12/14/2022 01:00 PM House LEGISLATIVE BUDGET & AUDIT
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Approval of Agenda | |
| Approval of Minutes | |
| Revised Program Legislative (rpl) | |
| Procurement | |
| Executive Session | |
| Final Audit Release | |
| Procurement | |
| Top Audit Findings Update | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND AUDIT COMMITTEE
December 14, 2022
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Natasha von Imhof, Chair
Representative Chris Tuck, Vice Chair
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Lora Reinbold
Senator Bert Stedman
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Neal Foster
Senator Click Bishop (alternate)
Representative Dan Ortiz (alternate)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Representative James Kaufman
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Senator David Wilson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
REVISED PROGRAM LEGISLATIVE (RPL)
PROCUREMENT
EXECUTIVE SESSION
FINAL AUDIT RELEASE
TOP AUDIT FINDINGS UPDATE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
ALEXEI PAINTER, Director
Legislative Finance Division
Legislative Agencies and Offices
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented RPLs and answered questions.
PALOMA HARBOUR, Fiscal Management Analyst
Office of Management and Budget
Office of the Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented during the hearing on RPs and
answered questions.
MARIE MARX, Attorney
Legislative Legal Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
RPLs.
HANNA LAGER, Acting Administrative Services Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
RPLs.
KRIS CURTIS, Legislative Auditor
Legislative Audit Division
Legislative Agencies and Offices
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented during the hearing on Procurement
and the Top Audit Findings Update.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:00 PM
CHAIR NATASHA VON IMHOF called the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representatives
Spohnholz and Foster and Senators von Imhof, Reinbold (via
teleconference,) Stedman, and Bishop were present at the call to
order. Representative Tuck (via teleconference) and Josephson
(via teleconference) arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^Approval of Agenda
Approval of Agenda
1:03:40 PM
CHAIR VON IMHOF announced that the first order of business would
be the approval of the agenda.
CHAIR VON IMHOF moved to modify the meeting's agenda to remove
the hearing on the procurement for the District Cost Factor
Update Study. There being no objection, the change to the
agenda was approved.
^Approval of Minutes
Approval of Minutes
1:04:04 PM
CHAIR VON IMHOF announced that the next order of business would
be the approval of minutes.
SENATOR STEDMAN moved that the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee approve the minutes for the September 28, 2022, and
November 2, 2022, meetings as presented. There being no
objection, the minutes were approved.
^Revised Program Legislative (RPL)
Revised Program Legislative (RPL)
1:04:38 PM
CHAIR VON IMHOF announced that the next order of business would
be Revised Programs - Legislative.
1:05:18 PM
ALEXEI PAINTER, Director, Legislative Finance Division,
Legislative Agencies and Offices, introduced Revised Program
Legislative (RPL) 08-2023-0175 and RPL 08-2023-0194. He
explained that on November 2, 2022, the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee received requests from the Office of the
Governor for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Seafood Processors Pandemic Response Safety block grant program.
He noted that the committee had previously approved one of the
requests in the amount of $10 million. He offered that the RPLs
before the committee were for the same activities within
different appropriations. He explained that the RPL 08-2023-
0175 would be authorized within the appropriation for the
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
Office of the Commissioner appropriation, and that RPL 08-2023-
0194 would be within the DCCED Division of Investments
appropriation. He added that the RPL that had been approved the
prior month had been within the appropriation for the Division
of Community & Regional Affairs. He provided background
information to explain that the prior year operating budget
included language that RPLs may not be increased by more than
$10 million.
1:07:19 PM
MR. PAINTER offered some questions for the committee to
consider. He rhetorically asked whether an RPL in any location
[in the budget] for the same source of funding would be proper.
He offered the argument that the limit had been imposed by the
legislature and amounts placed in different areas would be
equivocally an attempt to "get around that limit" and could be
viewed as problematic. He then offered the argument that the
requests are not increasing the same appropriation item, and the
language specifically includes a limit on increasing "an"
appropriation. He offered that there may exist differences in
opinion between those of a policy standpoint and those of a
legal standpoint. He offered another question for the
committee's consideration as to whether the appropriations in
which the requests are made would be proper.
MR. PAINTER referred to RPL 08-2023-0175 and stated that the
Office of the Commissioner is an area that the legislature has
typically authorized for the use of grant funds. He noted that
the legislature had approved an increase in general funds to the
appropriation for a small business grant program. He noted that
there did not exist federal funds authority in the appropriation
and questioned whether it would be appropriate to increase a
budget from zero dollars of federal authority and questioned
whether it was more pertinent that the item being presented for
approval was for the same program but would utilize federal
funds. He further explained that the request was to increase a
program for the purpose for which the legislature had previously
approved.
MR. PAINTER referred to RPL 08-2023-0194 and noted that this
request had some key differences. He stated that the Division
of Investments did not typically administer grant funds but
provides other financial services for seafood processors,
including revolving loan programs. He noted that there did not
exist federal funding authority in the appropriation. He
reiterated the two questions as being whether any increase
exceeding $10 million in funding would be proper and whether the
appropriations were the proper areas in the budget for such an
increase.
1:11:53 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN asked whether Mr. Painter was comfortable with
moving both RPLs forward with approval.
MR. PAINTER offered that it would be a policy call on the part
of the committee and that arguments could be made both in
support of and against the requested action.
CHAIR VON IMHOF asked, should the $10 million limit not have
been in place, whether the committee would have a request for
the full $30 million associated with the revised program during
the interim.
MR. PAINTER answered that it would have. He explained that the
committee had approved a $30 million RPL the year prior, FY 22,
within the Division of Community & Regional Affairs, and that
the funds were not disbursed during FY 22 and had lapsed. He
further explained that the $10 million limit was the reason that
the RPLs had been split.
CHAIR VON IMHOF asked to confirm that the only difference
[between the previously approved RPLs and those being requested]
would be that the authority was requested for the following
year, under the same programs, and that the same funds were
still available.
PAINTER confirmed that as correct.
CHAIR VON IMHOF asked when Mr. Painter expected the federal
government to disburse the funds.
MR. PAINTER answered that he did not know and deferred to the
department to offer an answer.
1:15:16 PM
PALOMA HARBOUR, Fiscal Management Analyst, Office of Management
and Budget, Office of the Governor, presented during the hearing
on RPLs. She drew attention to the PowerPoint presentation,
entitled "OMB RPLs Presentation 12.14.22.pdf," [included in the
committee packet] and explained that the state has identified a
legal path forward to increase existing appropriation items and
distribute the last of the $20 million in federal relief funding
for seafood processors impacted by COVID-19. She directed
attention to slide 3, which depicts the appropriation item in
the current budget year. She referenced slide 3, which contains
the statutory language by which the Office of Management &
Budget was requesting the RPLs be approved. She summarized the
slide with an emphasis on the language, "not specifically
appropriated," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
AS 37.07.080(h): The increase of an appropriation item
based on additional federal or other program receipts
not specifically appropriated by the full legislature
may be expended in accordance with the following
procedures
• Sec. 77, ch 11, SLA 22: (a) Federal receipts,?that
are received during the fiscal year ending June 30,
2023, and that exceed the amounts appropriated by this
Act are appropriated conditioned on compliance with
the program review provisions of AS 37.07.080(h).
• Sec. 77, ch 11, SLA 22: (e) Notwithstanding (a) of
this section, an appropriation item for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 2023, may not be increased under
AS 37.07.080(h)
• (2) by more than $10,000,000.
MS. HARBOUR noted that the language indicates that it is
acceptable that there does not exist a specific
appropriation for the purpose of the grant.
MS. HARBOUR summarized the bulleted points on slide 5 of the
presentation, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
• Commerce has the statutory authority to distribute
these grants
• AS 44.33.020 (a) The Department of Commerce,
Community, and Economic Development shall
• (20) administer state and, as appropriate, federal
programs for revenue sharing, community assistance,
grants, and other forms of financial assistance
• The State has identified two appropriation items
that can each be increased by not more than $10
million
• This solution will result in the distribution of
federal relief funding to eligible Seafood Processors
this month
1:19:59 PM
MARIE MARX, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, referred to previous testimony that had been
offered by Megan Wallace of Legislative Legal Services and
stated that, had the $10 million limit not been enacted, there
would exist one RPL in the amount of $30 million. She stated
that Legislative Legal Services shares the concern expressed by
some committee members that the split of the RPLs was with the
intention of getting around the limit enacted by House Bill 281.
She noted that the circumstances do not change the agency's
standpoint of concern. She echoed the point made by Mr. Painter
that the decision would be one of legislative policy.
CHAIR VON IMHOF asked for an explanation of the risks of either
approving or not approving the RPLs.
MS. MARX offered her opinion that [approving the RPLs] was not
without risk, although it would be difficult to quantify that
risk. She explained that the committee had been sued previously
regarding the approval of an RPL and that case had resolved
without consideration of the committee's action. She stated
that there exist options should the committee not approve the
RPLs, including a fast-tracked bill to appropriate the funds by
the full legislature.
SENATOR STEDMAN stated that the funds would be available for an
additional year. He stated that, should the committee approve
the RPLs and risk litigation, the legislature will have convened
and would have an opportunity to rectify the situation by the
budget process. He stated that it was possible to include the
amounts in a supplemental budget bill that could result in the
funds being made available by May of 2023. He recommended that
the committee approve the RPLs, and that further legislation
could include language in support of its decisions and the
program.
CHAIR VON IMHOF restated the question such that, if the
committee approves the RPLs, and the legislature takes three to
four months to pass the budget including the supporting
language, what would be the risk between approving the RPLs at
this meeting compared to allowing the full legislature to
appropriate.
MS. MARX answered that the risk would be the gap of time between
approving the RPLs and the convening of the legislature to
either ratify the language or appropriate the funds. She
postulated that the legislature may be able to act prior to the
outcome of any litigation brought, as was the case with the
previous lawsuit.
1:25:58 PM
CHAIR VON IMHOF asked to confirm that, should the legislature
ratify any approval action taken on the RPLS prior to any
outcome of a lawsuit, would the legal action then be rendered
moot, or whether the gap of time would still leave the action at
legal risk due to the timeframe.
MS. MARX answered that the prior case did not result in the
court ruling the case as moot, and there had been the appearance
that the court accepted the outcome as moot in its summary
judgment. She stated that it would be highly likely that,
should the legislature ratify the approval, the court would find
the case to be moot.
SENATOR BISHOP asked when the money would be disbursed to
recipients, should the RPLs be approved.
MS. HARBOUR answered that the funds would be disbursed in the
current month.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER offered his preference that the funds be
made available sooner, rather than later. He further expressed
his concern that there could exist delays in the full
legislature taking timely action.
1:28:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to the ruling made in the superior
court regarding previous RPLs and suggested that it had not
resulted in an actual decision. He suggested that the judge had
sought some legislative action. He recalled that there existed
panic associated with the COVID-19 pandemic coincidental to the
first case and suggested that the question that would remain
would be whether legislative ratification would have been the
proper action. He stated that the full legislature is the
appropriating body of government and questioned the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee's appropriation authority over all
other legislators. He stated that there had been cases in
addition to the one referenced during the current meeting and
had questioned whether the Constitution of the State of Alaska
would allow for appropriation authority to be delegated to a
single committee of the legislature. He suggested that efforts
to "skirt" or "mask" the limit of $10 million would raise a
constitutional challenge in court. He allowed that some had
claimed that the legislature may, in some cases, violate statute
but that it would be a more serious matter should the
legislature violate the constitution. He stated his belief that
there exists a high level of risk and suggested that the proper
course of action would be the use of a supplemental budget bill.
He maintained that it was obvious that there was an attempt to
circumvent the statutory limit. He cautioned that there remains
a question to whether the committee may add federal funds to an
appropriation for which there exists no federal funding
authority. He asked Ms. Marx to answer whether the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee may amend an RPL.
MS. MARX answered that the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee is the interim oversight committee which, under AS
37.07.08(h), may receive an RPL from the governor's office for
review and approval. She stated that, should an RPL not be
approved, the governor must wait 45 days to proceed with
expending the money. She stated that the committee does not
have the power to take action that the legislature may take;
that is, to appropriate or not appropriate money.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for a simplified answer.
MS. MARX answered that the committee may approve an RPL but that
it may not amend an RPL.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked to confirm his understanding that no
member of the committee may offer an amendment to an RPL. He
asked whether the previously approved $10 million had any funds
remaining to be disbursed.
MS. HARBOUR answered the $10 million had been fully distributed
to seafood processors.
1:34:27 PM
CHAIR VON IMHOF restated that, should the committee not act on
an RPL, the governor has 45 days in which to act. She asked
what the intention of the Office of Management & Budget would be
for the funds, should the committee not take approving action.
MS. HARBOUR answered that, should the committee not approve the
RPLs, the governor would then review the requests and decide
whether to continue with the program. She noted that, should
the governor decide to expend the funds, he would provide the
committee with a statement of the reasons for doing so prior to
commencement of activities. She stated that if no action was
taken by the committee whatsoever, the governor could begin
program activities after 45 days. She offered her opinion that
the governor's actions would be predicated on the action taken
by the committee. She added that, should the committee
recommend that the request is not legal, the governor may be
obligated to adhere to that decision. She added that she was
speculating and could not speak specifically on behalf of the
governor.
CHAIR VON IMHOF asked whether the governor could choose to
expend the funds near the end of January 2023 per statute.
MS. HARBOUR confirmed this as correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated his concern that, should the
committee not approve the RPLs, the governor may act,
regardless. He stated that there exists public cynicism that
the legislature may ignore a statutory requirement. He stated
that, should the governor move forward with the program after 45
days, and the legislature "sit passively," it would indicate
that the legislature was not guarding its jurisdictional
prerogative.
SENATOR REINBOLD expressed her agreement with the comments
offered by Representative Tuck. She added that the legislature
should follow the law, as written, with integrity. She added
that regardless of a single court ruling pertaining to the
dividend, not following statute is not without risk. She stated
her intention to vote against approving the RPLs.
CHAIR VON IMHOF asked DCCED to provide the expiration date of
the $20 million in federal grants.
1:40:21 PM
HANNA LAGER, Acting Administrative Services Director, Division
of Administrative Services, Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development, answered that the current program would
terminate on January 24, 2024.
CHAIR VON IMHOF stated that there is $20 million in two RPLs and
there is an attempt to work around the $10 million limit imposed
in the budget. She stated that these were the same RPLs that
the committee had heard and approved the year prior in the
amount of $30 million for relief to fisheries processors, and
that, due to technical issues in the program, the program was
delayed and being presented again, with the only difference
being the existence of the $10 million limit. She stated that
the recipients are the losing party due to the delay of the
disbursement of the money. She stated an option would be to
approve the RPLs and the funds would disburse before the end of
the current year, and the legislature would convene and approve
the funds with the budget process during session. She stated
that the alternate option would be to not approve the RPLs, and
the funds could be included in the budget for the whole
legislature to approve.
SENATOR STEDMAN allowed that there exist some risks but
expressed his belief that the committee should move forward with
approving the RPLs and that the legislature could further
approve the action. He suggested that the fish processors were
held hostage by bureaucratic inaction.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that the issues had been put
forth and she allowed that the RPLs had been approved the prior
December. She stated that the challenge exists due to the
legislation that passed imposing the $10 million limit. She
stated that there exists a right way and a wrong way to do
business and that she would vote against approving the RPLs.
1:45:41 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN moved that the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee approve the following RPLs:
a. 08-2023-0175, DCCED, Commissioner's Office, Fed
Rcpts Op - USDA Seafood Processors Pandemic
Response and Safety, $10,000,000
b. 08-2023-0194, DCCED, Investments, Fed Rcpts Op-USDA
Seafood Processors Pandemic Response and Safety,
$10,000,000
SENATOR REINBOLD objected. She stated that the concerns raised
by Mr. Painter were of critical importance.
1:47:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK urged the committee to review previous court
decisions concerning the committee. He stated that it appeared
to be clear that the committee did not have appropriation
authority over the full legislature. He stated that a proper
appropriations bill would allow for any legislator to offer an
amendment. He stated that a remedy would be ratification by the
full legislature, but that no amendments may be offered during
the ratification process. He stated that the legislature
established a program and its funding, and the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee may fund additional programs from
that funding source to that specific program. He stated that
past errors in procedure did not justify further erroneous
action. He asserted that the matter was a constitutional one.
He stated that the fact that the discussion had pertained to
workarounds was evidence that the potential for wrongdoing
exists. He stated his regret that the committee had approved
the RPLs previously and that it had resulted in further delays
in the disbursement of the funds by the Office of the Governor.
He suggested that, should the motion fail, and the governor not
take further action, it would be indicative that the governor's
office was seeking some cover. He stated that, should the
governor hold the belief that the program is important, he will
take future action on the program. He stated his intention to
vote against approving the RPLs.
CHAIR VON IMHOF stated that the matter was unique because the
committee had previously approved the RPLs for the program. She
stated her position that the situation would be different should
the RPLs be for a new program and purpose.
1:50:47 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Foster and Senators
von Imhof and Stedman voted in favor of approving the RPLs.
Representatives Spohnholz, Josephson, and Tuck and Senator
Reinbold voted against approving the RPLs. Therefore, approval
of the RPLs failed by a vote of 3-4.
^Procurement
Procurement
1:52:23 PM
CHAIR VON IMHOF announced that the next order of business would
be procurement. She noted that the Legislative Audit Division
was requesting the approval of a procurement for a new printer.
1:52:49 PM
KRIS CURTIS, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
Legislative Agencies and Offices, stated that the division's
printer, copier, and scanner was purchased in 2012 and is one
year past its useful life and would no longer be maintained by
Xerox. She requested approval for the procurement of a purchase
under the statewide contract for a replacement machine not to
exceed $58,000.
1:53:39 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN moved to authorize the purchase of a printer for
the Legislative Audit Division not to exceed $58,000. There
being no objection, the motion passed.
^Executive Session
Executive Session
1:54:00 PM
CHAIR VON IMHOF announced that the next order of business would
be executive session.
1:54:30 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN moved that the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee go into Executive Session under Uniform Rule 22(b)(3),
for discussion of matters that may, by law, be required to be
confidential. He asked that the following persons remain in the
room or on the phone lines: the legislative auditor and their
necessary staff; any legislators not on the committee; and staff
for legislators who are members of the committee. There being
no objection, it was so ordered.
1:55:08 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:55 to 2:39 p.m. for the
purpose of executive session.
2:39:10 PM
CHAIR VON IMHOF called the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee meeting back to order at 2:39 p.m. Representatives
Spohnholz and Foster and Senators von Imhof, Reinbold (via
teleconference,) Stedman, and Bishop were present at the call
back to order. Representatives Tuck (via teleconference) and
Josephson (via teleconference) and Senator Micciche (via
teleconference) arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^Final Audit Release
Final Audit Release
2:39:34 PM
CHAIR VON IMHOF announced that the next order of business would
be discussion of the final audit release.
CHAIR VON IMHOF stated that, during the executive session, the
committee had discussed confidential matters related to audits,
audit resources, and details pertaining to a confidential
procurement.
2:39:48 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN moved that the following Audits be released as
final audit reports: Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development Board of Certified Direct Entry Midwives
(Sunset) and the Office of the Governor Alaska State Commission
for Human Rights (Special). There being no objection, the
audits were released.
^Procurement
Procurement
2:40:16 PM
CHAIR VON IMHOF announced that the next order of business would
be discussion of procurement.
2:40:22 PM
MS. CURTIS stated that the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee approved the solicitation request for a contract to
aid in the audit of five major federal programs for Fiscal Year
(FY) 2023 during its August 2022 meeting. She stated that she
was requesting the committee approve a contract not to exceed
$237,000 for the audit firm.
2:41:04 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN moved that the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee approve a contract not to exceed $237,000 for the
compliance audit of five FY 23 major federal programs. There
being no objection, the contract was approved.
2:41:31 PM
MS. CURTIS introduced a discussion pertaining to resources of
the Legislative Audit Division. She noted that, over the past
two years, she had been providing the committee with regular
updates on staffing in the division. She drew attention to a
chart, entitled "Leg Audit Org Chart February 2020.pdf,"
[included in the committee packet] which depicted a snapshot of
filled positions within the division. She explained that the
red slash indicates that the employee has left the position as
of December 1, 2022, and the black "X" indicates that those 12
people had left the state. She noted that 17 positions had been
vacated during the same time. She further explained that the
red type showed the number of years of experience each separated
employee had. She added that the chart did not depict that 5 of
the positions had been filled and subsequently vacated, for a
total of 17 positions vacated. She explained that this turnover
has challenged the division's ability to complete work. She
added that there exists very experienced senior management who
had put in many extra hours to ensure that work is completed.
MS. CURTIS then drew attention to a chart, entitled "Leg Audit
Org Chart December 2022.pdf," [included in the committee packet]
which depicted the tenure of existing authorized employees as of
December 1, 2022. She noted that there appear four of the
authorized positions on the chart that are not funded, for a
total of six vacant positions. She noted that 9 of the
positions have less than 2 years of experience and that middle
management is slim and is an important set of positions for the
division. She added that two of the most experienced, upper-
management positions are currently eligible for retirement, and
that her own position will be eligible for retirement in 12
months. She stated that it is important that the division
retain its current staff so that it may fulfill its mission.
She asked for the committee's support in establishing an
incentive compensation policy.
MS. CURTIS drew attention to the document entitled "Legislative
Audit Draft Policy - Retention Incentives.pdf," [included in the
committee packet] which explains who would be eligible for the
incentive pay structure and that it would be confined to only
Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) who had worked for the
division for at least three years. The compensation would be
paid in July of a particular year and would be calculated on
work performed from December 31 of the year prior. She added
that there would exist the additional requirement that the
individual must have been in full-time, permanent status and
have a performance evaluation ranking of "expected" or "above
expected" for the prior calendar year.
2:45:41 PM
MS. CURTIS explained that the amount of compensation would be
based on the number of years of experience as of December 31 of
the prior year multiplied by the correlating percentage depicted
on page 3 of the draft policy, which ranges between 2 and 11
percent. The 2 percent rate would apply to those with three
years of experience, and the 11 percent would apply to those
with 20 years of experience, with all other criteria met. She
stated that the policy had been developed with "guardrails" so
that the compensation would only be applicable to those uniquely
specialized positions with the intent to encourage retention of
critical talent. She offered that the total cost for FY 24 is
estimated to be $160,000 and that there exists available
budgetary funding. She added that, should the incentive policy
be met with success, additional funds would likely be requested
in the future. She noted that the policy includes a provision
that the committee shall review the need for the policy in five
years' time.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated his wholehearted support for the
approval of the proposed policy. He asked, should the policy be
approved, where members of the public would find the implemented
policy in future budgets.
MS. CURTIS answered that the policy would be posted to BASIS and
that the payments would be made via the Division's appropriation
in the first full pay period in FY 24.
2:48:15 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN moved that the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee authorize retention incentives for the Legislative
Audit Certified Public Accountants as outlined in the draft
policy dated December 14, 2022. There being no objection, the
motion passed.
^Top Audit Findings Update
Top Audit Findings Update
2:48:41 PM
CHAIR VON IMHOF announced that the final order of business would
be an update on the top audit findings.
CHAIR VON IMHOF referred to the committee packet item, a chart,
listing top audit findings of 2022. She introduced the chart
before the committee and explained that it depicted a summary of
status of corrective actions. She noted that the committee had
adopted the policy into its handbook for audit follow-up at a
prior meeting. She noted that the policy instructs the division
to contact the auditees for a status update on current findings.
She stated that the final stage of the committee's follow-up
process was to determine which of the findings may be forwarded
to future legislative committees for consideration. She drew
attention to the last column on the grid, which contained the
recommended action for each of the findings. She drew attention
to priority numbers 2 and 4 for additional follow up with the
applicable finance subcommittees, and to priority number 7 for
additional follow up with the Labor and Commerce Standing
Committees for their consideration concerning the automation of
a licensing process and the progress of a new database. She
further noted that priority number 8 should be forwarded to the
Health & Social Services Standing Committees regarding the
prescription drug monitoring program, and that there had been a
study commissioned with a final report available in December
2022. She added that [Representative] Senator-elect James
Kaufman had collaborated with the division to make
recommendations for items for potential follow up. She
recommended that the committee consider the wording of the
follow-up letters to the auditees for future committee work and
to establish expectations for follow-up.
CHAIR VON IMHOF expressed her appreciation and the
recommendations for referral to specific committees.
SENATOR WILSON expressed his appreciation for the work that had
been done and his willingness to collaborate further.
SENATOR REINBOLD expressed her appreciation to Ms. Curtis and
division staff for their work and dedication.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ expressed her appreciation for the
feedback loop process for audit findings that she characterized
as valuable. She encouraged the priority pertaining to Medicaid
eligibility remain a priority.
2:54:49 PM
CHAIR VON IMHOF added the suggestion that co-chairs of Finance
Committees from both bodies review the priorities and recommend
referrals to other committees.
CHAIR VON IMHOF stated that it had been her honor to chair the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee and she had found the
committees business to be both challenging and rewarding. She
offered commendation to the Legislative Audit Division staff.
2:56:21 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee meeting was adjourned at
2:56 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| RPL Complete Packet LBA 12.14.22.pdf |
JBUD 12/14/2022 1:00:00 PM |
RPL |
| School District Cost Factor Study Request.pdf |
JBUD 12/14/2022 1:00:00 PM |
Procurement |
| Top Audit Findings - 2022 Audit Followup Summary.pdf |
JBUD 12/14/2022 1:00:00 PM |
Audit |
| Top Audit Findings - Follow-Up Responses.pdf |
JBUD 12/14/2022 1:00:00 PM |
Audit |
| OMB RPLs Presentation 12.14.22.pdf |
JBUD 12/14/2022 1:00:00 PM |
RPL |
| Leg Audit Org Chart December 2022.pdf |
JBUD 12/14/2022 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Leg Audit Org Chart February 2020.pdf |
JBUD 12/14/2022 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Legislative Audit Draft Policy - Retention Incentives.pdf |
JBUD 12/14/2022 1:00:00 PM |