DOCSLIB.ORG

BUD COMMITTEE -1- April 6, 2013 ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE LEGISLATIVE BUDGET and AUDIT COMMITTEE April 6, 2013 4:33 P.M. MEMBERS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
BUD COMMITTEE -1- April 6, 2013 ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE LEGISLATIVE BUDGET and AUDIT COMMITTEE April 6, 2013 4:33 P.M. MEMBERS ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND AUDIT COMMITTEE April 6, 2013 4:33 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Anna Fairclough, Chair Senator Kevin Meyer Senator Click Bishop Senator Cathy Giessel Senator Donald Olson Representative Mike Hawker, Vice Chair Representative Alan Austerman Representative Bob Herron Representative Kurt Olson Representative Andy Josephson Representative Scott Kawasaki (alternate) MEMBERS ABSENT Senator Mike Dunleavy (alternate) Representative Bill Stoltze (alternate) OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT Representative Les Gara Representative Mike Chenault Representative Chris Tuck Representative Beth Kerttula Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins Senator Bert Stedman COMMITTEE CALENDAR APPROVAL OF MINUTES EXECUTIVE SESSION RELEASE OF AUDITS OVERVIEW: OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION TAX AUDITS - DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AUDIT REQUEST PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION No previous action to record BUD COMMITTEE -1- April 6, 2013 WITNESS REGISTER BRUCE TANGEMAN, Deputy Commissioner Office of the Commissioner Department of Revenue (DOR) Anchorage, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during an overview on the oil and gas production tax process. MATTHEW FONDER, Director Anchorage Office Tax Division Department of Revenue (DOR) Anchorage, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during an overview on the oil and gas production tax process. LENNIE DEES, Audit Master Production Audit Group Tax Division Department of Revenue (DOR) Anchorage, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the DOR presentation. SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH Alaska State Legislature Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a request for an audit to the effectiveness of the Department of Revenue oil and gas production tax audit process. KRISTIN CURTIS Legislative Auditor Legislative Audit Division Alaska State Legislature Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on the audit request. ACTION NARRATIVE 4:33:47 PM CHAIR ANNA FAIRCLOUGH called the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee meeting to order at 4:33 p.m. Representatives BUD COMMITTEE -2- April 6, 2013 Austerman, Herron, Olson, Josephson, Kawasaki, and Hawker, and Senators Fairclough, Meyer, Bishop, Giessel, and Olson were present at the call to order. Also in attendance were Representatives Chenault, Tuck, Gara, and Kerttula, and Senator Stedman. Approval of Minutes 4:34:29 PM CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH announced that the first order of business would be the approval of the minutes. 4:34:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER made a motion to approve the minutes of March 28, 2013. There being no objection, the minutes from the meeting of March 28, 2013 were approved. Executive Session 4:34:51 PM CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH announced that the next order of business would be to move into Executive Session. 4:34:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER made a motion to move to executive session for the purpose of discussing confidential audit reports under AS 24.20.301. There being no objection, the committee went into executive session at 4:35 p.m. 4:35:13 PM The committee took an at-ease from 4:35 p.m. to 5:16 p.m. 5:16:19 PM CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH brought the committee back to order at 5:16 p.m. Representatives Austerman, Herron, Olson, Josephson, Kawasaki (alternate) and Hawker, and Senators Fairclough, Meyer, Bishop, Giessel, and Olson were present at the call back to order. Also in attendance were Representatives Tuck, Gara, Kerttula, and Kreiss-Tomkins, and Senator Stedman. 5:16:51 PM BUD COMMITTEE -3- April 6, 2013 REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER asked to clarify that Representative Chenault had left prior to the meeting being called back to order. Release of Audits 5:17:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER made a motion for the final audit for the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority, Knik Arm Crossing Project to be released to the public for response. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Overview: Oil and Gas Production Tax Audits - Department of Revenue 5:17:30 PM CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH announced that the next order of business would be an Overview on Oil and Gas Production Tax Audits by the Department of Revenue (DOR). 5:18:16 PM CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH explained that, as there was an audit request before the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, she was extending this opportunity to DOR to explain its processes and "enlighten the committee why we would or would not" continue with this request. 5:18:33 PM BRUCE TANGEMAN, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Revenue (DOR), declared that there were a lot of misconceptions and confusions regarding the definitions for financial and performance audits. He explained that statements regarding the DOR audits for 2007 gave people the impression that DOR had "absolutely no clue what happened in 2008, 2009, 2010, 11, and 12, and that could not be further from the truth." He said there was a vast amount of tax information received monthly by the department from the oil companies, which had given DOR a great amount of information from 2008 to the present. He stated that the information for the final audit was "in-hand, has been analyzed, and we will proceed a lot quicker once we're through 2007." He noted that the years of 2008 and BUD COMMITTEE -4- April 6, 2013 2009 would be combined, and he offered to discuss the internal details for a financial audit, and examine the differences between a performance audit and a financial audit. 5:20:09 PM CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH asked if he would address the audit findings from prior years, as there could be questions. She suggested that the committee listen to the presentation before asking questions. 5:21:14 PM MATTHEW FONDER, Director, Anchorage Office, Tax Division, Department of Revenue (DOR), presented a PowerPoint entitled "Production Tax Audits." [Included in members' packets] He reported that this would be a step by step presentation to share the process for the review of oil and gas production tax returns. He directed attention to slide 2, "Oil and Gas Production Tax Processes," which was an overview of the monthly process for auditors. He read: "Oil and Gas Producers are required to make monthly installment payments of estimated taxes and surcharges to the Department." He said that both explorers and producers were required to submit monthly information reports to DOR in accordance with statutes and regulations. The economic group would then analyze this monthly information, and use this information to answer any questions from the public or the legislature. He reported that the tax technicians would review and document all the monthly tax payer information and would assist the accounting group to ensure the oil and gas revenues were properly accounted for and recorded. 5:22:47 PM MR. FONDER moved on to slide 3, "Oil and Gas Production Tax Processes (continued)", and spoke about the annual processes. He noted that by March 31, all the oil and gas tax returns and other information had to be received by DOR. He declared that this filing was a "true-up" of the twelve previously received monthly payments. He explained that the March tax filings were immediately reviewed by oil and gas production tax auditors, a process which often took many months for verification of the information. He noted that a full audit would take place at a later date. He mentioned that the State of Alaska did not have to pay any interest on overpayments of estimated tax, if the overpayment was returned within ninety days. BUD COMMITTEE -5- April 6, 2013 5:25:06 PM MR. FONDER pointed to slide 4, "Production Tax Audits/Assessments." He explained that production tax audits were not performance audits, and were not utilized to determine if a statute was "working," as this was not a role of the Tax Division. He declared that the purpose of the oil and gas production tax audit was to ensure that the taxpayer had filed and paid the appropriate amount of production tax as required by the statutes and regulations. He noted that the amount of tax must be assessed within six years after the tax return was filed. He reported that DOR often received amended returns, which would then start the clock for another six years on that specific issue. He noted that amended returns for the 2007 tax returns had been coming in until December, 2010. He said that taxpayers had the right of appeal to an audit assessment, and that the process began in the Tax Division. He said, "generally speaking, our oil and gas production tax assessments have ranged from a refund of $5 million to an assessment of $82.5 million over the last five years. For comparison purposes, in the year that we assessed $82.5 million, FY 11, we collected over $4.5 billion in production tax revenues. The assessments for FY 11 were less than two percent of the total production tax revenues received for that year." 5:27:46 PM MR. FONDER introduced slide 5, "Production Tax Audits/Assessments (continued)." He explained that, due to high interest and penalty provisions, there was an incentive for taxpayers to be accurate on the estimated monthly payments and tax return filings. He clarified that the department most often issued an assessment because the taxpayer and DOR disagreed as to how the statutes applied to a certain set of facts. The assessment was then subject to the appeals process, which began in the Tax Division, and could be appealed through the Alaska Supreme Court, often taking months or years. 5:28:38 PM MR. FONDER presented slide 6, "Oil and Gas Production Tax Credit Processes," and stated that, as there was no time frame for filing credit applications, DOR was working on them throughout the year. He declared that all the tax credit applications underwent a due diligence review prior to granting the credit. He emphasized that these reviews were often as detailed as a full audit.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Department of State Treasurer Raleigh, North Carolina Statewide Financial
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF STATE TREASURER RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA STATEWIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT PROCEDURES FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2014 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR BETH A. WOOD, CPA STATE AUDITOR STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Office of the State Auditor 2 S. Salisbury Street 20601 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-0601 Telephone: (919) 807-7500 Fax: (919) 807-7647 Beth A. Wood, CPA Internet State Auditor http://www.ncauditor.net AUDITOR’S TRANSMITTAL The Honorable Pat McCrory, Governor Members of the North Carolina General Assembly The Honorable Janet Cowell, State Treasurer Department of State Treasurer As part of our audit of the State of North Carolina’s financial statements, we have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Governmental Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, selected elements of the Department of State Treasurer’s financial statements, as of and for the year ended June 30, 2014. For State Health Plan cash basis expenditures, we made reference to the reports of other auditors as a basis, in part, for our opinion on the State’s financial statements. Our audit was performed by authority of Article 5A of Chapter 147 of the North Carolina General Statutes. Our audit objective was to render an opinion on the State of North Carolina’s financial statements and not the Department’s financial statements. However, the report included herein is in relation to our audit scope at the Department and not to the State of North Carolina as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Wyoming Legislative Service Office
    WYOMING LEGISLATIVE SERVICE OFFICE ISSUE BRIEF OTHER STATES’ LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL PROCEDURES TRAINING August 2020 by Karla Smith, Senior Program Evaluator BACKGROUND Legislative Service Office staff presented an issue brief summarizing fiscal procedures training for Wyoming local government and political subdivision fiscal officers to the Management Audit Committee during its January 2020 meeting.1 The Committee requested further information regarding other states’ statutory requirements for fiscal procedures training for local government and special district clerks and treasurers. This issue brief examines the statutory requirements of Wyoming and nine comparator states regarding local government training in fiscal procedures. WYOMING Wyoming statutes do not require local government fiscal officers to complete state fiscal procedures training, but do require the State Auditor and the State Treasurer to provide voluntary education programs: To enhance the background and working knowledge of political subdivision treasurers in governmental accounting, portfolio reporting and compliance, and investments and cash management, the state auditor and the state treasurer shall conduct voluntary education programs for persons elected or appointed for the first time to any office or as an employee of any political subdivision where the duties of that office or positions of employment include taking actions related to investment of public funds and shall also hold annual voluntary continuing education programs for persons continuing to hold those offices and positions of 1 Wyoming LSO Issue Brief: Fiscal Procedures Training, January 2020 P a g e | 1 20IB004 • RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DIVISION • 200 W. 24th Street • Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 TELEPHONE 307-777-7881 • EMAIL [email protected] • WEBSITE www.wyoleg.gov PAGE 2 OF 8 employment.
    [Show full text]
  • State Auditor
    To Ill vote No\/. 4t~ STATE AUDITOR I Paid for by Friends of Tom Wagner I Friends of Tom Wagner Hrst-Cia.-is ~,;Jaii P.O . Box 791 Presorted Dover, DE 19903 CSPosta~ Keep PAID Wilmington. DE State Auditor R. Thomas Wagner Permit Ko. 1858 CFE, CGFM, CICA Demonstrated Independence Tom Wagner is the last line of defense against one-party government. Since July 2013 Jorn Wagner Identified; • $1.9 million in fraud, waste, and abuse • $2 million in unclaimed federal reimbursements • More than $18 million in audit findings and cost savings "As State Auditor, I'll fight to ensure our state government and public schools spend your tax dollars effectively. You work hard for your money and you deserve an Auditor who will work just as hard to protect it." - BRENDA MA YRACK '·. __.,., ·.; 0328914M ,, . .,,._., -----~ ,,. ' The no-nonsense auditor we need to protect our tax dollars. BRENDA HAS THE RIGHT EXPERIENCE ... "Brenda will reform Wilmington attorney with a solo law practice the Auditor's office focused on auditing and audit defense. and eliminate wasteful Tech entrepreneur. practices from state University of Delaware honors graduate with government. a law degree and masters in government management from the University of Wisconsin. Delaware families need a tough but fair ... TO FIGHT FOR DELAWARE'S TAXPAYERS. ally like Brenda Push agencies to improve performance and get fighting to protect better results for you and your family. taxpayer dollars." Leave politics at the door and focus on what's not working in Dover with a fair audit plan. - CONGRESSMAN JOHN CARNEY Modernize the Auditor's office and ensure it has (FORMER LT.
    [Show full text]
  • EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT SECTION VI-1 Executive Officers Enumerated - Offices and Records - Duties
    OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE VI - EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT SECTION VI-1 Executive officers enumerated - Offices and records - Duties. A. The Executive authority of the state shall be vested in a Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, State Auditor and Inspector, Attorney General, State Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Commissioner of Labor, Commissioner of Insurance and other officers provided by law and this Constitution, each of whom shall keep his office and public records, books and papers at the seat of government, and shall perform such duties as may be designated in this Constitution or prescribed by law. B. The Secretary of State shall be appointed by the Governor by and with the consent of the Senate for a term of four (4) years to run concurrently with the term of the Governor. Amended by State Question Nos. 509 to 513, Legislative Referendum Nos. 209 to 213, adopted at election held on July 22, 1975, eff. Jan. 8, 1979; State Question No. 594, Legislative Referendum No. 258, adopted at election held on Aug. 26, 1986; State Question No. 613, Legislative Referendum No. 270, adopted at election held on Nov. 8, 1988. SECTION VI-2 Supreme power vested in Governor. The Supreme Executive power shall be vested in a Chief Magistrate, who shall be styled "The Governor of the State of Oklahoma." SECTION VI-3 Eligibility to certain state offices. No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, State Auditor and Inspector, Attorney General, State Treasurer or Superintendent of Public Instruction except a citizen of the United States of the age of not less than thirty-one (31) years and who shall have been ten (10) years next preceding his or her election, or appointment, a qualified elector of this state.
    [Show full text]
  • Report from the State Auditor's Office
    OFFICE OF THE 1 STATE AUDITOR Making Government Work Better Presentation to the Massachusetts Collectors and Treasurers Association June 14, 2011 Gerald A. McDonough, Deputy Auditor for Legal and Policy Office of the State Auditor Suzanne M. Bump Auditor Bump’s Priorities 2 Retooling the Office of the State Auditor for the 21st century: New employees with appropriate credentials. A diverse workforce that reflects the Commonwealth’s residents. A diversity of experiences, to meet Auditor Bump’s goals for auditing. A focus on different kinds of audits: Performance audits Tax expenditure audit Audits that help make government work better: For example, the recent audit of district courts and the new probation fees. State Audits 3 OSA audits state agencies, including: institutions of higher education; health and human service agencies; constitutional offices; and other state government executive offices, functions, and programs. Partners with a major accounting firm in performing the Single Audit of the Commonwealth, a comprehensive annual financial and compliance audit of the Commonwealth as a whole that encompasses the accounts and activities of all state agencies. Oversees state agencies’ responsibilities under the Commonwealth’s Internal Control Statute, including investigating referrals of variances, thefts, etc. Educates, guides, and assists state agencies on the importance of internal controls in order to mitigate risk. Authority and Vendor Audits 4 OSA audits quasi-public authorities such as Massport, MassDOT, and local housing authorities. Auditor Bump is enhancing the office’s work in auditing the Commonwealth’s vendors: Her goal is to identify funds that are misappropriated by vendors through waste, fraud, and abuse.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Oversight in Delaware
    Legislative Oversight in Delaware Capacity and Usage Assessment Oversight through Analytic Bureaucracies: Minimal Oversight through the Appropriations Process: Moderate Oversight through Committees: Limited Oversight through Administrative Rule Review: Minimal Oversight through Advice and Consent: Minimal Oversight through Monitoring Contracts: Limited Judgment of Overall Institutional Capacity for Oversight: Moderate Judgment of Overall Use of Institutional Capacity for Oversight: Moderate Summary Assessment Delaware appears to emphasize resolving agency performance problems rather than punishing or eliminating poorly performing programs. One element that may explain this solution-driven approach is the nature of Delaware’s general assembly itself--a small legislature with no term limits. This allows legislators to serve for long periods of time and to become better acquainted with their counterparts across the aisle, producing a more collegial environment where partisan confrontation on every issue is not always desirable. We were told that there are “a lot of relationships in a small legislature, so it is better to pick your battles than to oppose every measure.” (interview notes, 7/25/18). Major Strengths Delaware’s legislature possesses several tools to conduct oversight, foremost among them the Joint Legislative Oversight and Sunset Committee (JLOSC). This committee works with staff to conduct a very thorough review of a small number of government entities. The committee rarely eliminates these entities, although it has the power to do so. Rather it tries to determine how to improve the entities’ performance. Based on its recommendations for improvement, the committee staff and the entity help draft legislation to resolve performance problems. The emphasis the committee places on enacting legislation to resolve performance problems that it identifies ensures that oversight hearings are more than merely public scolding.
    [Show full text]
  • Audit of the Agribusiness Development Corporation
    Audit of the Agribusiness Development Corporation A Report to the Legislature of the State of Hawai‘i Report No. 21-01 January 2021 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR STATE OF HAWAI‘I OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR STATE OF HAWAI‘I Constitutional Mandate Pursuant to Article VII, Section 10 of the Hawai‘i State Constitution, the Office of the Auditor shall conduct post-audits of the transactions, accounts, programs and performance of all departments, offices and agencies of the State and its political subdivisions. The Auditor’s position was established to help eliminate waste and inefficiency in government, provide the Legislature with a check against the powers of the executive branch, and ensure that public funds are expended according to legislative intent. Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, Chapter 23, gives the Auditor broad powers to examine all books, records, files, papers and documents, and financial affairs of every agency. The Auditor also has the authority to summon people to produce records and answer questions under oath. Our Mission To improve government through independent and objective analyses. We provide independent, objective, and meaningful answers to questions about government performance. Our aim is to hold agencies accountable for their policy implementation, program management, and expenditure of public funds. Our Work We conduct performance audits (also called management or operations audits), which examine the efficiency and effectiveness of government programs or agencies, as well as financial audits, which attest to the fairness of financial statements of the State and its agencies. Additionally, we perform procurement audits, sunrise analyses and sunset evaluations of proposed regulatory programs, analyses of proposals to mandate health insurance benefits, analyses of proposed special and revolving funds, analyses of existing special, revolving and trust funds, and special studies requested by the Legislature.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 Auditor
    Utah Code Chapter 3 Auditor 67-3-1 Functions and duties. (1) (a) The state auditor is the auditor of public accounts and is independent of any executive or administrative officers of the state. (b) The state auditor is not limited in the selection of personnel or in the determination of the reasonable and necessary expenses of the state auditor's office. (2) The state auditor shall examine and certify annually in respect to each fiscal year, financial statements showing: (a) the condition of the state's finances; (b) the revenues received or accrued; (c) expenditures paid or accrued; (d) the amount of unexpended or unencumbered balances of the appropriations to the agencies, departments, divisions, commissions, and institutions; and (e) the cash balances of the funds in the custody of the state treasurer. (3) (a) The state auditor shall: (i) audit each permanent fund, each special fund, the General Fund, and the accounts of any department of state government or any independent agency or public corporation as the law requires, as the auditor determines is necessary, or upon request of the governor or the Legislature; (ii) perform the audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and other auditing procedures as promulgated by recognized authoritative bodies; (iii) as the auditor determines is necessary, conduct the audits to determine: (A) honesty and integrity in fiscal affairs; (B) accuracy and reliability of financial statements; (C) effectiveness and adequacy of financial controls; and (D) compliance with the law. (b) If any state entity receives federal funding, the state auditor shall ensure that the audit is performed in accordance with federal audit requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Senior Auditor Evaluator I, Branch 3
    CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Senior Auditor Evaluator I, Branch 3 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR CAREER OPPORTUNITY SENIOR AUDITOR EVALUATOR I Branch 3 Job Control 96354 OUR MISSION The California State Auditor promotes the efficient and effective management of public funds and programs by providing to citizens and the State independent, objective, accurate, and timely evaluations of state and local governments' activities. auditor.ca.gov CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR | Senior Auditor Evaluator I, Branch 3 The California State Auditor is the State’s independent and nonpartisan auditing and investigative arm, serving the California State Legislature and the public. For nearly 60 years, the office has served California by auditing and reviewing state, local, or publicly created agency performance and operations; identifying wrongdoing or WHO mismanagement; and providing insight on issues. Our audits result in truthful, balanced, and unbiased information WE ARE that clarifies issues and brings more accountability to government programs. We pride ourselves on proposing innovative solutions to problems identified by our audits so that state and other public agencies can better serve Californians. Each year our recommendations result in meaningful change to government, saving taxpayers millions of dollars. The California State Auditor is now accepting COMPENSATION/BENEFITS applications for up to two Senior Auditor Evaluator I level positions. Individuals in this position serve CLASSIFICATION ANNUAL SALARY RANGE important roles in improving California government by Senior Auditor Evaluator I $68,268–89,736 assuring the performance, accountability, and transparency that its citizens deserve. Senior Auditor Evaluator I's in Branch 3 typically oversee performance Features of the comprehensive benefit package include: audits. If you are ready to take your audit career to the next level, read the details in this bulletin and submit an • Retirement (defined benefit plan), as well as 401(k) application.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Oversight in Hawaii
    Legislative Oversight in Hawaii Capacity and Usage Assessment Oversight through Analytic Bureaucracies: Moderate Oversight through the Appropriations Process: Moderate Oversight through Committees: High Oversight through Administrative Rule Review: Minimal Oversight through Advice and Consent: Limited Oversight through Monitoring Contracts: Moderate Judgment of Overall Institutional Capacity for Oversight: High Judgment of Overall Use of Institutional Capacity for Oversight: High Summary Assessment Hawaii has multiple analytic support agencies that aid the legislature with its oversight responsibilities. The system stresses transparency and public accessibility of audit reports. Audit reports are used regularly in committee hearings. Sunrise and sunset reviews provide a mechanism for legislators to influence state agencies. Analytic bureaucracies aid in these reviews. Audits also provide a mechanism to oversee contracts despite the fact that the executive branch is primarily empowered1 to review and monitor contracts. Major Strengths Audit reports are well publicized and summaries are prepared with the intent to promote public understanding and accessibility to Hawaii’s citizens. The auditor’s office provides one- page follow-up reports that describe actions taken in response to its reports. Moreover, the audit reports themselves address whether the legislature and agencies acted on audit recommendations. Audits provide a mechanism that the legislature uses to oversee contracts even though the executive branch is solely empowered to monitor contracts. Audits are used in making budget decisions and standing committees attempt to pass legislation based on audit findings. Challenges 1 http://spo.hawaii.gov/procurement-wizard/manual/contract-management/, accessed 9/5/18. The governor has strong appointment powers and can thus exert a lot of control over state government.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Oversight of State Government Contracts April 2021
    Legislative Oversight of State Government Contracts April 2021 By Professor Marjorie Sarbaugh-Thompson and Jennifer Giallombardo, Sean Kammer with Madelyn Lardner Wayne State University Political Science Department This report is sponsored by the Levin Center at Wayne Law and Wayne State University's Center for Urban Studies TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 3 A.RECOMMENDATIONS ON BEST PRACTICES ......................................................................................... 4 B.BRIEF OVERVIEW OF CONTRACT OVERSIGHT IN THE SIX STATES EXAMINED ................................... 7 C.CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................. 11 2. STATE LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT OF STATE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS: DETAILED REPORT ................................................................................................................................................. 12 A.MOTIVATION FOR THE RESEARCH.................................................................................................... 12 B.THE RISING USE OF CONTRACTS BY STATE GOVERNMENTS ............................................................ 12 C.GOOD LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT IN GENERAL ................................................................................. 15 D.ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS SPECIFIC TO CONTRACT OVERSIGHT ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Auditor of State
    ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE AUDITOR OF STATE OF THE STATE OF INDIANA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2005 VOLUME II CONNIE KAY NASS AUDITOR OF STATE i CONNIE KAY NASS AUDITOR OF STATE ii FORMER AUDITORS OF STATE Term Name Political Party 1816-1828 William H. Lilley Party Unknown 1828-1829 Benjamin I. Blythe Party Unknown 1829-1844 Morris Morris Party Unknown 1844-1847 Horatio J. Harris Party Unknown 1847-1850 Douglas Maguire Whig 1850-1853 Erastus W.H. Ellis Democrat 1853-1855 John P. Dunn Democrat 1855-1857 Hiram E. Talbot Fusion-"Peoples" 1857-1861 John W. Dodd Democrat 1861-1863 Albert Lange Republican 1863-1865 Joseph Ristine Democratic Union 1865-1869 Thomas P. McCarthy Republican 1869-1871 John D. Evans Republican 1871-1873 John C. Shoemaker Democrat 1873-1875 James A. Wilder Republican 1875-1879 Ebenezer Henderson Democrat 1879-1881 Mahlon D. Manson Democrat 1881-1883 Edward H. Wolfe Republican 1885-1887 James H. Rice Democrat 1887-1891 Bruce Carr Republican 1891-1895 John O. Henderson Democrat 1895-1899 Americus C. Daily Republican 1899-1903 William H. Hart Republican 1903-1905 David E. Sherrick Republican 1905-1906 Warren Bigler Republican 1906-1910 John C. Billheimer Republican 1910-1914 William H. O'Brien Democrat 1914-1916 Dale J. Crittenberger Democrat 1916-1920 Otto Clauss Republican 1920-1922 William J. Oliver Republican 1922-1924 Robert Bracken Democrat 1924-1928 Lewis S. Bowman Republican 1928-1930 Arch N. Bobbit Republican 1930-1934 Floyd E. Williamson Democrat 1934-1938 Laurence F. Sullivan Democrat 1938-1940 Frank G. Thompson Democrat 1940-1944 Richard T.
    [Show full text]