about $2.8 million, carry forward funds were underreported by about $77 million, and credit card controls needed improvement. Members pressed the Auditor General on whether overpayments were refunded, whether any findings involved statutory violations, and what enforcement exists beyond the audit report. The auditor said some issues were corrected by the universities, such as New College recovering excess compensation from foundation funds, but others would be revisited in future audits; if potential fraud were identified, it would be referred to the state attorney’s office. The chair closed by noting that accountability for public spending rests with the Legislature and the committee, and the meeting adjourned without any vote or formal action beyond receiving the presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Auditor Gallion is here. Would you speak to that, auditor? Yeah, I thought it was.
• And state auditor is required to perform. And state auditor is required to perform.
• Go ahead, auditor. Mr.
• Go ahead, auditor. Mr.
• Any questions for the auditor? Oh, everybody? Any questions for the auditor? Everybody’s good.

Summary: The committee was called to order, the Pledge of Allegiance and prayer were offered, and the minutes from the previous meeting were approved. Members then received a memo summarizing major audit items and began hearing audit presentations from the State Auditor’s Office and private auditors on a range of state agencies and organizations. Several audits were reported as clean, including the Bank of North Dakota, the North Dakota Guaranteed Student Loan Program, the Office of the Governor, the Office of the State Treasurer, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Transportation’s flexible transportation fund, Lake Region State College, and the Department of Environmental Quality. The North Dakota Stockmen’s Association also received an unmodified opinion, though repeat findings were noted for limited segregation of duties and financial statement preparation due to its small staff. The Council on the Arts audit found two findings: payroll charged to federal awards without adequate timekeeping records, and unallowable expenditures from a restricted cultural endowment fund. The Department of Public Instruction audit identified unsupported scholarship applications in the paraprofessional-to-teacher program, though additional testing showed the funds were used for their intended purpose. The most extensive discussion centered on the North Dakota Racing Commission audit, which identified four findings: overspending the promotion fund’s 25% operating limit, grant conditions not being met, improper Breeders Fund awards, and improper procurement for advertising services. Racing Commission director Bruce Johnson acknowledged complacency and weak controls, said the agency would tighten procedures, and explained that the commission had since worked with procurement and would follow the rules more closely. Auditors also explained that the commission would now be audited every two years because of the findings. Another major discussion involved the University of North Dakota School of Law, where auditors found a lack of documentation supporting admissions decisions for post-baccalaureate programs. UND officials said they remain in good standing with the American Bar Association but agreed better documentation and tools are needed; the committee pressed for more transparency and follow-up on admissions criteria. The committee also received an update on Dakota College at Bottineau, where Minot State University reported that bank reconciliations had been brought current after a significant backlog and would now be maintained through shared services. Members requested a written follow-up report on the issues and corrective actions. Finally, the North Dakota Fair Association explained that its foundation has been dissolved and remaining funds were transferred to another nonprofit for continued support of the state fair, and the Department of Public Instruction provided an update on school meal debt, saying the reported amount was about $1.1 million from a partial district survey and that debt remains a local issue, though it could be revisited if school meal funding changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• They were auditor galleons here. Would you speak to that, Auditor? Yeah. I thought it was...
• Thanks, Auditor.
• The remainder of that section, the next section relates to the state auditor, the role of the state auditor
• Go ahead, auditor. Mr.
• Any questions for the auditor? Oh, everybody. Any questions for the auditor? Everybody's good.

Keywords: 908, all