Bills: HB297, HB587

Keywords: cash transactions, money transmission, regulatory compliance, criminal penalties, Alabama Securities Commission, information technology, auditors, financial institutions, cybersecurity, certifications, state regulations, 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• of the auditor.
• That the auditor should have this power over the body that creates the office of the auditor.
• The state auditor identified the state auditor. Auditor identified it's... The state legislature.
• ..this auditor has disqualified herself from being an objective auditor of the legislature.
• Ray served as state auditor. Prior to becoming state auditor, Ms.

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Auditor General did their work.
• So I think the Auditor General...
• tell the Auditor General they want the Auditor General to look at, which is more narrowly tailored.
• Excuse me, Auditor General Perry.
• And so my auditors have to be flexible.

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:

• Thank you for legislative auditor.
• as it is to the legislative auditor.
• How should we do this if the auditor already receives complaints and the auditor whose eyes we trust
• Laid over. for the state auditor. Um not seeing I I for the state auditor.
• Uh Auditor Randall and this over.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House File 1239, authored by Representative Wam and presented by Legislative Auditor Judy Randall, would align reporting requirements for suspected theft, embezzlement, unlawful use of public funds, and similar misconduct by public employees and officers with existing language used for reporting to the state auditor. Randall said the bill is intended as a cleanup measure to clarify that such matters should be reported promptly to law enforcement and to the legislative auditor, and to remove language that she said had sometimes been used to delay reporting. Committee members raised concerns about the bill’s reference to “law enforcement,” saying the term is broad and could create confusion about where reports should go. They questioned whether reports should go to local police, the BCA, or another entity, and suggested that the current process may already work adequately. Randall responded that she was open to further discussion and said delays in reporting to law enforcement have been problematic. The author emphasized that the bill mirrors existing state auditor language and said any changes should remain consistent across both auditors’ reporting statutes. The chair said the committee should resolve the language and definitions before the bill moves further and preferred to address it in the policy omnibus bill. By agreement, House File 1239 was laid over for possible inclusion rather than advanced out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Auditor General did their work.
• The auditor general might disagree with me.
• Where the auditor general is limited in their scope based on what the feds tell the auditor general they
• Excuse me, Auditor General Perry.
• And so my auditors have to be flexible.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If they don't do that, those off the auditor general and a If they don't do that, the auditor general
• designate the Auditor General as that auditor.
• Our placement in the Legislature also means that we are external auditors, not internal auditors.
• Our external peer reviews are conducted by the National State Auditors Association and by auditors from
• of our auditors are CPAs.

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:

• What about the State Auditor as a former state auditor?
• What about the State Auditor as a former state auditor?
• a State Auditor.
• What about the State Auditor as a former state auditor?
• So what about the State Auditor as a former state auditor?

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The meeting focused on a package of anti-fraud bills and oversight reforms. House File 3 would direct the Office of Legislative Auditor to compile existing audit and recommendation data into a matrix or numeric score showing how well agencies have implemented past recommendations over a five-year look-back period, with the goal of giving legislators a clearer, more usable accountability tool. Supporters said it would not create new data, only aggregate what already exists, and estimated the bill’s cost at about $240,000. They argued it would help lawmakers identify agencies that repeatedly fail to address waste, fraud, and abuse. House File 2 would require state employees and agencies to immediately report suspected fraud to law enforcement and to legislative committee leaders, require unannounced in-person site visits for grant recipients, and add criminal penalties for failing to carry out those duties. House File 1 would create an independent state Office of Inspector General to investigate fraud in state government, with subpoena power, authority to stop payments, and the ability to share information with other agencies. Speakers said the new office should be independent and nonpartisan, separate from existing agency inspector general functions, and more focused on investigations than the Legislative Auditor. Members also discussed the new fraud and oversight committee, which will meet on Mondays and plans to invite DHS Commissioner Jodi Harpstead to testify. The committee said it will work alongside standing committees, create a whistleblower reporting website, and investigate issues as they arise. In response to questions, Robbins said HF 3 already had a fiscal note and HF 2’s fiscal note was still pending. She also said the committee is considering AI tools to flag irregularities in state programs, and that such tools might have detected problems like those seen in Feeding Our Future.

Transcript Highlights:

• the legislative auditor will have says the legislative auditor will have to<00:43:07.200> transfer
• . we we had the uh legislative auditor we we had the uh legislative auditor loud<00:45:40.160> and
• <00:47:16.079> or uh 18.26 legislative auditor or uh 18.26 legislative auditor or inspector
• report to both the legislative auditor report to both the legislative auditor and<00:47:27.599><
• , in talking to the legislative auditor, in talking to the legislative auditor, she's<00:48:57.119

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Auditor. Mr.
• The auditor has an approved list of auditors. They'll bid on it and they'll.
• The state auditor is still short auditors.
• The state auditor is still short auditors, and we're going to add more.
• We have the auditors brought in. Forensic auditors. Good afternoon, Representative.

Bills: SB145, SB143

Keywords: auditing, financial reporting, state auditor, public agencies, capital outlay, compliance, federal audits, agriculture, New Mexico Department of Agriculture, fee update, regulatory fees, egg inspection, egg grading, egg dealer, pesticide control, pesticide registration, pesticide applicator, pest management consultant, plant protection, nursery license

Transcript Highlights:

• Madam Auditor. Madam Auditor. Um, thank you, Mr. Chair and Representative Quam.
• <00:21:05.240> Auditor wonderful. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Auditor wonderful.
• Auditor Randall. Uh thank you, Mr. Auditor Randall. Uh thank you, Mr.
• . auditor. auditor.
• “Thank you, Madam Auditor.

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.