►
From YouTube: Management Audit Meeting August 4, 2021-AM
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
C
All
right
good
morning,
ladies
and
gentlemen,
welcome
to
the
august
3rd
meeting
of
management.
Audit
committee.
Fourth
excuse
me
fourth
august
4th
meeting
of
management
audit
committee.
We
appreciate
you
joining
us,
we're
going
to
start
with
a
roll
call
so
doing
our
roll
call
miss
odawins.
Thank
you.
E
C
D
C
All
right,
so
the
caution
is
your
mics
pick
up
conversations
in
the
room.
We
learned
that
at
our
last
meeting,
apparently,
and
so
we'll
we'll
caution
folks
to
turn
off
your
mics
if
you're
not
intending
for
your
conversation
to
be
public
because
we
are
streaming
live
and
and
actually
we
have
a
camera
in
the
room
as
well
so
another.
I
guess
someone,
someone
else
is
also
streaming
this
or
is
this
actually?
Is
this
the
ins
in
room
system
or
is
the
camera
in
the
room,
the
one
that
is
medium?
Okay,
strictly
media?
C
Okay,
perfect,
so
we
have
media
joining
us
as
well.
Welcome
so
we'll
start
with
our
agenda
and
our
first
agenda
item
is
the
state
auditor
office
we're
joined
by
the
honorable,
christy
racinis
and
some
of
her
folks.
It's
this
is
not
edie,
so
she
will
introduce.
Who
is
with
us.
Edie
is
on
the
agenda,
but
this
is
not
easy
and
I've
forgotten
your
name.
So,
madam
monitor
welcome.
C
We
thank
you.
Congratulations
on
being
part
of
the
cheyenne
contingency
right
sounds
like
you
had
a
very
successful
cheyenne
frontier
days,
and
I
know
you
participated
in
many
of
those
activities,
as
did
I'm
sure
several
others
in
the
room
that
we're
able
to
so
welcome.
Madam
auditor
and
please
proceed.
F
Mr
chairman,
thank
you.
It
was
a
wonderful
week
and
I
think
very
successful
and
I
think
we
made
up
for
last
year
as
well.
While
we
were
at
it.
So,
mr
chairman,
I
I'm
very,
very
excited
to
introduce
to
you
all
erin
benskin.
F
She
is
the
relatively
new
manager
of
our
accounting
division,
although
she
has
been
with
our
office
for
about
four
years,
so
her
division
is
responsible
for
putting
together
the
annual
comprehensive
financial
report
which
you
all
are
familiar
with,
and
we've
talked
about
quite
a
bit
so
and
edie
is
not
in
the
office
this
week,
she's
she's
out
of
state.
So
that's
why
she's
not
here,
but
I
wanted
to
introduce
you
to
aaron
aaron
is
a
cpa
which
I
feel
felt.
F
So,
mr
chairman,
our
item
on
the
agenda
today
is
potential
dissolution
of
accounts
and
funds
throughout
the
state
and
that's
something
we're
eager
to
get
done,
and
this
is
something
that
I
think
we've
been
having
conversations
with
senator
james
for
the
past.
Oh
gosh
year,
maybe
about,
and
so
we
we
are
excited
to
get
this
done
and
a
lot
of
times
these
clean
up
efforts
get
put
off
because
they're,
not
you
know
they,
they
don't
have
to
be
done.
F
They're
just
nice
to
get
done
when
we,
when
we
have
time
so
we
have
had
the
ability
to
make
some
good
headway
in
cleaning
up
our
entire
chart
of
accounts,
for
example,
expenditure
codes.
We
had
something
in
the
system
like
close
to
6
000,
active
expenditure
codes,
and
we
have
we've
deactivated
many
many
of
those
we
actually
have
a
listing
of
those
expenditure
codes
online.
F
We've
brought
that
from
about
90
pages
down
to
50
pages,
so
it
is
still
very
extensive.
So
this
this
subject
of
cleaning
up
funds
is
really
really.
You
know,
there's
some
synergy
with
what
our
office
is
already
trying
to
do.
So
the
process
of
eliminating
funds
like
most
of
your
endeavors,
is
somewhat
more
complicated
than
it
seems
on
the
surface,
but
completely
doable.
F
And
so,
as
we
have
this
conversation,
I
want
to
point
out
two
statutes
which
lso
was
so
good
to
put
in
your
material
and
they're.
Just
printed
out,
it's
just
on
one
page
and
I'm
just
going
to
refer
to
those
the
this
and
I'm
actually
gonna.
Look
at
this
first
statute
or
sorry,
I'm
gonna
point
you
to
that
second
statute.
F
First,
nine,
four,
two
one
two
so
summarizing
this
this
statute
essentially
says
a
fund
is
only
a
fund
if
it
is
created
in
statute
and
everything
else
is
an
account
even
if
we
call
it
a
fund
in
statute,
so
there's
so
so
in
full
disclosure.
It
sounds
like
there's
been.
You
know
some
confusion
in
statutes
in
the
in
in
prior
decades.
F
Now
we
meaning
my
office,
our
external
auditors,
and
you
all.
We
often
use
the
word
fund.
In
fact,
we
use
it
all
the
time
and
that's
accurate
to
use
that,
because
that
a
fund
is
an
accounting
entity
defined
by
accounting
standards
and
by
gaap.
So
we
properly
refer
to
things
as
funds
all
the
time,
but
that
second
statute,
just
we
just
all-
need
to
recognize
for
statutory
purposes.
A
fund
is
only
a
fund
if
it's
created
in
statute.
Everything
else
is,
is
you
know
an
account
or
something?
F
If
a
fund
is
created
in
statute,
it
has
to
be
uncreated
in
statute.
If
a
if
an
account
is
created
by
my
office,
it
does
not,
it
can
be
removed
by
my
office.
So
so
we
we
refer
to
a
lot
of
things
as
funds
which
by
office
simply
once
we
all
determine
it's
not
necessary
anymore.
We
can
deactivate
that
without
legislative
intervention.
F
So
as
we
go
through
this,
you
know,
let
me
back
up.
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna
give
an
example
of
that
because
you
might
be
asking
wow,
the
sao
can
just
go
willy
nilly
create
funds
like
whenever
whenever
they
want.
No,
not
exactly,
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
reasons.
We
wouldn't
want
to
do
that
aaron's
real
picky.
She
doesn't
just
let
us
create
funds,
but
the
best
example
that
I
have
of
that
in
recent
history
is
the
cares.
F
Act
money,
so
the
feds
dump
1.25
billion
dollars
into
the
coffers,
and
this
was
before
there
was
a
special
session.
This
was
there
there
was.
You
know
before
we
had
anything.
We
made
the
decision
to
create
a
new
fund
and
it's
called
a
fund
by
accounting
standards
and
put
that
money
in
it,
because
it
was
incredibly
important
to
me
and
I
think
everyone
to
have
that
segregated.
We
know
exactly
what's
been
spent.
We
know
exactly
what's
left
and
it's
very,
very
transparent
and
easy
to
track
now.
F
F
That
is
not
a
fund,
so
that
can
be
that
can
be
cleaned
up
without
so
the
tricky
part
is
determining
which
funds
are
statutory
and
which
are
not
so
for
the
last
four
years
or
so.
Our
office
has
had
a
formal
process
for
documenting
the
creation
of
all
new
funds
and
accounts,
there's
a
very
there's,
a
very
special
form
with
sign
offs,
and
it
refers
to
is
this
created
just
because
we
needed
it
or
because
of
statute,
etc,
etc.
F
F
Lso
has
has
been
maintaining
or
working
a
similar
list
and
then
we've
sort
of
coordinated
those
to
see
where
there's
crossover
or
where
we
can
eliminate
some
et
cetera,
et
cetera.
F
So
I
I
think
our
our
ask-
or
maybe
suggestion
right-
and
this
is
in
conversations
that
that
we've
had
with
lso
is
authorizing
lso
to
help
us
confirm
whether
some
of
these
are
in
statute
or
not
and
then
go
from
there
like,
for
example,
you
know
we've
got
15
funds,
maybe
five
of
those
are
in
statute
and
and
then
you
know
they
would
come
to
you
and
have
those
conversations.
Can
we
eliminate
this?
But
you
know
if
we
had
some
help
researching
some
of
these.
F
G
Senator
boner.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
That's
just
a
brief
question.
I
appreciate
the
thought
process.
I
agree
with
that.
Just
wearing
a
if
you
discuss
this
with
the
attorney
general's
office
as
well,
and
perhaps
you
know
they
could
so
I'm
thinking,
usually
an
executive
branch
agency
would
utilize
their
representative
from
the
ag's
office
to
perform
some
of
these
functions.
I'm
just
wondering
if
that's
part
of
the
conversation
or
not
audrey
rossinis.
Mr.
F
Chairman,
mr
co-chair,
you
know
we
haven't
pulled
the
aeg's
office
into
this
yet,
but
I
think
that's
would
be
very
much
appropriate
as
far
as
you
know,
a
path
forward,
and-
and
one
more
note,
mr
chairman,
there's
a
there's-
a
substantial
step
in
there
that
we
we
can
do,
and
we
are
the
proper
entity
to
do
and
that's
confirming
with
agencies
to
make
sure
that
these
funds
can
be
eliminated
because
occasionally,
on
paper,
it'll,
say:
okay,
this
fund
hasn't
been
used
in
a
while.
There's
no
budget,
there's
no
money
in
it.
F
You
know
we
think
it
can
be
eliminated.
Lso
doesn't
see
any
problems
with
it.
You
know
the
agency
says
whoa
whoa
whoa.
No,
we
still
we
we
still
need
that
and
a
perfect
example.
Aaron
brought
this
up.
There's
a
business
council
account
that
is
zero
dollar.
It
has
been
forever,
but
they
utilize
that
fund
to
receive
some
old
loan
payments
from
aura
funds.
F
F
C
Okay,
any
questions
from
the
committee
on
so
far
on
the
auditor's
presentation
committee
questions.
Thank
you
senator
perkins,
for
joining
us
good
to
see
you,
sir
representative
brown,.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
amount
of
monitor,
aaron,
probably
more
directly
towards
you,
I'm
just
kind
of
curious.
As
you
mentioned,
how
old
some
of
these
accounts
may
be
era.
Funds
are
really
old.
I
mean
that
was
2008.
I
mean
that's
12
13
14
years
old.
How
long
do
you
anticipate
like
that
account,
or
some
of
these
other
accounts
needing
to
be
open
to
still
continue
to
receive?
For
this
instance,
some
of
those
payments?
H
Do
we
have
some
of
those
that
we
see
in
the
future
stopping
and
that
we
can
end
up
closing
in
the
future?
Or
is
this
something
that
you
see
in
perpetuity.
D
Chairman
barlow
representative
brown,
my
name
is
erin
benskin
and
I
am
the
accounting
manager
for
this
sao
the
business
council
with
the
that
aura
money
that
they
received.
They
were
able
to
create
loans
for
entities
and
those
they
will
continue
to
collect
on
those
loans
for
years
and
because
of
the
way
the
federal
guidelines
were
with
the
ara
money,
it
has
to
go
back
and
be
the
same
color
of
money
as
the
original
rf
funds.
C
Thank
you
any
further
questions,
further
questions.
I
guess
I
have
a
couple
questions.
First,
in
the
and
I'll
just
use
the
order
of
your
presentation
in
the
two
statutory
sections
that
you
refer
to
title
ix
sections.
C
Is
there
any
clarification
you
see
that
would
be
helpful
in
the
is
it
fun
to
fund
a
fund
or
any
of
the
authority
you
have
under
that
204
section.
C
That
would
that
this
committee
should
be
considering
to
provide
you
anything
additional
so
and
if
you
don't
have
an
answer
that
that's
that's
a
request
to
think
about.
If
there's
something
that
needs
to
be
adjusted
or
modified,
that
would
help
you.
You
know,
give
you
a
reporting
place
or
someone.
You
could
go
to
and
say
hey.
I
don't
think
this
is
being
used
anymore
and
start
a
process
or
whatever.
So
is
there
anything
that
you
know
of
in
those
two
that
at
this
point
you
would
point
to
at
a
monitor.
F
Mr
chairman,
thank
you
and
not
not
today,
although
I
I
appreciate
the
offer
and
we
will
take
that
under
consideration.
I
I
think
this.
This
has
been
aligning
the
statute
statutes
surrounding
the
creation
of
funds
and
the
accounting.
The
way
the
accounting
system
works
with
creation
of
funds
has
been
complex,
and
so
I
think
there
may
be
some
opportunity
there,
but
I
am
I
do
not
I
do.
I
would
have
to
we'd
have
to
really
sit
down
and
think
about
that.
Okay,.
C
Thank
you
very
much
and
my
second
question
is:
you
talked
about
15
funds
with
no
dollars
associated
or
very
little
dollars,
so
she
are
there,
funds
that
are
just
out
there
that
are
stale,
I.e,
there's
a
there's,
a
fund
with
money
in
it
or
an
account
with
money
in
it
program,
doesn't
exist
or
isn't
being
utilized,
etc.
Where
they're
just
stagnant
stale.
I
don't
know
what
the
right
word
would
be
account,
there's
probably
a
good
accounting
word,
but
I
don't
know
what
it
is
so.
C
You
know
is:
are
there
funds
like
that
so
15
with
zero
potential?
But
what
about
something?
That's
just
you
know
hanging
chads
for
lack
of
time.
F
Mr
chairman,
if
you're
looking
to
solve
the
state's
budget
crisis
with
a
mystery
account
full
of
money,
but
so
so,
no,
no,
no
in
all
seriousness,
this
this
list
again
and-
and
this
is
not
by
any
means
secret.
It's
just
like
I
said
a
list.
We've
come
up
with
to
start.
One
of
these,
for
example,
has
1.6
million
in
it,
so
so
not
a
whole
lot
of
money,
but
certainly
worth
doing
something
with.
So
that's
something
that's
one
again
where
we
would
maybe
need
some
some
help
researching
where
that
money
should
be
diverted.
F
I
I
don't
think,
there's
a
whole
lot
of
fun
sitting
around
with
with
stagnant
funds
in
them.
You
know,
for
example,
one
of
these
has
sixteen
hundred
dollars
in
it.
That
would
most
likely
go
back
to
uw.
One
has
twenty
four
thousand
dollars.
C
H
It
sounds
like
the
not
directly
to
the
not
a
monitor
herself,
but
maybe
to
the
committee.
Do
we
need
to
make
a
motion
for
this?
Is
that
something
that
we
need
to
do
to
allow
them
to
work
directly
with
lso
and
have
ella
so
move
that
forward,
or
is
that
just
a
prerogative
of
the
chairman
and
have
a
directive
from
the
chairman?
C
Brown,
so
abigail
do
you
want
to
give
us?
You
know
at
least
your
thoughts
about
how
to
proceed.
I
think
senator
boehner
brought
up
a
good
point.
Certainly
the
auditor's
office
has
resources
through
the
attorney
general's
office,
cetera
that
they
can
marshal
if,
if
there
is
but
there's,
also
interplay
between
executive
and
legislative
branch
about
potential
changes.
So
is
this
a
white
paper,
a
research
paper?
Is
this
just
a
collaboration
between
the
executive
and
legislative
branch?
C
D
Mr
chairman,
when
we
were
speaking
with
the
state
auditor,
the
path
we
kind
of
identified
was
perhaps
to
research
see
what
funds
they
want
to.
Research
research,
those
funds
in
preparation
of
a
bill
draft
what
needs
to
go
into
a
bill
and
what
doesn't
whether
that's
our
office
or
the
attorney
general's
office.
G
G
No
matter
what
and
you
know
conceptually
could
be
just
a
directive
saying
you
know
if
there
hasn't
been
activity
in
an
account
for
x
amount
of
years,
go
ahead
and
close
it
out
and
if
there
happens
to
be
additional
statutory
requirements
to
actually
get
rid
of
a
counselor
and
statute,
that's
something
that
could
be
fleshed
out
during
the
bill
drafting
process,
or
maybe
we
you
know,
get
as
a
result
of
that
process.
G
We
get
to
our
next
meeting
and
it's
already
happened,
and
we
don't
need
to
do
anything
and
that'd
be
even
better,
but
so
it's
I
just
brought
up
as
a
matter
of
managing
lso's
time
in
an
adequate
manner.
I
know
that
you
know.
We've
definitely
had
some
staffing
challenges,
but
I'm
confident
that
they
can
get
it
done
if
we
needed
to
as
well.
So
I
I'm
pretty
agnostic,
yes,
the
path
forward,
but
I
think
a
bill
draft
would
be
a
good
way
of
getting
involved.
C
Good,
thank
you
senator.
So
it
looks
like
to
me:
there's
there's
probably
going
to
be
a
segregation.
Some
things
we're
going
to
find
out
are
statutorily.
We
do
need
to
take
statutory
action
if
we
choose
to
eliminate
them,
and
some
things
are
strictly
potentially
in
the
auditors
or
the
executive
branch
per
view
to
do
so.
I
think
identifying
those
first
and
then
we'll.
C
Let
you
deal
with
or
the
executive
branch
deal
with
the
stuff,
that's
completely
executive
branch
and
then,
hopefully,
a
collaborative
process
with
our
staff
to
identify
research,
both
the
agencies,
as
you
pointed
out,
and
then
any
policy
perspectives.
If
there
are
policy
committees
just
so,
this
committee
knows
we're
getting
into
when
we
started
going.
C
These
accounts
we're
getting
into
policy
areas
of
other
committees,
and
so
one
of
the
one
of
the
there
was
some
suggestions
about
eliminating
some
stuff
in
the
next
in
our
next
agenda
items,
certain
advisory
committees
and
I
had
a
discussion
with
our
staff,
and
we
just
said
we're
going
to
put
that
off,
because
the
the
minerals
committee,
which
really
should
one
that
should
take
that
first
stab
at
it
and
say,
is
this
a
policy
we
want
to
pursue,
not
just
the
management
committees
and
we're
just
going
to
get
rid
of
stuff.
C
We
don't
think
we
need
or
whatever
so
so.
I
think
from
from.
I
think
so.
I
guess,
unless
there's
reservations
on
the
committee,
we'll
just
ask
our
staff
to
work
with
the
auditor's
office
kind
of
understand
where
the,
where
the,
how
those
accounts
flow
where
they
follow
under,
is
executive
creation
and
function
or
legislative
and
then
work
toward
a
a
list,
a
short
list
of
of
items.
C
If
and
then
we
can
work
through
those
different
accounts
and
those
things
or
if
we
want
to
wait
till
another
meeting
and
then
ask
for
a
bill
draft.
So
that's
that's
a
question,
and
probably
just
so
you're
aware
we're
having
one
day
meetings,
basically
based
on
our
kind
of
our
sk,
our
workload,
etc.
We,
we
could
have
two
or
three
more
meetings
this
year,
if,
if
there's
work
to
be
done,
one
day
meetings,
so
we
can,
we
can
make
this
still
do
meaningful
things
one
day
with
one
day
meeting.
C
C
Any
members
have
an
objection
to
the
chairman
just
asking
that
that
initially
initiated
seeing
no
objection,
that's
how
we'll
proceed
abigail.
Does
that
make
sense
for
you,
madam
auditor,
are
we
okay
with
that
now?
This
is
just
on
the
accounts,
I'm
understanding
at
this
point.
There
is
no
statutory
title
ix
language
that
you
want
adjusted
this
time.
Is
that
accurate.
C
F
Mr
chairman,
I
may
stick
around
for
one
of
the
bill
drafts,
but
I
can
testify,
if
needed
in
due
time
on
that,
okay.
C
Thank
you,
madam
monitor,
and
this
is
for
abigail
too,
because
we,
I
was
not
paying
attention
to
time
and
didn't
get
to
give
her
a
heads
up.
So
at
the
last
meeting
there
was
some
discussion
about
the
cares
money.
We
just
talked
about
ro
money
going
even
further
back
that
cares,
money
and,
and
there
I
may
there
may
have
been
a
misinterpretation
of
what
I
a
statement
that
I
made
about.
If
you
don't
know,
I
I
thought
I
was
saying.
C
If
you
don't
know
the
answer,
don't
worry
about
answering
the
question
and
some
other
people
saying
don't
answer
the
question
so,
but
I
think
at
the
next
meeting
for
abigail
what
we'd
like
is
for
this
committee
to
kind
of
understand
where
we
are
in
the
cares
act,
funding
what's
been,
what's
gone
out,
what's
been
returned,
how
that
returned
money
is
being
handled
and
certainly
there's
a
role
for
this
in
the
with
the
governor's
office
as
well
and
we'll
we'll
bring
them
in
as
well,
and
there
may
be
some
some
other
things
and
committee
members
are
welcome
between
now
and
the
next
meeting,
certainly
in
the
next
couple
weeks
to
if
there's
other
specific
items
or
questions
that
we'd
like
to
get
to
cares,
act
related,
as
you
know,
we're
six
months
away
from
the
end
of
the
cares:
act,
availability,
expenditure,
availability
based
on
current
congressional
action.
C
Who
knows
what
they'll
do
next,
but
based
on
where
we
know
now
where
it's
six
months
from
the
end,
so
knowing
where
we
are
in
the
in
the
race
and
and
what's
happened
so
far?
I
think
was
a
request
from
last
time
and
I
wasn't
trying
to
put
it
off.
I
just
but
now
we'll
make
it
a
formal
part
of
our
next
agenda
and
try
to
get
an
update
both
from
the
governor's
office
and
anything
that
you
might
have
add.
C
F
F
You
can
now
see
all
of
the
cares
act,
expenditures
so
far,
but
then
you
can
also
go
in
and
click
and
see,
arpa
money
which
doesn't
consist
of
a
whole
lot,
yet
mainly
the
pass-through
payments
to
all
of
the
the
smaller
cities
and
towns
and
then
also
the
revenue
replacement
money
that
was
put
over
in
the
department
of
corrections.
So
any
anything
anything
going
out
under
that
534
million
we've
received
in
arpa
is
posted
next
day
after
it's
expended
on
there.
So.
C
Thank
you
modern
monitor,
for
that
update.
Does
the
does
gov
y
o
your
website
wide
open,
gov
wyoming
wide
open
whatever
it
is
wide
open
spaces
whatever
it
is,
does
it
also?
There
is
no
way
to
account
for
direct
monies.
Is
there
so
the
first
class
cities
got
money
directly
from
the
federal
government.
Other
entities
got
money
directly.
There
is
not
a
tracking
mechanism
or
is.
Is
there
a
tracking
mechanism
for
those
funds?
Thank
you.
Madam
auditor.
F
Mr
chairman,
we
saw
no,
we,
we
have
seen
nothing
of
the.
We
have
no
insight
into
the
money
that
went
straight
to
the
metro
cities
or
the
counties.
The
other
97
entities,
all
you'll,
see
from
our
end
and
all
we
saw
was
the
checks
coming
from
the
fed
and
then
going
straight
to
them.
They're
there
and
yeah,
but
they're
shown
out
there.
C
So
does
that,
does
your
website
track
the
b11
process
or
the
authorization
process
that
would
allow
monies
to
flow,
so
the
example
would
be
education.
Monies
came
in
they're,
they're
being
held,
presumably
by
the
state
treasurer.
There
is
a
process
to
be
11
part
of
those
monies
go
to.
Let's
say
the
the
superintendent's
office
for
expenditure.
Those
would
show
up
as
going
to
them,
but
if
there's
monies
that
are
sitting
there
waiting
for
a
school
district,
let's
say
laramie
county
number,
one
they're
not
collecting
any
money.
C
F
Mr
chairman,
so
the
only
thing
contemplated
on
why
open
is
checks
going
out
the
door
so
if
they
are
sitting
with
the
state
but
have
not
yet
if
the
check
has
not
been
cut
they're
not
going
to
show
up
there.
C
I
Appropriations
please
proceed.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
I
I
just
forwarded
to
all
the
members
of
management
council,
the
short
short
budget
fiscal
update
from
I
believe
it
was
from
july
29th
that
the
budget
that
budget
and
fiscal
does
and
sends
out
to
appropriations
on
a
regular
basis,
and
it
talks
about
the
cares,
act,
funding
allocation
conferences
and
expenditures,
and
it
lists
those
those
have
been
tracked
pretty
pretty
well
and
I've.
I
I've
sent
I've
just
forwarded
that
email
from
july
29th
to
all
members
of
the
management
committee,
so
that
they
can
look
at
that
it'll.
You
know
it
does
answer.
Some
of
the
questions
about
cares,
act,
funding
that
that
we've
been
monitoring
on
joint
appropriations,
but
anyway,
actually
I
afforded
that
to
all
members
of
the
committee.
Thank
you,
mr.
C
I
C
I
appreciate
that
and
thank
you
for
I
know.
I
know
our
joint
appropriations
committee
just
had
a
meeting
here
a
week
10
days
ago
and
they're
monitoring
some
of
these
things
and
we
appreciate
the
work
they're
doing
as
well
all
right
further
discussion
from
the
committee
on
this
topic
very
good.
Thank
you,
madam
monitor.
Thank
you
ma'am
for
joining
us
today.
C
C
All
right,
thank
you
very
much
all
right.
Our
next
topic
of
discussion
is
the
department
of
audit.
We
have
some
statutory
clarification
times
and
we
have
three
bills.
There
are
drafts
75,
77
and
78.
I
believe
it's
the
final
one
and
we're
going
to
walk
through
those
so
abigail.
I
think
you're
going
to
do
some
presentations
committee.
These
items
have
been
provided
to
you
and
to
the
public.
C
The
one
bill
was
still
going
through
process
middle
of
last
week,
and
so
it
was
provided
last
week
and
it's
on
it's
certainly
online
as
well.
I
understand
now
and
so
anything
before
we
start
on
these
bills.
These
were
bill
all
bill
requests
that
came
out
of
our
last
meeting.
Thank
you
very
much
and
it
looks
like
we
now
have
a
version
five
of
this
bill.
So
just
folks
on
the
agenda.
It's
version
four,
but
you've
just
been
handed
out
version
five.
Mr.
C
On
that
one,
thank
you,
ms
beaudoin's,
we're
gonna
ask
you.
I
know
you've
had
some
some
voice
challenges
and
lost
your
voice
for
a
while.
So
you
don't
have
to
speak
loudly
if
you
speak
closer
to
the
microphone.
D
Mr
chairman,
I'm
going
to
start
with
the
22lso75.
This
is
the
examination
of
books
of
certain
districts
and
entities.
That's
simply
the
title
of
9-1-507.
D
This
was
intended
to
be
a
cleanup
bill
to
not
subsequently
substantively
change
what's
going
on,
but
rather
to
clarify
some
of
the
language
as
to
which
districts
this
applied.
This
applies
to
so
you'll.
See
it
starting
on
page
two
is
where
we
start
to
it
used
to
formally
just
say,
entities
described
in
164
and
125c,
and
this
is
where
the
department
of
audit
had
suggested
that
if
we
could
pull
in
those
districts
listed
in
the
1612
202
that
list
there's
24
of
them.
D
It
would
be
easy
for
easier
for
them
to
be
able
to
point
to
that
statue
and
say,
look
special
district.
You
are
included
in
this,
the
125
c.
It
encompasses
probably
most
of
those
districts,
but
it's
not
obvious
to
someone
who
reads
it.
What
districts
are
included,
so
most
of
the
amendments
are
simply
to
pull
in
that
1612
202a,
so
you'll
see
the
special
districts
and
other
entities
described
in
164,
125c
or
specified
in
161202a,
and
that
change
has
been
made
throughout
the
statute
anytime.
That
164125c
was
referenced.
D
We
added
the
1612202a,
so
that's
on
page
three.
The
change
between
the
card
copy
that
version
four
and
version
five-
is
actually
leave
on
page
three:
it's
not
just
cities
and
towns
with
the
under
four
thousand
inhabitants.
Actually,
actually
all
of
them
do
the
report
to
the
department
about
it.
So
I
dropped
that
out.
D
Page
five
same
just
clean
up.
D
One
thing
that
we
did
do
kind
of
line
16
through
18
on
page
five
is
there
was
that
the
issue
with
the
parks,
county,
recreation
district,
and
I
can
I'll
talk
about
that
on
the
last
page
in
detail,
but
I
did
put
in
language
or
any
other
applicable
laws
providing
for
the
dissolution
of
the
special
district
or
other
entity.
So
perhaps
that
the
law
that
was
referenced,
the
2229
401,
doesn't
apply,
as
was
decided
by
the
attorney
general's
office.
If
there's
another
dissolution
process,
they
need
to
follow
that
on.
D
The
last
page
is
where
I
went
into
you
know
that
question
was
raised
at
the
last
meeting.
Why
is
there
a
reason
that
the
parks
and
rec
districts
shouldn't
be
subject
to
dissolution
under
that
statute?
And
what
I
found
out
was
the
attorney
general
opinion
was
correct
in
the
end
result
that
probably
didn't
apply.
You
could
come
to
that
conclusion,
but
what
it
missed
was
that
there
are
actually
recreation
districts.
D
That's
not
a
statutory
thing.
What
they
are
are
recreation
boards
of
trustees
appointed
by
county
commissioners,
they're,
not
districts.
So
on
the
last
page,
page
six
you're
going
to
see
where
it
struck
recreation
districts
and
are
putting
in
the
more
technical
title
of
recreation
boards
of
trustees
appointed
pursuant
to
189
201.
D
There's
also
a
there's
recreation
joint
powers
boards.
That
is
something
that
could
potentially
be
clarified,
because
I
think
those
are
these
recreation
boards
of
trustees
could
and
anyone
can
enter
into
a
joint
powers
agreement.
But
I
didn't
I
didn't
change
that
I
went
very
simple.
I
mean
just
changing
what
I
thought
was
absolutely
necessary.
C
H
It's
better
ones,
just
a
quick
question,
and
this
is
probably
just
drafting
and
elsa's
choice,
but
when
we
say
other
entity
is
that
how
we
describe
other
things
when
it
comes
through
statute,
or
would
we
want
to
label
out
public
entity,
I'm
just
as
I'm
reading
this
I
I
feel
like
there
could
be
red
flags
being
thrown
up
all
over
the
place,
so
I'm
just
kind
of
curious
how
elsa
came
up
with
that
language
speedwinds.
Mr.
D
Can
find
it
for
you?
1612
202
actually
uses
the
term
entities.
It
says
this
chapter
applies
to
the
following
entities
unless
otherwise
specified
and
they
they
use
the
term
other
specified
entities.
So
that's
what
I'm
I
used
to
pull
into
this
statute
to
reference
that.
C
So
what
I
think
we'll
probably
do
committee
is
we'll
we'll
ask
abigail
to
walk
through
all
the
bills
and
then
we'll
take
comment
on
the
bills
from
the
agency
and
public,
and
certainly
if
auditor
racine
says
anything,
anybody
else
wants
to
make
comment
on
the
bill,
so
we'll
walk
through
them.
But
if
you
have
questions
on
immediately
on
the
bill
drafts,
let's
get
those
out
of
the
way
just
for
clarification.
C
K
General
question:
please:
so
if
an
entity
is
dissolved,
is
there
a
process
outlined
on
how
the
funds
that
they
hold
get
reverted
or
transferred.
D
Mr
chairman,
because
this
statute,
that
we're
looking
at
is
referencing
other
dissolution
processes,
those
processes
deal
with
that
and
there's
actually
discretion
in
the
statutes.
You
know,
and
at
least
in
that,
let
me
find
it.
D
The
2229
401
that
statute,
it
directs
it
to
the
board
of
county
commissioners
to
seek
dissolution,
but
if
it's
the
board,
the
county
commissioners
find
it's
not
in
the
best
interest
to
do
that
they
don't
have
to.
So
there
is
a
separate,
completely
separate
process
and
it
deals
with
what
happens
when
something
gets
dissolved.
The
money,
everything
how
it
wraps
up.
C
Good
question:
thank
you
probably
some
more
follow-up.
If
you
want
to
track
that
down,
and
certainly
if
there's
concerns
you
know
bring
those
to
the
committee
about
the
dissolution
potential
process,
anything
further
any
questions
on
this
bill
draft.
I
All
right,
yes,
senator!
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
just
a
question:
abigail.
Is
there
anything
that
allows
once
they've
gone
to
disillusion?
Is
there
anything
that
allows
for
reinstatement.
D
Mr
chairman,
I
didn't
look
into
that
specifically,
I
think
because
it's
there's
still
an
out
after
this
91507
that
says
you
seek
dissolution
if
the
county
commissioners
don't
want
to
do
that,
they
don't
have
to.
If
the
district
members
come
forward
and
say,
we
really
think
this
is
important.
This
function,
if
it's
water,
sewer,
district
or
whatever
type
of
district,
and
it
still
serves
a
public
purpose
for
what
it
was
created,
they
still
don't
have
to
dissolve
now.
I
Follow-Up
senator
perkins.
Thank
you.
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
You
know,
mr
chairman,
just
what
occurs
to
me
is:
is
almost
every
other
entity,
including
non-not-for-profit
entities
in
wyoming,
once
they've
been
established,
have
the
opportunity,
if
they've
been
dissolved,
whether
it's
particularly
an
inventor
but
an
administrative
disillusion
which
in
sense
this
this
this
kind
of
is
it
allows
for
a
reinstatement,
the
difference
between
making
a
new
you
know,
having
being
reinstated
and
having
to
do
it.
A
completely
new
entity
is
there's
this.
I
The
reinstatement
comes
back
and,
by
its
nature,
provides
or
basically
reinstates
it
as
though
it
had
never
been
dissolved.
So
there's
a
way
to
undo
that
there's
a
time
limit.
I
believe,
generally
of
two
years
that
has
to
be
in
real
estate
with
two
years
or
there's
no
choice
other
than
to
create
a
new
entity,
and
do
it
again,
but
I'm
just
wondering
if,
if
it
would
be
worthwhile
for
us
to
consider
having
a
similar
type
of
reinstatement
process,.
C
Thank
you,
chairman
perkins,
any
further
discussion
I
think
we'll
maybe
let
that
sit
a
little
bit
because
that's
certainly
a
a
extent,
a
a
new
type
of
approach
in
this
bill
and
maybe
a
separate
bill.
Actually
that
would
be
required
for
that
particular
issue.
So
I
think
we'll
we'll
take
it
under
advisement
and
we'll
come
back
to
it.
Maybe
after
when
we
get
into
the
committee
discussion
on
these
bills
so
committee,
any
other
questions
on
this
particular
bill.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
abigail,
mr
chairman.
The
other
question
I
have
is
with
regard
to.
If,
if
there's
an
out
the
county
commissioner
county
commissioners,
don't
want
to
do
that
at
the
end
of
the
day.
Is
this?
Is
this
a
bit
of
a
gummer,
or
is
this
just
the
appropriate
amount,
or
I
mean
what
can
you
help
us
understand
a
little
bit
about
that
process?
If
the
county
commissioners,
don't
do
that,
and
maybe
that's
what
this
next
bill
talks
about,
the
private
citizen
can
bring
can
bring.
I
D
D
It's
they
don't
have
to
do
it.
It's
not
a
you
shall
dissolve
the
district,
it's
a
you
shall
seek
and
if
I
don't
have
22
29
401
in
front
of
me,
but
I
believe
it's
if
they
find
that
it's
not
in
the
public
purpose.
If
it
doesn't
benefit
the
public
purpose
to
dissolve,
they
don't
have
to.
C
Okay,
thank
you.
I
see
senators
got
out
his
green
book,
so
we've
got
a
double
team
on
this.
I
think,
for
the
time
being,
we'll
proceed
with
the
next
bill
on
the
explanation
of
the
next
bill
and
that
is
draft
77
fiscal
training,
enforcement
of
fiscal
reporting
laws.
Ms
beaudoin's.
D
Mr
chairman,
I'm
going
to
start
on
page
two
for
this
one
of
22
lso
77.
This
is
version
5.
garbage,
so
there
are
two
kind
of
parts
to
this
bill,
as
we
put
in
one
is
for
more
enforcement
terms
of
enforcement
in
terms
of
withholding
state
dollars
from
these
entities,
and
so
that's
kind
of
in
the
first
piece
here.
D
The
new
language
which
we
would
be
adding
to
91507
is
all
state
agencies
and
boards
shall
require
any
recipient
of
grants
or
funds
as
a
condition
of
receiving
the
grants
or
funds
to
be
in
compliance
with
the
reporting
requirement
under
ace
a7,
which
is
the
general
reporting
requirement
we've
been
looking
at
in
91507..
D
I
did
put
a
staff
comment,
because
this
is
just
a
reporting
requirement.
It's
not
we're
not
looking
at
the.
If
you
want
them
to
do
the
audit,
this
doesn't
apply.
There
are
other
mechanisms.
The
department
of
audit
can
actually
go
out
and
contract
for
the
audit
to
have
it
completed
and
then
bill
the
entity.
D
So
to
so
that's
the
front
end.
They
can't
get
money
until
they
turn
in
the
report.
But
then
how
do
we
work?
That
within
the
state,
so
that's
kind
of
the
second
piece
here,
starting
on
page
three.
So
the
department
of
the
director
of
the
department
of
audit
certifies
already
to
this
county
treasurer
in
terms
of
the
state
or
the
county
dollars
that
get
disbursed.
D
This
would
be
certifying
to
the
state
auditor
of
each
year
special
any
special
districts
and
other
entities
that
are
described
the
same
language,
16,
4,
125
c
or
specified
in
the
1612
202a
that
have
failed
to
comply
with
the
paragraph
a7
of
this
section.
The
department
of
audit
further
certifies
to
the
state
auditor,
when
a
special
district
then
comes
into
compliance.
D
D
And
so
in
page
four,
then
is
kind
of
when
we
start
into
the
training
requirement.
So
this
has
the
department,
which
is
the
department
of
audit
she'll,
promulgate
rules,
establishing
minimum
training
requirements,
and
this
is
for
public
officers
who
are
directly
responsible
for
handling
the
accounts
of
the
office,
so
they
review
and
then
they
will,
on
the
back
end,
review
training
programs
and
maintain
a
list
of
approved
training
programs
for
public
officers
again,
who
are
responsible
for
the
handling
of
the
accounts.
D
The
new
language
further
then
says
that
all
these
public
officers
shall
attend
a
training
approved
by
the
department
with
within
one
year
of
assuming
office.
The
department
can
waive
this
requirement
if
there
are
no
approved
trainings
or
on
either
a
virtual
format
or
with
in
the
state,
or
we
added
if
it's
cost
prohibitive.
D
If
the
very
last
bit
on
page
five,
then
is
if
they
fail
to
attend
a
training
approved
by
the
department
in
one
year
of
assuming
office,
the
director
may
request
those
in
authority
to
remove
that
public
officer.
Again,
it's
a
request.
It's
not
a
you
shall
remove.
So
there
is
discretion
there.
D
One
staff
comment
I
put
in
was
that
the
department
of
audit
and
their
rules
currently
despine
this
officer,
and
I
included
that,
in
terms
of
the
their
definition
is
the
chief
administrative
officer
of
the
state
institution
or
state
agency,
an
elected
appointed
member
of
the
public
border
commission,
the
city
manager,
mayor
or
council,
member
of
an
incorporated
city
or
town
or
the
treasurer
of
the
special
district
or
chairman
of
the
official
board.
D
That's
what
the
department
currently
has.
There
is
not
a
definition
right
now
in
the
department
of
audit
statutes
that
define
who
we're
talking
about
in
terms
of
who
this
training
requirement
is
going
to
apply
to,
and
that's
something
I
want
to
put
before
the
committee
if
they
want
to
put
something
in
statute
and
then
also
defer
the
department
of
audit
of
what
that
definition
perhaps
should
be
to
capture
the
intended
audience.
D
Finally,
I
think
one
important
section
is
an
uncodified
section
here
on
page
six,
this
requirement
would
not
go
into
effect
until
after
july,
1
2023.
This
would
get
give
the
department
of
audit
time
to
get
the
rules
promulgated
get
trainings
approved
and
certified,
and
then
it
wouldn't
would
apply
to
those
assuming
office
after
that
date,
so
it
built
in
some
kind
of
flexibility.
In
terms
of
you
know,
next
july,
one
everybody
needs
to
now
have
a
year
of
training.
C
Thank
you
very
much
all
right
members.
Any
questions
for
ms
beaudoin's
on
this
bill.
Draft
77
hands
up
represent
gray,
welcome.
L
Thank
you,
mr.
I
have
a
question
on
page
six:
did
you
say
you
want
to
do
a
page
by
page,
we'll
start
with
page
six,
oh
yeah.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
appreciate
it
miss
botawin.
So
I
I
want
to
be.
Is
this
paragraph
apply
to
officers
that
may
be
in
place
on
july,
1st
2023
and
have
been
in
place
say
for
any
period
of
time
like
10
years
15
years?
Would
would
the
training
requirement
apply
to
them,
because
I
read
this
as
incoming
officers
assuming
office.
L
D
Mr
chairman,
that
would
be
correct,
at
least
if
it's
someone
who's
simply
hired,
not
elected
yeah.
That
would
be
correct.
H
Your
hand
move
at
one
point.
Thank
you,
I'm
guessing.
This
is
probably
already
covered
elsewhere,
but
this
is
just
showing
me
being
naive
right
here,
so
going
back
to
page
five.
If
I
could
we
talk
about
if
any
public
officer
willfully
neglects
or
refuses
to
handle
his
accounts
in
the
manner
required
or
fails
to
attend
the
training,
the
director
may
request
as
an
authority
to
remove
the
public
officer,
I'm
guessing
somewhere
else
in
statute.
We
have
the
authority
for
criminal
charges
to
be
filed.
H
D
Mr
chairman,
that's
correct,
and
I
think
I
might
have
that
statute
in
front
of
me.
If
I
can
pull
it
here,
so
91510
we're
adding
a
new
we're
kind
of
amending
and
then
adding
some
new
language,
but
I'm
trying
to
see,
I
think,
that's
it
actually,
no!
D
Well,
I'm
not
going
to
give
you
the
number,
because
not
sure
there
it
is
it's
a
91508.
It's
prohibited
acts.
Any
person
commits
a
felony
punishable
by
a
fine
of
not
less
than
one
thousand
dollars.
There's
more
language
there.
They
refuse
to
make
a
required
return,
refuse
to
give
to
give
or
obstruct
access
to
information
required
by
the
director.
Willfully
hinders
that's
all
if
you
have
to
really
have
that
show
the
intent
to
willfully
violate
the
law
and
that's
the
penalties
there.
D
This
would
be
more
if
they
don't
just
simply
don't
forget
or
don't
remember,
to
file
it
now,
there's
probably
an
argument
to
be
made
that
if
you're
reminded
to
file
it
and
then
you
refuse
to
file
it,
perhaps
you
would
come
under
that
statute,
but
this
would
be
something
to
that's.
Not
you
don't
approve
that
intent.
It's
more
of
an
administrative
remedy
versus
criminal.
C
Thank
you
further
further
questions
on
the
bill
draft
further
questions,
so
I
guess
two
things
jumped
out
at
me
on
this,
and
this
is
the
state
with
the
the
languages,
bring
the
state
auditor
into
this,
and
there
are
some
other
dates.
So
there's
numerous
dates
between
this
and
some
of
the
other
bills
about
when
something
becomes.
C
You
know
when
they
should
report
by
when
they
get
their
first
notice.
When
they,
you
know
in
the
different
reporting
dates,
I
think
there's
three
dates.
I've
got
them
circled
in
another
draft,
so
I
think
that's
something
we
ought
to
pay
attention
to,
because
the
october
fifth
date
that
this
bill
draft
contemplates
is
in
another
bill
draft
on
november
30th.
As
a
you
know,
a
okay,
you
know
you
really
didn't
do
what
you
were
supposed
to
so
is
there
is
there
you
know
we
just.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
when
we
do.
C
If
we
move
forward
these
bills,
we
align
the
dates
that
make
sense
for
both
communication
between
the
department
of
audit
and
the
department
of
and
the
auditor's
office.
If
they're
going
to
be
responsible,
basically
for
withholding
funds
from
both
agencies
and
other
entities,
the
other
thing
that
I
find
actually
kind
of
interesting
is
that
the
director
may
request
in
those
in
authority
to
remove
a
public
officer.
That's
the
number
five
and
a
lot
of
times.
Those
are
elected
officials.
C
So
here
we
have
an
executive
branch
and
there's
actually
some
of
that
going
on
there
we're
working
with
that
right
now
in
the
state
of
wyoming
in
one
of
our
counties
where
a
public
officers
is
being
there's
concern
about
a
public
officer's
act,
acts
and-
and
that
requires
the
governor
to
be
involved
actually
so
and
make
some
determinations
so
without
a
guilty
verdict
by
the
way,
without
actually
a
resolution
of
criminal
charges
so
anyway.
C
So
I
think
that
that
one
just,
I
think
it's
existing
statutes,
I'm
not
suggesting
we,
but
it's
interesting
in
light
of
an
executive
branch
appointee
saying
we're
going
to
move
a
remove
a
public
officer,
some
of
them
who
may
be
elected
officials
so
anyway,
any
further
discussion
or
questions
on
that.
I
don't
see
chairman
perkins
anymore,
but
we're
we
go
back
to
gallery
view
on
that.
Please,
because
I
really
don't
want
to
look
at
myself.
C
L
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
on
the
staff
comment
on
page
five,
you
know
this
definition
of
an
officer.
You
know:
we've
talked
about
this
concept
of
having
a
training
really,
since
you
know,
I've
been
on
management
audit,
which
is
that's
my
third
year,
and
you
know
I.
I
definitely
think
the
intent
is
to
include
the
board
members,
but
also
at
least
a
portion
of
the
staff,
and
so
my
concern
is
whether
this
really
does
that
I
mean
most
and
and
it's
too
bad,
we
special
districts
have
kind
of
withdrawn
from
attending.
L
They
haven't
been
at
these
last
few
meetings,
but
you
know,
I
think
it
just
depends,
but
a
lot
of
them
will
have
one
or
two
staff
members.
Some
of
them
have
none
and
it's
the
board.
That
does
everything,
but
I
mean
I'm
just
not
sure.
When
you
look
at
the
staff
comment,
it
says
that
an
officer
is
the
chief
administrative
officer
of
a
state
institution
or
state
agency.
So
might
that
include
the
lead
in
the
staff?
The
rest,
I
think,
are
mostly
board
members,
which
is
fine.
L
C
Mrs
birdman,
so
so
I
think
what
the
staff
comment
is
saying
is:
do
we
want
to
be
more
prescriptive
in
statute
about
who
should
be
receiving
the
treatment,
the
training
and
but
that's
the
way?
I
interpret
they're,
giving
us
that
option.
So
you
we
can
be
more
prescriptive,
but
miss
beadwins.
If
you
want
to
respond
to
representative
gray's
query,
that
would
be
great.
D
Mr
chairman,
representative
gray,
that's
exactly
the
purpose
of
this
staff
comment
is
identified
this,
as
perhaps
an
area
you
want
to
flush
out
a
little
more
and
not
rely
on
administrative
rules
to
specify
who
needs
to
attend
these
trainings.
I
didn't
put
the
content
into
the
bill,
though,
because
I
need
more
direction
from
the
committee
of
where
you
want
to
go
with
this
and
perhaps
direction
from
the
department
of
audit
of
who
needs
to
be
included.
L
You,
mr
I
mean
I
interpret
the
staff
comment,
a
little
different.
I
mean
I
understand
what
you're
saying,
but
I
think
you're
just
laying
out
the
rule
which
is
and
and
so
I'm
asking
a
question,
does
this
rule?
Maybe
it's
a
question
for
the
department
of
audit
is
the
chief
administrative
officer
of
a
state
institution
or
state
agency,
probably
the
lead
staff
person
within
the
office,
because
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
that.
L
C
Thank
you
very
much
and
we'll
get
the
department
up
there
so
make
a
note
of
that
department.
Folks,
please
and
madam
monitor,
if
you
have
comments
on
it
later,
we
can
take
those
comments
as
well
all
right.
Further
questions
on
this
particular
bill.
Further
questions
comments
on
this
particular
bill
from
the
committee
and
then
we'll
go
to
public
comment.
Ms
sherwood.
K
C
C
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
think
you
know
and
if
the
state
auditor's
there
she
may,
she
may
have
some
information
on
that,
but
ultimately,
if,
if
if
it
can
be
dispersed
it's
going
to
be
held
by
the
dispersing
office,
whether
that's
a
state,
treasurer
or
a
you
know
or
other
entity,
but
it's
going
to
be
held
by
that
office
in
suspense
and
it
might-
and
so
you
know
it's
it's
one
of
those.
It's
a
it's
a.
I
I
think
right
now
we're
going
to
find
it's
a
gap
that
we
need
to
deal
with
in
some
in
some
regard.
You
know
some
of
that
stuff
will
just
revert
by
the
nature
of
the
grant
or
the
fund,
but
I
I
think
generally,
what
you
have
is
a
prohibition
against.
If
I
read
that
right,
it's
a
it's
a
you
know
this:
it's
a
prohibition
against
disbursement
and
in
some
cases
that's
going
to
be
tax
monies
that's
been
collected
from
special
district
or
female
fees
from
special
districts,
that's
under
their
own
taxing
authority.
C
D
Mr
chairman,
I've
thought
about
it
a
little
more.
I
do
think
you
know
my
my
experience.
I've
very
experienced
with
how
water
development
grants
work
and
those
are
in
a
bill
and
they're,
appropriated
and
there's
language
in
the
bill
that
says
if
the
money
is
unexpected,
it
reverts
back
at
the
end
of
whatever
the
term
is
and
those
situations
which
I
know
this
was
looking
at
state
grants
and
in
that
fact
sheet
we
provided
last
year
there
were
substantial
water
development
dollars
going.
Those
would
sit
in
the
water
development
counts
until
they
reverted
back.
C
Thank
you
very
much
all
right.
Further
questions
on
this
bill
draft
we'll
proceed
to
the
next
bill
draft
and
then
we're
going
to
get
our
list
of
ex
our
attending
experts
to
come
up
and
walk
through
any
questions
that
they
may
have
heard
as
we
go
so
ms
beaudoin's,
if
we'll
go
on
to
with
no
further
questions
from
the
committee,
we'll
go
on
to
the
final
bill
draft
in
this
little
cadre
of
bills,.
I
I
I
may
please
or
abigail,
and-
and
I
think
it
you
know
in
talking
about
a
special
improvement
service,
district
or
other
district,
that
that
raises
revenue
from
its
elect
its
electors
or
other
other
property
owners.
Whatever
that
may
be
in
there,
I'm
wondering
you
know,
instead
of
all
we're
doing
is
preventing
disbursement.
I
If
I
guess
that
what
happens
if
they're
dissolved,
I
think
that
their
power
to
to
assess
and
levy
and
collect
those
taxes
you
know
is,
is
take
taken
care
of,
but
in
the
event
that
you
end
up
kind
of
in
no
man's
land,
betwixt
them
between,
where
you
have
where
the
the
county
commission
has
not
dissolved
it,
yet
they
can't
disperse.
But
yet
the
tax
authority
continues
to
collect
the
assessments
or,
or
whatever
is
happening
in
that
special
district
is
is,
is?
I
Is
it
appropriate
to
to
suspend
the
ability
to
collect
that
or
have
you
given
that
any
thought
about
how
that
may
work
under
those
circumstances
where
you're,
you're
actually
imposing
or
you're
collecting?
You
still
have
a
collecting
authority,
but
you
can't
have
any
disbursement
authority.
Ms
burdewins.
D
Mr
chairman,
senator
perkins,
I
think
one
clarification
is
this
is
not
nothing.
We're
doing,
is
touching
the
money
they're
raising
themselves,
we're
only
controlling
the
entities
that
might
control
the
funding
for
the
district,
whether
that
you
know
that
we
certify
to
the
county
treasurer
that
they
don't
make
disbursements
that's
already
in
statute.
I
You
know
what
happens.
Is
this
stuff
will
just
be
end
up
being
held
in
the
county
commissioner's
office
or
the
county
treasurer's
office?
Excuse
me,
and
I
see
senator
garu
now
is
awake,
but
anyway
he
may
have
he
as
a
former
county
commissioner.
He
may
have
some
insight
on
this
as
well.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
C
Thank
you,
so
I
do
think
that
we
are,
I
mean
this
is
expanding,
maybe
but
the
potential
scope
of
a
of
the
discussion
to
other
funds
etc
and
that's
completely
appropriate.
If
the
committee
wants
to
pursue
that
it,
certainly
it
certainly
gives
which
will
require
staff
to
do
more
work
and
understanding
of
the
the
various
components
of
the
statute.
So
senator
bouchard
question.
N
Mr
chairman,
thank
you
as
I
look
at
all
of
this
as
it
comes
together,
I
mean
it
looks
really
simplistic
to
me.
I
mean
what
we're
doing
is
we're
saying
you
have
so
much
time
to
comply
after
you
assume
office
and
if
you
don't
comply,
these
are
the
things
that
take
place.
So
it
looks
to
me
like
it's,
it's
a
it's.
The
stick
either
you're
going
to
do
this
or
this
is
what
happens.
N
I
don't
think
it's
as
broad
as
what
some
of
the
things
we're
worrying
about
here
and
since
we
haven't
really
went
too
deep
into
how
we
would
do
anything
with
the
funds
anyway,
it's
just
part
of
the
stick.
So
that's
how
I'm
reading
this
could.
Could
you
verify
that
with
me.
D
Chairman
senator
bouchard,
this
is
definitely
trying
to
put
an
enforcement
mechanism
into
this
statute
and
then,
whether
you
call
it
a
carrot
or
stick
for
the
training,
it's
a
carrot
up
front,
but
then
there's
a
stick.
I
guess
on
the
back
end,
it
doesn't
get
into
all
the
nitty
gritty
details
of
what
districts
are
doing
with
their
money
and
all
of
that
and
so
that,
if
the
committee
wants
to
go
down
that
road,
that's.
B
C
Think
that
was
the
point
I
think
I
think
senator
bouchard's
assessment
is
accurate.
This
is
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish
and
some
of
the
the
good
comments
that
are
being
made
about.
Are
we
getting
to
the
right
people,
which
was
representative
gray's
point
senator
perkins
saying?
Are
we
dealing
with
the
the
company,
all
the
monies
and
all
the
authorities?
I
think
those
are
those
are
additional
questions
that
are
relative
questions.
How
far
does
this
committee?
How?
How
expansive
does
this
committee
want
to
be
in
that
discussion?
A
follow-up
senator
burchard.
N
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
think
that
we
could
look
at
this
and
try
to
fix
every
little
thing
that
we
can
think
of,
but
I
think
we
could
also
do
that.
The
following
session,
I
mean,
I
think,
we've
come
a
long
way
with
this,
even
looking
at
this
issue,
because
it
wasn't
an
existent
and
so
and
it
is
the
problem
where
we
have
people
that
make
decisions
that
get
elected
or
even
or
they're
in
office.
N
N
I
think
that
that
would
be.
The
only
thing
is
make
sure
that
the
business
manager,
if
that's
the
person,
doing
that
role,
because
you
have
seen
that
somebody
with
a
business
manager
classification
in
in
state
government
usually
takes
that
role
a
lot
of
time.
So
that
would
be
the
only
other
thing.
I
would
say
if
there's
a
cfo
and
a
business
manager,
maybe
they
would
be
included,
but
I
don't
think
we
have
to
go
down
the
road
of
everybody,
that's
in
the
office
or
even
expand
on
that
the
buck's
going
to
have
to
stop
somewhere.
C
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
further
discussion
on
this
bill
draft
for
the
discussion
and
we
look
like
I
said
we
will
take
public
comment
after
we
kind
of
walk
through
all
three
build
drafts.
C
Invite
the
department
of
audit,
certainly
the
state
auditors
in
the
room
and
anybody
else,
and
there
was
some
thoughts
representative
grey
referred
to
the
special
districts.
Folks
aren't
here
they
are
actually
planning
on
testifying
they're
going
to
be
joining
us
via
zoom.
I
think
there
are
maybe
six
people
that
have
indicated
they're
going
to
provide
comments.
So
just
so,
the
public
doesn't
think
that
the
room
is
empty.
C
The
room
there
are
folks
in
this
room
physically,
and
then
we
also
have
the
virtual
option
as
well
and
folks
are
intending
to
participate
in
that
manner,
so
miss
bodawins.
If
I
think
we
are
move
on
from
that
bill
and
we'll
go
to
draft
78
version,
three
is
the
version,
not
at
least
the
version
I
have
before
me.
That
seems
to
be
accurate.
So
if
you'll
proceed
with
that.
D
Mr
chairman,
this
is
the
citizen
suit
bill.
So
what
this
is?
What
this
does
is
we
looked
at
kind
of
those
three
other
states
and
they
all
did
it
slightly
different.
So
what
I
did
for
this
one
is
it's
a
mandamus
action.
Wyoming
has
mandamus
statutes,
they're
from
1886
they're,
very,
very
old,
but
because
that
we
have
those
statutes
we're
going
to
use
that
mechanism.
I
can't
speak
to
how
well
it
works,
but
that's
what
we
have.
D
We
haven't
studied
the
mandema
statutes
yet
so
we
would
refer
these
cases
to
be
conducted
under
those
statutes,
and
so
it's
a
if
it
one
of
these
entities-
and
you
see
that
same
language,
the
16
125
c-
are
specified
in
1612.
202A
failed
to
comply
with
the
mid
mandatory
reporting
requirement
contained
in
the
507
507
a7.
D
If
a
judgment
is
given
in
favor
of
the
taxpayer
instituting
the
action,
whereas
the
court
finds
that,
yes,
you
had
a
mandatory
duty,
then
the
taxpayer
can
receive
attorney
fees
and
then
the
mandamus
statutes
already
give
the
taxpayer
costs.
So
this
would
be
giving
them
attorney
fees
as
well.
D
One
staff
comment
I
put
in
here
is
that
each
of
the
states
we
looked
at
that
had
this
citizen
action.
They
did
it
slightly
different
in
terms
of
arizona
authorizes.
The
court
to
award
costs
and
attorney
fees,
montana
required
the
court
to
award
cost
attorney
fees
and
then
nebraska
actually
made
the
officers
individually
liable.
So
it
wouldn't
be
the
district
who's
paying
that
it'd
be
the
person
who
didn't
file.
The
report,
which
is
an
interesting,
take
that's
different
than
the
other
states.
D
So,
and
I
know
a
question
was
raised
at
the
last
meeting
regarding-
is
anybody
using
these?
In
those
other
states,
and
so
carla
smith
went
ahead
and
called
up
some
of
the
states,
and
she
can
report
that
if
you
would
like
that
information.
C
G
Yeah
be
helpful
for
me
as
ellie
says,
not
larry
he's
going
a
little
bit
more
detail
is
what
you
know.
What
mandanis
means
how's
that
work.
Your
mission
is
very
old,
but
maybe
just
a
little
bit
more
detail
be
healthy.
C
D
Mr
chairman,
it's
funny
you
say
that,
because,
as
a
lawyer,
I
had
to
take
a
crash
course
and
what
I'm
in
davis
action
is
it's
not
something
I've
ever
had
to
work
with,
but
basically
it's
an
action
when
you
don't
have
any
other
administrative
remedies
or
other
remedies
that
law
you
can
file
to
compel
a
governmental
entity
typically
to
compel
them
to
complete
a
non-discretionary,
non-discretionary
ministerial
task,
and
so
what
this
statute
is
doing
is
authorizing
standing
to
bring
those
suits
generally,
as
a
taxpayer,
you
can't
just
go
bring
lawsuits
because
you
pay
taxes,
but
this
would
be
authorizing
this
particular
type
of
suit
to
compel
the
filing
of
the
report.
D
It
has
to
be
a
ministerial
thing
that
it's
non-discretionary,
so
I
mean
the
statute's
pretty
clear.
You
shall
file
a
report,
and
so
you
would
bring
this
action
then,
to
tell
the
court
to
go.
Tell
this
the
public
officer
that
yes,
please
file.
Here's
a
court
order
file.
The
report.
C
D
Mr
chairman,
this
I've
seen
when
I
looked
at
kind
of
the
annotations
in
case
law
for
mandamus
actions,
water
commissioners
or
some.
They
use
this
action
to
compel
the
water
conditioner
to
give
you
so
much
water.
I
didn't
look
at
to
whether
those
were
appropriate
uses
of
that.
D
I
can't
I
don't
remember
how
the
cases
came
out,
but
I
know
this
action
was
used
in
terms
of
filing
those,
but
a
lot
of
the
case
law
comes
down
to
whether
it's
a
non-discretionary
act
and
then,
whether
it's
something
if
there's
no
other
remedy
like
if
there's
no.
If
there's
you
know
if
we
were
to
start
putting
other
remedies
in
statute
to
where
you
here's.
What
department
of
audit
does
in
terms
of
you
didn't
file
your
report,
then
you
couldn't
bring
in
mandamus
action.
N
Well,
mr
chairman,
I
just
kind
of
have
a
statement
because
I
I
mean
I
know
that
a
writ
of
mandates
and
how
that
works.
I
I
know
that
it's
mostly
used
in
federal
court.
A
lot.
I
don't
know
whether
it's
used
in
local
courts
as
much,
but
to
give
the
committee
example
the
previous
auditor.
Actually
there
was
remember
when
we
were
doing
the
they
were
trying
to
access
what
the
checkbook
was
in
what
was
in
the
checkbook,
and
there
were
two
entities
on
the
outside
that
agreed
with
the
state
auditor
that
they
would
give.
N
I
think
it
was
7
500
bucks
I
mean
I
may
be
off
on
that
figure.
But
what
happened
is
they
said?
Well,
you
you
pay
us
7,
500
and
we'll
give
you
the
data.
Well,
they
started
slow,
walking
the
data
out,
so
it
was
taking
so
long.
So,
basically,
what
happened
is
they
did
a
writ
of
mendeth
with
the
court
saying
that
you
told
us,
you
would
do
this
and
now
you
won't
perform
so
we're
asking
the
court
for
relief
to
make
them
do
it.
C
Chairman,
I'm
gonna
go
with
senator
boner
right
here
as
mike
is
on
and
then
we'll
go
to
senator.
G
Perkins
senator
boehner,
hey
yeah
sharon.
I
just
said
that
a
little
bit
of
information
is
helpful.
Just
gives
me
some
needs
to
know
that
it
is
something
that's
in
fact
used
and
I
get
nervous
when
you
start
talking
about
you
know.
References
to
territorial
days,
just
wanna
make
sure
it's
something
better
as
a
non-lawyer
that
our
judicial
system
is
well-versed
and
I'm
sure
that
they
are.
But
it's
good
to
hear.
I
Much
senator
perkins,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
I'll,
just
I'll
just
harken
back
to
my
law
school
days
and
and-
and
you
know
just
as
further
explanation.
Mr
chairman,
I
read
a
writ
of
mandamus
is
the
order
from
the
court
that
comes
back,
so
senator
bouchard
is
is
exactly
right.
It's
it's
the
order.
The
red
is
the
is
the
order
issued
from
the
court.
If
you,
if
you
want
to
think
about
it
just
recently,
we
there
was.
I
There
was
an
example
of
an
injunction
against
the
federal
government
for
against
its
stay
on
on
lease
leasing,
federal
leasing
on
both
onshore
and
offshore
federal
leasing
of
oil
and
gas.
Coal
leases,
if
you
think
about
a
mandamus,
is
just
the
opposite
of
an
injunction
and
an
injunction.
Is
the
court
issues
that
order
that
in
joins
or
stop
someone
from
doing
this?
A
mandate
rid
of
mandamus
or
mandamus
action
is
just
the
opposite.
I
C
Thank
you
very
much,
and
it's
good
to
know
that
those
stone
tablets
that
you
had
when
you
were
in
law
school
still
come
in
handy.
So
we
thank
you
for
your
counsel
appreciate
it.
So
I
think
miss
ms
smith
is
with
us
now
miss
carla
and
if
you
would
kind
of
give
us
a
rundown
on
what
the
research
you
found
how
this
may
be
used
in
other
states.
O
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
members.
This
will
be
pretty
quick
because
there
wasn't
a
whole
lot
to
find
these
actions
are
rather
new.
If
you
remember,
this
was
from
the
october
2020
report
that
we
did
on
the
audit
enforcements
where
there,
as
abby
stated,
the
three
states,
arizona,
montana
and
nebraska
had
these
kinds
of
actions.
O
So
I
followed
up,
if
you
remember
in
arizona
the
the
failure
to
to
provide
the
information
in
a
timely
manner
may
result
in
the
attorney
general
filing
a
court
petition
to
compel
on
the
political
subdivision
to
comply,
and
they
call
it
injunctive
relief
there.
O
But
it
is
the
the
inverse
of
the
stopping
it's
the
to
the
mandamus
to
make
to
compel
them
to
go
forward
with
a
special
action
proceeding
and
then
the
taxpayers
residing
in
the
district,
the
board
of
supervisors
or
their
county
treasurer
may
petition
the
court
to
show
cause
why
the
district
did
not
submit
the
required
audit
and
financial
information.
So
I
contacted
the
auditor
general
there
and
they
said.
O
Oh
no,
we
haven't
dealt
with
this
talked
to
the
director
of
the
county
supervisors
association
and
that
director
offered
to
do
a
survey
of
their
counties
and
of
the
15
that
he
surveyed
there
were
only
five
responses,
but
he
none
of
the
responses
indicated
that
they
had
the
need
to
go
forward
with
this,
and
he
said
that
that
basically
they
report
that
they
receive
the
audits
they
should
receive,
and
taxpayers
have
not
petitioned
for
an
audit
or
financial
reviews
of
the
districts.
O
He
also
indicated
that
they
have
several
exemptions
to
the
statute
that
I
cited
for
this
and
he
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
were
aware
of
some
of
the
intricacies
or
nuances
with
that,
so
that
the
number
of
special
districts
that
fall
under
this
this
law
are
reduced.
O
Some
of
the
exemptions
are
that
the
county
improvement
districts,
of
which
he
said
there
are
many.
Are
they
report
directly
to
the
board
of
supervisors,
and
so
because
they
they're
overseen
in
that
that
realm?
That?
There's
probably
you
know
they
don't
follow
under
this,
but
they
have
that
level
of
oversight.
He
also
said
that
also
their
other
boards
of
supervisors.
O
The
board
of
supervisors
also
directly
oversees
flood
health
jail
park,
maintenance
and
tv
districts.
Yes,
they
do
have
a
tb
district
and
the
audits
are
conducted
along
with
county
financial
reporting.
He
said
that
the
biggest
entity
that
report
that
this
legislation
covers
are
the
fire
districts
and
they
have
quite
a
few
of
those
and
he
said,
but
they
also
fall
under
another
regulation
that
requires
them
to
present
the
results
of
the
audit
to
the
district
board
in
a
public
meeting,
so
they
can't
just
have
it.
O
They
have
to
have
it
and
present
it,
and
they're
also
required
now
to
publish
their
budget
and
expenditures
on
their
websites,
and
he
said
so
that
that's
created
a
lot
more
transparency
for
them.
Then
the
next
state
was
montana
and
with
that
one.
If
the
entity,
if
within
two
years
of
the
applicable
deadline,
residents,
taxpayers
in
the
district
or
the
district,
may
bring
a
private
cause
of
action
against
the
local
government
entity
for
failure
to
comply
with
the
local
government's
fiduciary
requirements
and
montana
has
they.
O
They
said
that
that
nobody
has
met
the
two-year
requirement
yet,
and
they
had
also
put
kind
of
like
a
hold
on
that,
because
they
were
trying
to
work
out
in
their
statutes
a
rule
or
a
corrective
action
plan
where
they
would
detail
exactly
what
steps
they
would
do
to
bring
these
people
back
into
these
entities.
Excuse
me
back
into
compliance
and
they
just
finished
that
and
they
just
it
just
passed.
So
nobody
has
met
that
two-year
failure
to
report
or
failure
to
comply
aspect
yet,
but
they
do
have
on
their
website.
O
They
have
a
form
that
says
application
for
review
a
claim
against
a
local
government
entity,
and
in
this
form
it
cites
the
the
laws
and
then
it
tells
then
you
have
to
check
a
box
to
show
that
you
are
that
your
that
you
meet
the
requirements
to
file
that
you
have
jurisdiction.
You
know
I
pay
property
taxes,
I'm
elected
officer
in
the
local
taxing
jurisdiction.
O
O
You
can
file
claim
against
a
submission
of
a
county
city,
town
annual
operating
budget,
the
department
of
audit
or
against
the
annual
financial
report,
or
about
the
completion
or
submission
of
a
local
audit
or
financial
review,
or
a
resolution
of
a
significant
audit
finding.
So
they
allow
these
kinds
of
actions
to
be
filed,
a
claim
against
so
they're
set
up
when
for
when
their
entities
really
do
hit.
O
That
two-year
mark
the
final
one,
if
I
may,
is
the
nebraska
and
if
you
recall
they
just
passed
their
legislation
last
session,
that
allowed
action
against
mendama's
action
against
the
municipal
authorities
that
require
the
municipality
to
proceed
to
have
an
audit
conducted.
O
Now
they
currently
just
now
passed
additional
legislation
that
they
believe
will
help
with
the
stick
aspect
by
requiring
any
entity
that
is
late
past
the
due
date
to
pay
a
twenty
dollar
per
day,
fine
now
late
fee,
as
they
call
it
up
to
a
total
of
two
thousand
dollars
and
that
two
thousand
dollars
will
go
towards
trying
to
to
make
him
into
the
enforcement
efforts
against
the
the
entity.
So
they
haven't
reached
that
window
yet
where
they
have
any
eligible
claims.
O
C
Thank
you
very
much
appreciate
that,
so
at
twenty
dollars
a
day
up
to
two
thousand,
you
could
not
comply
for
two
thousand
for
a
thousand
days
or
a
hundred
days.
You
know
anyway,
do
the
math,
but
there's
still
a
timeline,
and
it's
there's
a
maximum.
So
folks
could
just
say:
I'm
not
going
to
comply
period
and
pay
the
fine
and
I'll
do
it
sounds
at
least
in
nebraska
all
right,
any
any
questions
on
any
of
that
from
miss
carla.
C
C
Thank
you
for
joining
us
further
questions.
Further
discussions
on
this
bill
draft
questions
from
the
committee
questions
from
the
committee.
I
guess
my
question
is:
is
the
term
taxpayer
taxpayer
could
be
any
tax
I
mean?
Is
that
any
tax
or
is
that
tax
specific?
To
that?
Does
that
specify
they
have
to
pay
a
tax
specific
to
the
district
or
entity
that
they
are
asking
for
the
information
from
so
you
know,
and
so
anyway?
So
is
there
any
any
thought
on
that
I
mean.
C
Maybe
you
use
that
term
because
it's
used
elsewhere
in
statute,
but
my
question
is:
I'm
a
taxpayer,
but
I
don't
actually
I'm
not
part
of
a
particular
improvement
district.
I
would
have
no
standing
in
that
or
would
I
have
standing
and
how
do?
How
do
you,
who
makes
the
determination
of
whether
you're
a
taxpayer?
I
assume
it's
a
court
but
miss
beaudoin's.
Any
thoughts
on
that.
D
Mr
chairman,
I
think
that's
probably
a
great
area
that
needs
to
be
fleshed
out
to
say
it
says
taxpayer
of
the
specific
district
to
have
standing
to
bring
that
action.
So
you're,
not
you
know
you
might.
I
think
you'd
almost
have
to
be
with
if
you're,
within
the
bounds
of
the
district,
you
probably
are
a
taxpayer
just
by
generally
how
the
districts
are
set
up.
D
People
that
live
within
the
boundaries
pay
the
tax,
but
if
there
was
someone
where
perhaps
it
was
a
fee
based
district
and
you
aren't
actually
using
the
services
or
paying
the
fee,
but
you
I
don't
know
so
it
might
be
something
worth
clarifying.
C
C
D
Mr
chairman,
I
think
it
it's
a
rhetorical
question
because
it
is
ambiguous
and
probably
should
be
clarified
to
be
whatever
the
committee's
intent
is.
But
I
do
agree
with
you
that
it's
not
clear.
C
Okay,
thank
you.
Are
there
questions
further
questions
from
the
committee
representative
gray?
This
was
your
bill
draft
request
and
there's
no
questions.
It's
a
perfect
bill
draft,
apparently
all
right.
Thank
you
so
so,
we'll
now,
I
think
we'll
open
it
up
for
see.
E
E
L
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
this
nebraska
statute,
that's
referred
to
in
in
the
staff
comment.
Do
you
have
that
I,
I
guess
you're
saying
arizona
is
in
line
and
montana
is
in
line
with
what
we're
trying
to
do
here,
but
I'm
just
curious.
I
would
like
to
see
that
language.
Do
you?
Do
you
have
it.
D
C
C
Provide
that
I
think
that
there's
also
an
interesting
question
when
I
saw
that
and
heard
miss
smith's
testimony.
You
know
we
also
have
a
government
immunity
clause
in
the
wyoming
too
so
we'd
have
to.
There
would
have
to
be
an
interaction
with
that
as
well,
because
as
you're
acting
in
an
official
capacity,
you
you
enjoy
some
level
of
immunity
by
by
statute,
and
maybe
even
constitutionally
so
anyway,
but
so
there's
there's
an
interaction
with
current
statute
that
have
to
be
distressed
and
that
miss
borderlands.
C
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
further
questions
from
the
committee
on
this
bill
draft.
Thank
you
very
much
abigail
for
walking
us
through
those
bill
drafts.
So
now
we're
going
to
take
public
comment
and,
as
tradition
I'll,
certainly
give
our
electeds,
who
are
here
if
they
have
any
comment
on
any
of
these
bill
drafts,
and
so
auditor
racine
is.
That
is
you
if
you
would
like
to
make
any
comments
on
any
of
these
items?
C
Please,
as
you
do
so
refer
to
the
bill
or
the
bill
draft
number
or
something,
so
we
make
sure
we're
all
on
the
same
bill
and
if
you
think,
there's
interactions
between
the
different
bills
that
give
you
pause
as
well,
because
there
are
some
interactions.
I
believe
that
need
to
be
kept
in
mind.
Please
point
those
out.
So
madame
auditor.
F
Mr
chairman,
thank
you
and
I
I
just
have
some
very,
very
brief
comments
on
22
lso
77,
so
the
fiscal
training
and
enforcement
of
financial
reporting
laws.
F
I
I
don't
have
any
comments
or
concerns
on
the
purpose
or
the
interaction
with
my
office
in
the
bill
and
in
fact,
in
all
honesty,
I'm
I'm
coming
at
a
few
of
these
questions
from
my
my
former
position
as
a
cfo
just
for
your
consideration,
so
on
page
2
line
13,
it
says
that,
while
starting
on
line
12,
all
state
agencies
and
boards
shall
require
any
risk
of
of
grants
or
funds,
and
so
I
I
guess
my
question
or
my
concern
would
be
that
that
may
create
a
lot
of
confusion
for
entities
that
receive
state
monies
that
are
not
public
entities
there
may
be
like
do
you
know
we
we
give
money
to
a
lot
of
non-public
entities,
so
I
I
think
that
might
be
a
good
opportunity
for
some
clarification.
F
F
Line
six,
and
so
this
is
the
the
direction
that
state
agencies
or
boards
shall
not
disperse
or
continue
to
to
disperse
any
state
grants
or
funds.
F
Now
the
bad
news
is,
I
don't
have
a
perfect
solution
or
suggestion,
but
any
clarification
there,
I
think,
would
be
very,
very
welcome
to
agencies.
You
know,
for
example,
sometimes
agency
a
will
get
federal
funds
and
give
them
to
another
agency,
and
I
I
you
know
at
that
point:
are
they
still
federal
funds
because
they're
only
recorded
federal
funds
once
in
the
accounting
system,
and
then
they
become
state
funds?
I
I
think
that
little
piece
right
there
just
could
get
a
bit
muddy,
so
any
any
further
direction
as
to
what
your
intent
is.
C
Thank
you,
madam
monitor,
so
to
me,
state
ref
applies
to
both
grants
and
funds
in
that
sentence
on
on
page
on
line
six
of
that
page,
what
you're
saying
is
you
think
funds
without
the
qualifier
of
state
should
be?
There
should
be
more
clarification
there,
or
am
I
misunderstanding.
Thank
you.
C
P
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
So
auditor
racine
is
so
you
said
that
we
give
a
lot
of
money
to
non-public
entities,
and
I
was
wondering
if
you
might
be
able
to
give
some
examples
and
how
that
doesn't
violate
article
16,
section
7.
F
Mr
chairman,
senator
james,
so
there
are.
F
Gosh
payments
to
any
it
vendors
payments
to
any
nonprofits
payments
to
any
medicaid
providers,
payments
to
essentially
anything
that's
not
a
government
would
be
someone
who
does
not
have
to
comply
with
that
statute.
Who
that's
referred
to
in
the
department
of
audit.
C
D
Mr
chairman,
just
senator
james,
the
constitutional
requirement
is
you.
It
has
to
be.
If
there's
an
exchange
in
consideration.
Basically,
we
can
give
money
to
private
entities
as
long
as
the
state's
receiving
something
so
state
auditor
seniors
would
be
talking
about
payments,
because
the
state
has
received
something
in
return.
It
wouldn't.
C
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
senator
james,
any
other
questions
for
the
state
auditor
on
her
comments
on
her
suggestions
and
comments,
questions
from
the
committee
all
right.
Thank
you.
Madame
auditor,
we
we
appreciate
your
suggestions,
I'll
say
now.
We
have
department
of
audit.
We
have
three
bills
before
us
and
we
welcome
you
and
I
see
the
insurance
commissioners
here
was
well,
so
maybe
he
wants
to
comment
on
these
bills
too,
like
no.
He
he
refuses
profusely
to
he's.
Not
here
he's
for
something
else.
C
So
welcome
to
our
department
of
audit
friends,
please
introduce
yourselves
and
proceed
and,
as
you
give
comments,
please
refer
us
general
comments,
certainly,
but
if
there's
specific
comments
to
bills
refers
to
which
bill
you're.
Speaking
of
thank
you,
please
proceed.
Q
Good
morning,
mr
chairman,
members
of
the
committee,
justin
chavis
public
funds,
administrator
for
the
department
of
audit,
I
have
with
me
rich
cummings,
he's
our
audit
manager
for
our
state
and
local
government
audit
section
just
a
couple
of
comments
to
follow
up
on
representative
gray's
questions
on
what
would
constitute
a
public
officer
on
the
training
bill.
Q
So
typically,
what
we
see
for
local
governments,
the
chief
administrative
officer
that
is
directly
responsible
for
handling
the
accounts,
would
be
the
clerk
treasurer.
I
think
that
part
of
it
would
be
pretty
clear
for
us.
I
think
what
would
be
less
clear
with
our
definition
of
a
public
officer
includes
the
oversight
body,
but
with
the
bill
language
saying
those
directly
responsible
for
handling
the
accounts.
Q
Q
The
root
cause
of
some
of
our
audit
findings
is
a
lack
of
oversight
by
that
governing
body
and
then
particularly
when
you
start
getting
into
the
frauds
that
we
assist
on
almost
always.
There
was
a
lack
of
oversight
that
allowed
that
to
happen,
and
it
could
be
that
the
governing
body
didn't
know
that
they
needed
to
provide
oversight.
It
could
be,
they
didn't
know
what
oversight
or
how
to
provide
it,
and
we've
even
had
a
couple
instances
where
they've
essentially
been
talked
out
of
providing
the
oversight.
Q
So
I
think
some
clarity
there
might
be
beneficial
as
to
who
exactly
the
training
would
apply
to
and
then
some
follow-up
on
some
of
the
enforcement
on
the
non-compliance.
Q
Typically,
our
our
experience
has
been
that
when
any
funds
are
withheld
that
pretty
quickly
gets
entities
into
compliance,
so
with
the
conversation
about
you
know,
withholding
distributions
altering
or
pausing
the
authority
to
collect.
Usually
we
see
if
you
withhold
funds,
they
they
come
into
compliance
pretty
quickly.
Q
So
I
think
that's
all
the
comments
we
have
unless
you
have
any
other
questions.
C
C
You
have
authority
now,
and
this
bill
of
course,
extends
greater
authority
for
training
requirements
etc
to
promulgate
rules.
That
would
you
could
you
could
write
into
the
rules
who
those
responsible
parties
are.
So
I
think
the
question
is
is
and-
and
the
question
posed
by
ms
beaudoin's
in
the
staff
comment
is:
do
you
want
the
legislature
to
be
more
prescriptive
about
who
you
should
who
should
be
included
in
the
training
or
do
you
or
do
you
think,
there's
a
place
for
giving
some
latitude
to
the
department
and
maybe
there's
a
combination?
C
We
say
at
least
the
principal
and
you
say
and
and
others
identified
by
the
department
and
then
the
department
can
say
well,
we
need
we
need
these
few,
more
or
additionals.
So
any
thoughts
on
that,
because
I
don't
want
us
to
do
something
prescriptive
and
then
actually
not
serve
the
ultimate
purpose
and
of
course
we
have
reservations
about
just
giving
free
license
as
well.
So
any
thoughts
on
you
know
how
we
can
strike
that
balance
of
providing
good
direction,
but
also
giving
you
some
latitude.
Q
Mr
chairman,
yes,
I
I
think
we'd
be
comfortable
either
way
through
through
rules
or
through
statute.
My
comment
was
gonna,
be
it
would
depend
on
your
comfort
level
with
with
us
promulgating
it
through
rules,
but
I
think
we'd
be
comfortable
either.
E
L
L
That
definition
does
this
I
mean
because
it
already,
it
probably
interacts
already
with
a
lot
of
the
other
statutes
this
this
officer
definition
right
because
it's
there
so
would
would
it
include
someone
on
the
staff
if
a
special
district
has
the
staff?
In
your
opinion,
this
this
chief
administrative
officer
of
a
state
institution
or
state
agency,.
Q
What's
the
challenge,
mr
chairman,
representative
gray,
I
think
it
would,
if
they're
handling
the
accounts
of
of
the
special
district,
I
would
think
it
would
cover
them.
C
Thank
you.
So
the
alternate
was,
if
we
put
something
in
statute,
said
the
the
responsible
entity,
I.e
the
entire
board
and
those
that
they
appoint
for
specific
duties
for
fiscal
responsibility.
So
we
we
could.
Actually
we
could
actually,
as
the
legislature
say,
the
entity
has
to
be
somewhat
trained
and
so
does
the
person
that
they
designate
as
their
cfo
or
whatever
treasurer
or
whatever.
Is
that
an
approach,
or
am
I
getting
too
far
in
the
weeds?
Mr
chairman,
I
think
that
that.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
would
just
be
kind
of
curious
and
I
don't
think
anybody
in
this
room,
maybe
when
we
hear
from
the
special
districts
themselves,
might
have
some
understanding
of
this,
but
I'd
be
kind
of
curious
as
to
how
many
of
these
special
districts
actually
have
that
level
of
staff.
I
know
a
lot
of
them
work
on
a
mostly
a
volunteer
basis
and
and
maybe
have
a
few
hours
to
give.
But
two
to
representative
grace
comments.
H
I
mean
if
you've
got
somebody
who's,
not
elected
and
not
considered
the
chief
person
in
the
in
the
agency,
but
they
dedicate
a
few
hours,
but
they're
writing
the
checks.
I
think
they
certainly
need
to
be
covered
underneath
this
and
certainly
need
to
have
that
type
of
information.
But
maybe
when
we
hear
from
the
special
districts
themselves,
I
would
just
I'm
kind
of
hard-pressed
to
think
of
there's.
Every
single
special
district
in
this
state
has
a
a
certain
staff
person
that
this
would
qualify
for
beyond
the
chief
person.
That's
name
so.
L
You,
mr
sherman,
I
did
have
one
other
question,
so
the
training
itself,
I'm
trying
to
remember.
I
think
we
talked
about
this,
the
last
meeting,
so
I
I
think
you
said
there
are
there's
already
something
posted
online
that
would
satisfy
this
requirement.
How
long
is
it?
Is
there
something
posted
online?
L
Q
Representative
gray,
I
think
a
lot
of
the
associations,
if
you
will
provide
training
and
then
will
ask
us
to
come
present
at
those
trainings,
so
conservation,
districts,
sweden,
pests,
so
we'll
will
attend
those
and
provide
training
as
far
as
what
those
associations
might
have
up
on
their
websites
available,
I'm
not
sure
on
our
website.
We
have
an
instructional
video
for
submitting
budgets
that
are
required
to
come
to
us.
So
that's
probably
a
half
an
hour-ish
video,
but
most
of
it.
Q
L
Q
Mr
chairman,
representative
gray,
I
think
we
could
do
an
instructional
video
in
terms
of
the
census
reports
that
have
to
come
to
us
the
follow-up
paperwork
just
like
we
have
for
our
budget
video.
I
don't
think
we
wouldn't
require
any
additional
staff
to
do
that.
I
think
that
would
be
something
we
could
do
fairly
easily.
C
C
Oh
see,
the
dog
showed
up
right
there
right
on
cue
right
in
the
doorway
all
right
all
right.
Thank
you
very
much,
gentlemen,
appreciate
you
being
here
all
right,
so
now
we
will
any
other
agencies.
I've
already
eliminated
the
department
of
insurance.
They
do
not
want
to
testify
someone
behind
the
pillar
over
here
and
I
can't
tell
who
it
is
or
if
they're
testifying
for
all
right.
C
If
you
would
like
to
testify
to
these
any
of
these
three
bills,
that
would
be
great,
come
forth
and
introduce
yourselves
all
right.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
appreciate
it.
No
all
right
so
now
we're
going
to
go
to
public
comment
on
any
of
these
three
bills
that
are
before
us
again
we're
in
the
department
of
audit
nine
o'clock
item.
It
has
75
77
and
78
three
bills
that
were
bill
drafts
and
so
amanda,
who
would
who
would
we
start
with,
is
miss
lanta.
C
A
R
I'm
not
on
the
phone,
but
I
again
having
some
connection
problems,
but
I
will
try
to
resolve
that
as
we're
talking.
C
Yes,
so
welcome.
Thank
you
for
joining
us.
Thank
you
for
providing
us
some
some
materials
this
this
earlier
this
week
on
some
information,
that's
appreciated,
so
please
provide
any
testimony
you'd
like
a
specific
to
the
drafts
before
us
or
in
general.
Thank
you.
R
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
regarding
the
bill
draft
75,
considering
the
serious
fallout
of
not
complying,
I
do
believe
that
on
page
four
and
five,
if
we
could
add
notice
going
to
the
special
districts,
I
think
it's
incredibly
important
that
the
district
that's
going
to
have
the
in
the
entities
that
are
going
to
have
the
impact
are
receive
the
same
notice
as
the
counties
and
the
commissioners.
C
So
I
just
want
to
be
clear
so
on
page
four
you're
talking
about
the
department
shall
certify
to
the
board
of
conditioners
and
to
the
special
district.
So
I
think
that
that
is,
they
are
being
notified
in
that
certification,
but
maybe
I'm
not
understanding.
If
there's
something
further,
you
would
like
miss
lanta.
R
Yes,
sir,
at
the
bottom
of
page
four,
for
instance,
it's
the
very
last
line.
The
director
of
the
department
of
audit
shall
file
notice
with
county
commissioners,
the
treasurer
and
the
county
clerk.
C
I
and
I
appreciate
that
I
think
we're
yeah
we're
talking
about
two
different
dates.
One
is
the
october
date.
This
goes
to
that
and
the
second
date
seems
to
be
the
november
30th
date
and
that
the
that
does
not
indicate
that
they
would
get
it
there.
So
I
appreciate
that.
Thank
you
for
that.
For
that
helpful
suggestion
anything
further.
That
needs
to
be
added
into
that
section
or
that
bill
miss
lanta.
R
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
In
addition.
R
I
I
I
wanted
to
comment.
I
I
agree
with
senator
perkins
about
some
method
of
reinstatement
in
the
unlikely
event
that
an
error
has
occurred.
For
instance,
the
paperwork
has
been
received,
the
district
has
certified
return
receipt
or
something
like
that,
and
and
for
whatever
reason,
they're
showing
on
the
list
as
being
non-compliant.
R
I
I
think
it's
reasonable
to
have
a
remedy
for
reinstatement
and
and
to
his
point
about
a
method
that
avoids
any
kind
of
disruption
of
service
to
the
users
of
the
district.
R
Yes,
on
on
back
on
page
four,
where
it
starts
the
process
of
filing
notice
that
districts
are
not
in
compliance.
I
I
think
there
is
some
confusion
created
by
the
not
only
the
statutory
dates
that
are
set
out,
but,
for
instance,
on
the
the
actual
report,
the
department
audit
does
on
non-reporting
districts.
R
R
R
C
All
right,
so,
let's
just
any
questions
from
mislanta
on
this
particular
bill
draft
from
the
committee
from
the
committee
on
this
particular
bill
draft.
I
see
none
so
we'll
proceed
to
the
next
bill.
Draft
you'd
like
to
comment
on
miss
lanta.
R
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Most
of
my
concerns
about
this
bill
comes
in
the.
R
So
when
the
action
occurs
on
this,
it
talks
about
those
in
authority
well
out
of
the
special
districts,
there
are
678
special
districts.
There
are
482
that
have
elected
officials.
R
I
guess
I'm
like
some
clarification
on
the
directly
responsible
on
page
four,
the
officer
directly
responsible,
particularly
as
it
comes
in
with
elected
officials
in
terms
of
the
body
corporate.
R
Does
that
mean
the
whole
board,
or
does
that
mean
the
treasurer
specifically
and
if
it
means
the
treasurer
specifically,
I
believe
that
should
be
spelled
out
in
the
statute
to
make
it
really
clear
for.
C
All
so,
just
for
the
committee
and
the
rest
of
the
public's
sake,
we're
talking
about
page
four
excuse
me
page
four
line:
18
public
officers
directly
responsible.
I
think
this
kind
of
goes
to
some
discussion.
We
had
earlier
with
the
state
auditor,
with
the
department
of
audit
and
representative
gray,
about
who.
C
To
get
who
are
we
trying
to
get
involved
in
this?
So
I
thank
you
for
that.
R
Yes,
sir,
and
then
it's
the
very
last
line
about
may
request
those
in
authority
and
and
again
I
I,
I
think,
with
any
type
of
legislation
that
has
the
ability
to
remove
a
trustee,
whether
elected
or
not,
of
a
special
district.
I
guess
I'm
asking
for
a
little,
maybe
more
specificity
in
that
language.
C
Sure
I
appreciate
that
understanding,
that
is,
current
law.
We
are
not
proposing
that
part
of
the
law
that
is
existing
law
in
yes,
sir,
so
anyway.
So,
but
we
do,
I
certainly
flagged
it
for
me
as
well.
So
I
I
do
appreciate
that
thought
anything
further
on
this
bill
draft.
C
Committee
members,
any
questions
for
miss
lantern
on
this
bill
draft.
Seeing
none
final
bill
draft
miss
lance
any
comments.
There.
R
I
would
propose
that
there
is
also
a
remedy
that,
if
judgment
fails
on
this,
that
the
special
district
would
have
the
same
remedy,
I
my
concern
stems
from
perhaps
some
elements
of
cottage
in
industry
being
springing
up
on
on
suing
special
districts
on
this,
and
I
I
I
guess
further
on
the
whole
issue
of
report,
the
reporting.
R
I
go
back
to
the
body
corporate
and
the
number
of
of
whether
it's
one
particularly
particular
trustee
or
the
entire
board.
It's
an
entire
board.
There
are
3
400,
total
trustees
or
directors
whatever
you
want
to
call
them
of
the
of
the
districts.
R
So
certainly
that
starts
to
expand
the
number
of
of
parties
on
it.
In
this
specific
bill,
they're
they're
they're
suing
the
board,
but
I
had
failed
to
mention
that
earlier,
but
on
this
specific
bill,
I
I
do
believe
a
a
similar
remedy,
if
judgment
is
not
found,
would
be
appropriate
in
the
case
of
some
kind
of
error.
C
N
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Now
so
I
I
want
to.
I
got
a
specific
question
here:
we're
talking
about
the
ramifications
of
what
happens
if
someone
doesn't
comply
with
reporting
and
a
citizen
actually
takes
action
and
for
whatever
reason,
fails
in
the
court
because
remember
the
the
base
of
this
is
the
the
the
there
was
a
failure
on
the
part
of.
S
N
N
Attorney
fees
against
a
citizen,
I
think
the
basic
easiest
way
to
comply
is
to
comply
with
the
filing
report.
I
mean
that's
what
this
whole
thing.
Is
it's
a
carrot
and
a
stick
again,
so
I
would
give
a
little
push
back
there.
So
I'm
just
really
trying
to
clarify
how
this
that
suggestion
would
even
come
up.
R
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
senator
bouchard
again.
I
agree
with
you,
sir.
The
easiest
way
to
do
is
is
to
get
the
report
filed.
R
I
just
have
concern
that
if
that
trigger
has
been
pulled
and
it
turns
out
that
the
district
has
complied
the
district,
who
has
a
responsibility
to
the
taxpayers,
is
going
to
have
to
expend
money
into
in
defense
of
it,
and
I
just
I
I
would
recommend
I
guess
exploring
whether
or
not
there
needs
to
be
some
equaling
out
on
that
and
further
on
on
the
subject
of
of
complying
the
the
one
note
I
would
make
in
general
about
reporting
our
financial
information
in
looking
back
the
last
five
years
of
non-reporting
agents
agencies
at
the
end
of
december
of
the
year
in
terms
of
the
special
districts
that
are
listed,
the
commonality
is
most
of
them,
seem
to
be
improvement,
districts
and
remembering
a
comment
that
senator
perkins
had
made
a
couple
meetings
ago
about
some
of
the
improvement
districts
are
only
created
at
the
time
a
subdivision
is
being
built
in
order
to
make
sure
that
services
are
provided.
R
It
seems
that
from
my
research
when
I
was
trying
to
track
down
the
people
who
had
not
reported,
I
couldn't
even
reach
them,
which,
for
instance,
like
the
two
in
the
trona
and
apparently
they
were
already
disbanded,
and
I'm
wondering
if
perhaps
this
isn't
a
special
districts
in
general
non-reporting
issue,
but
I
think
maybe
there's
a
quirk,
particularly
involving
improvement
districts
that
are
created
from
subdivisions
that
perhaps
in
those
creations
or
in
those
improvement
districts,
there
could
be
a
some
type
of
a
sundown
or
that
after
it's
built,
and
it
essentially
turns
into
an
hoa
that
the
district
ceases
to
exist
and
it
creates
a
hoa
or
something
like
that
for
there
to
be
such
a
commonality
year
to
year
to
year
of
one
particular
type
of
districts.
R
C
D
Chairman
with
respect
to
the
awarding
of
fees,
I
wanted
to
provide
some
clarification
that
you're
not
seeing
in
those
1886
mandamus
statutes.
They
already
award
costs
to
the
prevailing
party,
but
so
I
specified
in
this
one
that
the
taxpayer
could
also
receive
attorney
fees,
which
is
kind
of
since
1886,
been
separated
out
as
something
different.
If
you,
if
you
don't,
want
the
prevailing
party
to
receive
costs,
then
we
want
to
change
that
in
this
as
well
or
go
the
other
way,
but
I
just
want
to
let
you
know.
C
D
Correct,
mr
chairman,
what
what
doesn't
go
both
ways
currently
as
this
bill
is
written,
is
the
attorney
fees.
C
C
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
All
right
now
we'll
go
to
questions
from
the
committee
or,
let's
just
stick
with
questions
for
miss
atlanta,
on
on
her
comments
on
the
bill.
We'll
get
to
committee
bill
discussion
when
we're
kind
of
finished,
with
public
comments.
So
representative
gray,
any
questions.
L
Yeah
for
mr
sherman,
thank
you.
You
know
just
pushing
back
a
little
bit
on
on
that
this
one
thing
that
was
said
in
the
past.
I
mean
and
I'll
end
this
with
a
would
you
agree,
so
it
is
a
question
I
mean.
I
just
think
that,
typically
the
way
these
statutes
are
constructed.
You
you
award
the
prevail.
You
award
attorneys
fees
to
the
petitioner
if
they
win
and
the
reason
I
mean
this,
this
situation
that
miss
lana,
this
potential
hypothetical,
where
someone
might
file
something
and
the
entity
has
already
filed
their
their
deal.
L
I
mean
first
of
all,
I
think
the
attorney
would
probably
be
sanctioned.
I
mean
it
would
be
very
false,
poor
research
or
just
flat
out
false
statements,
and
I
think
you
know
there's
the
ability
to
to
reprimand
the
petitioner
anyway
and
award
that
if
in
these
egregious
circumstances,
but
if,
for
some
reason
you
know
it
wasn't
just
that
they
had
already
filed,
but
for
some
reason
the
court
came
up
with
some
reason
that
they
didn't
have
to
file
or
decided
that
they
didn't
want
to
move
forward.
L
I
don't
think
those
those
costs
should
be
awarded
to
the
to
the
defendant.
The
petitioner
should
be
awarding
those
costs,
so
I
think
this
one
hypothetical
that
you
know
it.
What
if
the
entity
is
already
filed
and
someone
just
frivolously
some
attorney
just
frivolously
filed
a
mandamus
action.
I
mean,
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of
sanctions,
including
the
potential
awarding
of
attorneys
fees,
but
to
specifically
award
it
in
all
circumstances
to
the
prevailing
party.
L
I
I
would,
I
would
think,
there's
a
reason
why,
typically
in
these
statutes,
they
don't
do
that
and
and
why
we
shouldn't
so
anyway
I'll.
Would
you
agree.
C
So
miss
lanta.
If
you
choose
to
respond
but
to
be
clear
title
one
already
gives
costs
both
ways
based
on
ms
beaudoin's,
so
yeah
so
anyway,
so
just
to
be
clear.
We're
part
we're
already
partway
through
that
with
current
statute.
So
all
right,
miss
atlanta.
If
you
want
to
respond,
if
you
want
to
take
more
comments
or
questions
from
the
committee,
we
can
do
that.
R
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
I
will
leave
it.
You
know
up
to
better
minds
than
mine,
as
you
guys
continue
working
on
on
the
bill
draft.
I
am
heartened
to
know
that
the
the
cost
part
is
already
covered
and,
like
I
said
my
only
concern,
is
you
know
there?
There
are
this.
R
I
absolutely
support
compliance.
My
issue
isn't
whether
or
not
we
need
to
comply,
which
is
why
I
also
offered
up
the
observation
that
it
it
seems
to
be
a
a
ma.
The
major
part
of
the
non-reporting
seems
to
reside
in
one
type
of
special
district
and
and
perhaps
a
look
could
be
made
on
their
enabling
and
and
creation
statutes.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
to
that
broader
point
about
you
know:
improvement
districts
for
water
districts
just
point
out
for
this
committee's
sake,
and
for
sake
that
we
are
considering
that
on
the
corporations
committee
as
well,
there's,
actually
a
very
controversial
situation
in
the
middle
part
of
our
state.
Dealing
with
how
exactly
you
dissolve
a
water
district.
I
believe
it
is,
and
so
that's
a
very
complex
issue
that
certainly
touches
on
this
compliance
issue.
Of
effect,
those
districts
become
defunct.
G
At
some
point,
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
a
smooth
mechanism
in
our
statutes
to
actually
get
rid
of
one,
and
it
has
come
to
a
point
in
the
toronto
county,
at
least
where
it
can
be
quite
controversial
when
there's
a
push
to
get
rid
of
an
improvement
district,
that's
been
taken
within
municipal
boundaries
and
the
district
refuses
to
go
quietly,
and
so
I
just
point
out
that's
part
of
a
broader
discussion,
I'd
recommend
leaving
to
the
corporations
committee
because
it
is
fairly
complex,
but
certainly
it
does
affect
you
correctly,
pointing
out
that
it
does
affect
what
we're
considering
here
as
well.
G
C
Oh
a
little
bit
of
a
turf
war
here
I
see
senator
boehner
a
little
bit
of
a
turf
war
all
right.
Well,
we
do
appreciate
the
corporations
committee
and
since
you're
on
the
corporations
committee
you'll
keep
surprised
of
how
this
may
interact
on
the
with
their
with
their
work.
So
any
further
questions
from
atlanta
all
right.
We
have
other
miss
atlanta.
Thank
you
very
much.
C
We
do
appreciate
it,
certainly
as
we
continue
to
work
these
bills
and
you
have
specific
language
suggestions,
you
gave
us
some
ideas
for
amendments,
but
if
there's
specific
language
adjustments,
you
think
need
to
be
made.
We
certainly
look
forward
to
those
who
else
is
on
the
phone
amanda
for
public
comment
on
this
or
on
the
on
video
or
phone
or
voice
or
video.
Yes,
ma'am
no.
C
C
Mr
chavez,
you
have
something
further
to
offer
to
the
committee
on
this
and
when
mr
chavez
is
done,
if
there's
no
further
comment-
and
we
don't
have
any
indication
online,
then
we'll
close
public
comments.
So
mr
chavez.
Q
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
just
some
additional
clarification
on
on
dates,
because
what
was
focused
on
was
december
31st,
and
so
that
date
is
the
marker
for
dissolution,
and
that's
also
the
statutory
required
date
for
us
to
provide
our
cost
reports
to
the
legislature,
but
dates
well
before
that
is
when
entities
are
not
in
compliance.
So,
for
example,
census
reports
are
due
september
30..
Q
If
they
haven't
provided
their
report,
their
census
report
by
then
we
would
say
they're
not
in
compliance,
so
that
money
would
be
withheld
until
they
were
so
there's
different,
so
september,
30
is
the
first
date
same
thing
with
follow-up
paperwork.
That's
october
31st.
Q
So
if
you
haven't
had
your
follow-up
in
by
october
31st,
then
we
would
say:
you're
not
compliant,
and
then
statute
says
as
of
november
third
november
30th
any
entity,
that's
not
compliant.
The
county.
Treasurer
has
to
withhold
funds.
Q
So,
although-
and
maybe
it's
a
change
in
wording
that
we
need
to
have
on
our
cost
report
in
terms
of
compliance
and
reporting
that
1231
date
is
only,
we
include
entities
who
have
reported
by
then
in
that
cost
report.
But
that
doesn't
mean
necessarily
that
they're
compliant
with
the
statutory
deadlines
in
terms
of
september
30
october
31
november
30.,
and
so
our
goal
would
be
for
the
enforcement
action
to
be
early
enough
to
compel
reporting
so
that
we
can
get
all
the
entities
included
in
our
cost
report.
So
we
have
good
numbers.
C
C
I
think,
there's
another
one
in
october,
but
september
30th
october,
31st
november
30th
and
then
subsequently
december
31st
in
monthly
sequences.
Those
are
all
statutory
deadlines
or
statutory
dates
that
you
believe
at
some
have.
Some
are
a
compliant
point.
Q
C
Okay,
all
right
and
you
and
would
you
do
you
believe
that
the
specificity
of
non-compliance
is
that
we're
clear
enough
about
not
when
non-compliance
occurs?
As
you
know,
there
was
a
little
bit
of
a
misunderstanding
up
here,
or
at
least
with
me
about
when
non-compliance
actually
occurred.
Do
you
think
the
statute
needs
to
be
clarified
that
non-compliance
is
september,
30th.
Q
Mr
chairman,
I
don't
know
if
it
needs
to
be
clarified,
but
if
an
entity
that's
distributing
funds,
contacts
us
and
says,
is
this
entity
compliant
with
your
reporting
requirements
that
would
be
based
off
of
the
september
30
date
for
census
reports
october
31
for
follow-up
paperwork.
All
right!
Thank.
C
C
Angela
welcome
please
introduce
yourself
and
welcome
to
our
committee.
T
Currently
wham
cap
partners
with
casper
college.
They
act
as
our
institute
director
and
we
hold
educational
institutes
two
a
year
and
last
year
we
did
virtual
institutes
and
we're
going
to
continue
to
do
quarterly
virtual
institutes
throughout
this
year
and
hopefully
have
an
in-person
training
at
casper
college
in
september.
T
Some
of
the
certifications
that
we
currently
have
our
cash
handling,
internal
controls,
fraud,
prevention
and
detection,
budgeting
grant
and
loan
management
and
reporting
with
the
potential
training
on
writing
how
to
write
a
fraud
prevention
policy.
So
we
have
some
educational
components
in
place
at
this
point
in
time.
T
We
also
think
that
the
enforcement
component
of
the
bills
that,
if
we
communicated
with
the
entities
that
are
already
enforcing
the
the
enforcement,
such
as
county
commissioners,
the
city
council,
state
auditors,
department
of
audit
and
the
associations
like
wamcat
and
wham,
and
so
on,
these
people
could
help
possibly
communicate
with
the
non-compliant
entities
and
help
them
along
the
way
hold
them
in
compliance,
but
also
help
them
get
the
training
so
that
they
understand
when
they
need
to
report
or
what
what
they
are
faced
with.
T
Also
as
far
as
enforcement,
you
know,
I
guess
make
make
them
accountable
for
what
is
needed.
The
other
part
that
we've
talked
about
as
our
wamcat
board
is
making
sure
that
we're
all
at
the
same
table
and
we're
all
helping
each
other
partnering
with
the
education
and
training
component
and
one
last
thing.
The
best
leadership
class
2013.
C
Well,
thank
you
for
the
last
thing.
Well,
thank
you,
ms
johnson.
We
do
appreciate
it.
I
actually
do
appreciate
that
your
organization
is,
is
has
taken
this
on
and
feels
strongly
about
it.
Can
you
tell
me
how
many
members
of
the
association
there
are
and
how
many,
how
many
you
know,
fiscal
officers
that
would
entail,
meaning
how
many
municipalities
there
are
and
then
how
many
fiscal
officers
you
you
envision
within
that.
T
We
have,
I
believe,
96
municipalities
involved
and
it
depends
on
if
they
have
their
clerks
clerk
clerk
clerk,
treasurer
or
treasurer
all
three
of
them
or
their
city
administrators,
part
of
our
association.
T
So
with
that
being
said,
we
have
an
opportunity
for
everyone
to
receive
specific
training,
especially
if
his
treasurer
training
that
these
bills
cover.
C
Very
good,
thank
you
very
much,
and
I
appreciate
your
collaboration
with
the
casper
college.
I
think
that's
who
you
are
are
working
with
for
your
your
training,
any
members,
any
questions
for
miss
johnson,
any
questions
for
ms
johnson.
Just
a
a
final
question
for
me.
C
Then
I
see
anything
from
the
committee,
so
my
assumption
is
that
you
do
work
closely
with
the
the
department
of
audit
and
feel
like
most
of
what
you're,
what
you're
offering
would
be
consistent
with
what
they
feel
is
also
their
obligation
to
ensure
compliance
with.
Is
that
accurate.
C
A
A
C
Everybody's
on
hold
for
the
next
topic.
This
is
important.
Mr
moritz,
did
you
want
to
comment
on
these
bills
at
all.
U
Mr
chairman,
no
I
did
not.
I
am
in
fact
for
the
next
agenda
item
all.
C
Right,
thank
you
very
much
great
to
have
you
with
us
all
right
committee,
any
further
discussion
on
these
bills,
so
committee.
I
think
we
probably
have
maybe
two
options
before
us.
We
can
certainly
close
public
comment
unless
I
see
anybody
moving
to
the
microphone
or
amanda
tells
me
there's
somebody
raising
their
hand
so
for
today
we're
going
to
close
public
comment
on
these
three
bills,
so
committee.
I
think
we
have
a
choice
between
us
among
us
right
now.
C
I
think
there's
been
several
amendments
suggested
for
some
of
these
bills
that
I
think
have
some
value,
at
least
for
two
of
the
bills
have
some
validity,
so
we
can
certainly
work
the
bills
at
this
meeting
or
we
can
carry
them
over
to
the
next
meeting
and
our
intention
at
the
next
minute
will
be
to
work
the
bills.
C
Not
I
mean
we
can
give
a
brief
public
comment.
We
can
certainly
take
amendments
and
ask
people
that
you
know
if
they
bring
amendments
to
the
bills,
and
we
can
do
that.
So
it's
the
commit
it's
the
committee's
pleasure.
C
If
you'd
like
to
carry
these
over
to
work,
the
bills
and
finalize
bills
and
vote
on
them
for
for
potential
introduction
at
the
next
meeting
or
if
you
want
to
go
through
them
today
so
and
I'm
not
trying
to
put
it
off,
I
just
think
that
there
were
several
issues
brought
up,
that
some
people
may
need
more
time
with
to
to
formulate
amendments.
C
So
is
there?
Is
there
a
sense
from
the
committee?
I
I'm
you
wanna.
If
someone
has
to
make
a
motion
to
you
know,
move
a
bill
for
sponsorship.
At
this
point
we
can
do
that,
but
I'm
certainly
open
to
just
carrying
them
over
to
the
next
meeting
and
working
with
the
next
meeting.
C
So
any
is
there
any
objection
to
that
approach?
Vice
chairman
boner.
G
No,
mr
chairman,
but
I
think
that's
your
approach
and
just
point
out
that
one
of
the
bills
wasn't
available
to
the
public
until
relatively
late
in
the
process.
For
so
far
representing
it
might
be
a
good
idea
just
to
get
some
written
amendments.
Maybe
so,
once
again,
maybe
that
could
be
up
on
our
website
before
our
next
meeting.
G
C
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
vice
chairman.
Any
other
comments
from
the
committee
so
sensing
that
there's
no
strong
objection
to
carrying
these
bills
over
for
the
next
meeting,
abigail
will
certainly
solicit,
be
my
intention
that
we
solicit
written
amendments
from
folks.
Miss
atlanta
had
several,
and
I
would
certainly
invite
her
and
anyone
else
that
has,
and
certainly
members
of
the
committee,
if
they'd
like
to
contact
members
of
committee
directly
or
if
they'd
like,
to
bring
them
to
the
committee,
submit
them
to
lso
as
a
process
as
part
of
the
process.
C
All
right,
thank
you,
so
committing
any
further
discussion
on
these
bills.
I
thank
you
for
your
work.
I
thank
you
for
the
suggestions
on
these
ideas
and
bills.
We
we
know,
there's
a
couple,
rabbit
trails
and
I
don't
say
that
meaning
they're
minimal
men
trying
to
minimize
the
issues,
but
I
think
senator
perkins
and
cellular.
You
brought
up
some
issues
that
we
may
want
to
take
additional
steps
on
so
these
bills
and
then
maybe
there's
some
additional
steps
that
we
take
with
other
bills.
C
One
may
be
being
taken
up
in
our
corporations
committee
on
the
improvement
districts
and
then
some
other
things.
So
at
this
point
I
think,
even
though
I
know
we're
running
a
little
bit
behind
we'll
just
take
a
let's
a
10
minute
break,
let's
say:
let's
reconvene
at
1105.,
so
we'll
take
a
10
minute
break
reconvene
at
1105.,
so
we're
running
about
30
minutes
behind,
but
we
will
hope
to
get
back
on
track,
we'll
reconvene
at
10
or
1105.
C
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
All
right
members
we'll
come
back
to
order.
Thank
you
very
much
so
we're
at
that
point.
The
meeting
where
we
move
on
to
our
next
topic
item
number
four,
and
this
is
a
single
build
draft
called
repeal
of
specified
boards
and
commissions,
and
so
with
that
our
administrator,
miss
bodawins,
will
kind
of
give
us
the
the
high-level
view
and
then
you'll
note
members.
C
There
are
board
bios
or
each
of
the
potential
repeals
that
miss
amanda
has
put
together,
and
I
don't
know
that
we'll
walk
at
length
through
each
of
them,
but
if
there's
any
questions
on
any
of
them,
just
because
where
we
are
with
time,
I
think
we'll
expedite
this,
and
we
have
the
governor's
office
here
with
us
as
well,
and
some
of
the
executive
agency
administrators
directors
here,
commissioners
that
can
answer
questions
on
any
specific
one.
If
you
have
them,
then
we
will
proceed
with
any
public
comment.
D
D
20-21
page
five
you're
going
to
see
you're
conforming
amendments
for
that
committee
and
then
page
15
is
the
repeal
I'm
not
going
to
walk
through
those
conforming
amendments.
D
For
the
advisory
council
on
palliative
care
on
page
six
of
the
bill,
you'll
see
conforming
amendments.
This
is
one
where
you
might.
I
took
the
least
I
made
the
least
amount
of
amendments
if
you
want
to
go
further
and
repeal
all
of
it,
that
is
at
the
committee's
prerogative.
D
D
D
C
H
Far,
mr
chairman
and
miss
bedouins,
just
out
of
curiosity
the
if
we
were
to
go
through
with
this
as
it
goes
through
governor
science
and
everything
like
this.
If
you
look
at
page
10,
it's
it
reads:
regulate
safety
and
food
network,
together
with
the
department
of
health
to
promulgate
rules.
H
As
I
was
looking
through
this
one
of
the
things
that
struck
me
is
anybody
who
has
that
authority
to
promulgate
rules
is
now
going
underneath
potentially
another
subsect?
Is
this
going
to
require
a
brand
new
section
of
rule
making
authority
and
and
drawing
this
whole
process
out,
or
is
there
something
legally
that
we
could
attach
to
that
that
just
allows
them
to
adopt
the
current
rules?
Ms
burdwans.
D
Chairman
representative
brown,
I
think
it's
not
going
to
have
an
impact
at
all
you're,
just
removing
this.
Basically
the
governor's
food
safety
council.
They
were
sort
of
a
group
of
various
stakeholders
that
would
get
together
and
if
you
look
at
the
minutes,
they're
very
simple,
they
would
just
kind
of
look
review.
The
rules
check
we're.
Okay
with
these,
it
was
more
of
just
the
department
of
health
and
the
department
of
ag
consumer
health
safety
division
they're
already
doing
what
they're
doing.
D
Mr
chairman,
on
page
11
you're,
going
to
see
conforming
amendments
for
the
state
engineers,
groundwater
division,
advisory
committees,
you'll
see
quite
a
bit
of
highlighting
the
committee
needs
to
decide
what
they
want
to
do
because
the
groundwater
division
advisory
committees
were
appointing
the
members
for
the
control
area
advisory
boards.
In
the
back
of
the
board,
bio
you'll
see
language
that
the
state
engineers
office
provided
as
a
suggestion
and
then
on
page
15
you'll,
see
the
repeal
of
the
actual.
D
Committees,
finally,
for
the
wyoming
public
television
council
on
page
15
of
the
bill,
there's
simply
a
repealer.
This
was
the
only
one
that
actually
had
an
appropriation
attached
to
it
and
so
you'll.
You
will
see
that
language
in
section
four
of
the
bill
on
the
very
on
page
15
as
well,
and
then
state
employee
compensation.
D
Commission
is
the
final
one,
although
it
actually
appears
first
on
the
bill
and
on
page
two
you're
going
to
see
a
lot
of
the
conforming
amendments
to
remove
that
function,
and
then
page
15
you'll
see
the
repealer
and
it's
e
through
h
and
all
of
the
repealed
language.
The
full
text
is
included
in
the
board
bios
at
the
back.
So
you
have
that.
C
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
That
is
your
bill.
Ladies
and
gentlemen.
Obviously
the
bill
has
some
highlighted
language
that
miss
beaudoin's
pointed
out
for
the
in
the
state
engineer
the
water,
the
advisory
water
advisory
boards.
So
I
don't
know
amanda,
and
I
know
you
did
a
lot
of
work
for
all
these
different
boards
and
sheets.
Do
you?
Does
anybody
need
anything
out
of
those
boards
or
sheets?
Do
we
want
to
do
a
summary,
I'm
not
trying
to
cut
you
off.
C
I
know
you
did
the
research
and
the
work
so
ms
voted.
Do
you
want
you
want
amanda
to
walk
through
those
real
quickly
or
do
you
think
it's
the
committee
if
they
have
questions
about
them,
ask
questions
now
and
after
that
we
just
go
to
public
comment,
governor's
office
and
then
go
from
there.
What's
your
thought.
D
Mr
chairman,
I
think
it's
up
to
the
committee
really
the
information
most
of
it's
on
that
cover
sheet.
If
you
have
questions
beyond
that,
you
know.
What's
in
the
minutes
and
all
of
that
man
we're
not
going
to
have
responses
for
that,
that
was
simply
provided,
so
you
could
take
a
look
and
see
well.
Are
they
rubber
stamping?
Are
they
doing
substantive
work
when's
the
last
time
they
met?
So
I
think
it's.
If
the
committee
has
questions.
C
Okay,
so
I
think
I
think
in
the
in
the
of
time
I
think
we'll
we'll
forgo
walking
through
each
one,
and
we
certainly
appreciate
the
information.
I
think
it
was
supposed
to
instructive
to
us
and
instructive
to
the
different
stakeholders
about
you
know.
Are
there?
Are
there?
Are
they
doing
things?
Is
it
meaningful
and
if
they're
not,
how
do
we
change
that
or
are
they
if
they
are,
then
we're
we're
not
pointing
it
out?
So
I
think
we'll
forego
that.
C
C
Thank
you
very
much
so
now
I'll
invite,
I
guess
miss
anderson
would
be
first
to
come
forth
and
give
any
perspective
from
the
governor's
office,
and
then
we
can
and
how
she
would
like
to
proceed
with
different
agencies
or
if
she
just
wants
to
make
a
statement
on
behalf
of
all
the
agencies,
and
if
committee
has
questions
on
specific
ones,
we
can
we
can
take
it
that
way.
So
welcome
miss
anderson,
I'm
glad
you're.
Here,
I'm
just
a
reminder
to
the
committee
of
the
public.
V
Mr
chairman,
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
betsy
anderson,
I'm
the
deputy
chief
of
staff
and
general
counsel
for
governor
gordon.
I
don't
have
a
lot
to
add.
I
want
to
thank
the
committee
for
taking
you
know.
Looking
at
taking
action
on
these
particular
matters
really
appreciate,
alyssa
your
staff.
I
mean,
I
think
they
did
a
huge
amount
of
work,
I'm
going
through
this.
V
We
they
made
sure-
and
I
followed
up
to
make
sure
that
there
is
somebody
should
be
present
from
to
represent
each
of
these
agencies
or
these
particular
boards
and
and
councils.
If
you
have,
you
know
specific
questions
about
the
impact
to
them
or
if
they're,
if
you
have
any
particular
specific
details,
you'd
like
they're,
certainly
here-
and
I
do
want
to
thank
all
the
directors
because
they're
the
ones
we
reached
out
to
and.
J
V
C
U
M
D
C
We've
got
still
part
of
the
half
part
of
this
half
of
the
day
and
the
remainder
of
the
day,
the
second
half
to
go.
So
thank
you
very
much
all
right
committee,
many
questions,
ms
anderson,
all
right
so
committee
I
mean
we
can
call
up
every
specific
item
and
have
the
relative
executive
branch.
Folks,
who
may
be
here,
speak
to
them
amanda.
Who
do
we
have
do?
We
have
anybody
on
public
comment
for
these
that
have
indicated
they
want
to
provide
public
comment
on
any
of
these.
C
All
right,
so
I
guess
I'll
go,
maybe
the
other
way.
If
there's
any
of
the
members,
I
see
the
insurance
commissioner,
the
water,
the
state,
engineer,
etc.
Spock
here
and
I
see
folks
online
too,
some
of
my
can't
read
the
the
their
titles.
I
guess
pbs
is
the
one
I
do
recognize
anyway,
with
the
with
the
truck.
In
the
background,
I
recognize
it's
probably
pbs.
C
So
is
anybody
from
any
representing
any
of
the
agencies
that
are
responsible
for
any
of
these
respective
advisory
committees,
compensation,
commissions,
etc
want
to
provide
testimony
to
the
bill
draft
before
us
and
I'll
start
with
online?
I
see
two
folks
online
one
from
pbs
and
I
don't.
I
can't
read
the
name
on
the
other
one
so,
but
either
of
you
like
to
provide
public
testimony
to
the
bill
draft,
the
respective
portion
of
the
bill
draft
that
you're
interested
in
all
right
go
ahead.
U
Proceed
introduce
yourself,
please.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
My
name
is
dr
ben
moritz.
I
am
deputy
director
of
the
wyoming
community
college
commission
and
I
am
here
because
wyoming
pbs
is
the
state
funding
for
them
passes
through
the
community
college
commission
as
part
of
our
overall
budgetary
process.
U
Wyoming
public
television
is
housed
at
central
wyoming
college
and
receives
oversight
by
the
cwc
district
board
of
trustees.
As
was
mentioned
earlier,
the
governor's
office
reached
out
to
look
at
efficiencies.
We
were
asked
several
questions.
We
worked
with
general
manager
duga
to
compile
that
information,
and
our
recommendation
was
to
discontinue
the
wyoming
public
television
council.
C
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
moritz.
Mr
dugod,
you
have
anything
you
want
to
add
to
the
wyoming
pbs
discussion
and
that
in
that
portion
of
the
bill.
M
C
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
committee
members.
So
we've
got
two
anybody
else
online
or
in
the
room
that
wants
to
speak
to
the
wyoming
pbs,
we'll
just
try
to
get
get
that
one
taken
care
of.
While
we
have
two
folks
speaking
to
that
committee
members
any
so,
I
see
nobody
else
raising
their
hand
or
indicating
that
they
want
to
speak
to
this
portion
of
the
bill
committee.
Members
have
any
questions
on
this
portion
of
the
bill
committee
members
questions
on
this
portion
of
the
bill
all
right.
C
Thank
you
very
much
both
of
you
for
joining
us
and
for
providing
comments.
I
see
one
more
person
online
and
I'm
sorry.
I
cannot
read
the
name
from
where
I'm
at
so
please
unmute
and
introduce
yourself.
J
Mr
chairman,
member
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
lisa
oswald,
I'm
the
senior
administrator
of
the
wyoming
department
of
health
aging
division,
and
I
am
just
I'm
sorry.
I
can't
be
there
in
person,
I'm
working
in
basin
at
the
wyoming
retirement
center
this
week,
but
I'm
just
here
to
answer
any
questions
regarding
the
palliative
care
advisory
council.
If
there's
any
questions,
so
thank
you.
C
It
must
be
that
fresh
air
up
in
basin
refreshed
up
there,
there's
sunshine
in
your
background
and
everything
so
nice
to
see
you
does
anybody.
C
C
You
all
right
in
the
room
now
anybody
else
online
amanda,
that's
indicating
they
want
to
visit
about
anything.
C
Thank
you
all
right
in
the
room,
any
questions,
any
anybody
have
anything
they
want
to
offer
up
on
any
of
these
that
miss
spock
good
morning.
Director
welcome.
O
Good
morning,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
My
name
is
patricia
bach,
I'm
the
director
of
a
I.
I
wanted
to
just
do
a
quick
discussion
on
the
comp
commission,
because
some
of
our
reasoning
for
getting
rid
of
it
is
because
we
now
have
a
we
being
a.
O
O
So
one
of
the
reasons
we
thought
with
getting
rid
of
the
compensation
commission
is
that
management
audit
will
be
better
informed
than
maybe
the
commission
would
have
been
to
discuss
the
compensation
and
possibly
have
recommendations
for
the
governor.
That's
all
the
commission
did
was
recommend,
so
they
would
recommend
to
the
governor
and
management
the
management
council.
O
C
Thank
you
director,
so
my
question
is
you
mentioned
interacting
with
the
management
council,
my
assumption
that
you're
also
making
a
recommendation
of
the
governor
based
on
for
budget
for
his
budget
development
and
you're,
also
in
that
you're
interacting
with
the
joint
appropriations
committee
on.
C
So
I
guess
my
question
is:
if
we're
taking
a
role,
I
don't
I'm
a
little
cautious
about
article
two
of
our
constitution.
Everybody
stays
in
their
own
lane,
and
so,
if
this
committee
is
then
asked
to
give
recommendations
to
the
executive
branch
about
compensation,
the
executive
branch
is
going
to
come
back
to
the
legislature
for
then
appropriation
or
authority.
I
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we've
thought
about.
C
You
know
what
that
what
really
the
role
of
this
committee
would
be
in
that,
because
I
I
mean
I
the
first
time
I've
heard
of
this
type
of
heard
this
thing,
so
I
haven't
maybe
thought
through
it
enough,
but
I
just
want
to
understand
what
role
you
think
this
is
playing.
I
I
think
it's
already
a
role
you're
doing
you're
already
doing
this
and
using
the
commission
as
your
sounding
board.
That
would
be
my.
C
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand,
but
that
is
a
pre-budget
issue
and
then,
when
you
develop
a
budget,
then
you
take
it
to
the
governor
and
the
governor
decides
how
he
wants
to
proceed,
makes
a
recommendation.
So
I
just
I'm
not
saying
we
need
to
flesh
it
out
all
right
now.
I
just
want
to
continue
to
have
a
thought
process
about
how
management
audit,
actually,
as
a
legislative
committee,
fits
into
that
process
as
a
advisory
executive
advisory
committee,
it's
different
than
a
home
committee,
where
we're
taking
up
statutory
issues
and
etc.
O
Chairman
barlow,
I
I
do
think
that's
a
valid
question
and
when
I
say
advisory
and-
and
it
is
something
that
the
commission
members,
the
rep
the
representative
and
the
senator
take
that
recommendation
to
management
council
and
also
to
the
governor,
but
essentially
you're
right.
It's
an
executive
branch
decision
on
the
budget.
O
However,
we
talk
extensively
at
the
jc
about
compensation
and
that's
where
it's
kind
of
a
dull
rule
a
dual
role
when
we
did
not
have
a
home
committee,
we
kind
of
thought
of
jc
as
our
home
committee,
because
that's
who
we
were
in
front
of
all
the
time
and
we
still
kind
of
do
so.
I
think,
whatever
way
we
work
this
out.
O
I
think
that
jac,
the
governor
and
this
committee,
if
they
sho,
so,
chose
to
hear
what
we
had
to
say
about
compensation
so
that
you
understood
what
we
were
doing
with
state
compensation.
O
We
talk
enough
about
it
to
multiple
committees
and
the
governor's
office
that
I
don't
think
the
actual
commission
is
all
that
and
I
want
to
be
careful
because
I
don't
want
to
say
they're
not
helpful,
because
they
are
it's
just
that
we
it's
redundant
and
we're
speaking
to
you
about
state
compensation,
we're
talking
to
jac
we're
talking
to
the
governor
the
only
one
we're
not
talking
to
is
management
council.
O
C
Thank
you
director
and
just
to
that
point,
and
I
think
when,
when
when
management
council-
and
this
has
been,
I
think,
two
years
ago-
kind
of
directed
that
there
be
a
home
committee
for
a
I-
it
was
a
policy
home
committee,
meaning
let's
take
the
example
you
used
about
about
the
housing,
the
housing
issue.
If
there's
a
statutory
authority
needing
for
housing
adjustments
or
whatever
this
committee
might
take
that
up,
the
funding
side
would
be
left
to
jac,
so
there
was
kind
of
a
we
knew.
There
was
going
to
be
a
shared
responsibility.
C
I
just
I
just
didn't
want
to
start
stepping
on.
I
mean
this
committee.
I
just
want
to
be
clear
about
what
we're
talking
about
we're
talking
about
the
policy
type
stuff
home
committee.
I
think
that
makes
sense.
I
think
that's
where
we
can
provide.
You
know
you
the
avenue
to
say
we're
talking
about
the
money
here.
We
need
some
policy
adjustment
here
that
makes
to
me
that
makes
some
sense
so
represent
brown
had
a
question.
H
First,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
good
morning,
director
curiosity,
we
talk
a
lot
about
right
now
about
the
the
discussion
of
bringing
compensation
you
know
forward
and
what
that
kind
of
looks
like
as
far
as
raises,
or
something
like
that,
but
a
big
role
of
the
commission
when
I
was
an
employee
of
the
executive
branch,
was
also
taking
up
employee
concerns
about
compensation
issues.
H
H
They
even
feel
like
going
to
the
commission
that
feels
like
this,
that
their
mind
is
already
made
up
and
there's
nothing
going
to
change,
but
they
at
least
have
an
unbiased
voice
when
it
goes
forward,
they
can
voice
that
concern
to
this
type
of
commission
so
dissolving
this
board.
What
what
do
you
envision
that
looking
like
in
the
future
when
an
employee
has
a
a
compensation
issue
moving
forward?
How
does
how
do
you
envision
them
than
bringing
that
forward
to
you
and
your
group.
C
So,
thank
you
so
members.
This
is
where
really
understanding
what
that
employment
commission
is,
does
is
so
important
and
whether
we're
losing
something
that
is
a
vital
role
so
director,
if
you're,
certainly
welcome
to
speak
directly.
Obviously
we
have
a
nice
fact
sheet
that
amanda
put
together
for
us
if
you
think
there's
something
that
needs
to
be
added
to
it
or
you
think
there's
a
missing
component.
Certainly
let
us
know
that
as
well,
but
please
proceed
with
your
any
response.
You
have
for
representative
brown.
O
Chairman
barlow
representative
brown
absolutely-
and
it
is
quickly
addressed
in
in
the
staff
comment.
I
think
they
did
a
wonderful
job
with
all
the
commissions
with
the
lso,
and
I
appreciate
that
there
are
two
two
sides
of
that
question.
First,
one
is
compensation.
Specifically,
we
get
a
lot
of
complaints
about
the
pay
tables
we
get.
Complaints
about
movement
of
the
pay
tables
raises
cost
of
living
adjustments.
O
O
O
Work
with
those
who
have
issues
with
compensation,
if
they
don't
have
the
compensation
commission,
so
that's
one
area.
The
second
area
we
have
always
in
hrd
the
hrd
administrator's
job,
is
to
run
this
commission
and
to
answer
questions
via
the
commission.
It's
all
written.
So
there
is
a
written
document
going
back
to
the
person
on
compensation.
So
all
of
that
none
of
that
would
change.
O
It
would
change
who
they're
talking
to
if
they're
talking
to
a
group
of
folks
in
hrd,
along
with
a
couple
directors,
robin
cooley,
who
has
been
a
very
integral
part
of
the
comp
commission,
and
that
position
is
very
helpful
with
the
comp
commission.
So
we
envision
it
to
be
very
similar
twice
a
year
to
have
employee
meetings
to
bring
those
and
other
issues
forward.
So
that's
how
we
envision
fixing
that
issue.
If
we
don't
have
the
cop
commission.
C
H
Mr
chairman,
I
I'm
still
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
formulate
it,
but
you
know
the
comp
commission
is
made
up
of
a
larger
group
of
people.
It's
not
just,
and
I
don't
want
to
use
the
term
because
it's
usually
used
begrudgingly
and
and
negatively,
but
bureaucrats
usually
are-
are
the
ones
going
to
be
making
this
decision
now
right?
You've
got
the
people
that
are
ranking
file
that
are
looking
at
this
and
this
policy
says
x.
Therefore,
there
is
this
an
unbiased
board
like
this.
This
compensation
commission
can
look
at
something
and
say
man.
H
The
policy
says
this,
but
we
totally
respect
and
we
totally
understand
what
this
employee
is
saying.
This
should
be
taken
to
the
governor
for
consideration.
This
should
be
taken
to
the
director
for
consideration
and
maybe
even
taken
back
to
the
legislative
branch,
to
take
a
look
at
this.
If
it's
something
that
is
either
legislatively
drawn
through
statute
or
whether
or
not
we
need
to
be
looking
at
something
inside
of
rule
when
those
rules
are
rewritten
stuff
like
that,
so
I
guess
I
understand
what
you're
saying
about
how
it
will
work.
H
I
have
a
concern
with
how
that
will
work,
because
what
you're
doing
is
you're,
taking
the
objectivity
from
an
outside
source
away
from
this
and
you're,
putting
it
literally
in
the
hands
of
yes,
you're
gonna
have
a
public
comment
or
a
public
meeting.
Yes,
you're
gonna
have
outside
sources,
but
they're
all
internal
to
state
government,
and
I
would
venture
to
guess
that
there's
some
on
this
board,
or
this
particular
committee
that
look
at
that
and
go
I'm
not
so
sure.
I
only
want
government
employees
making
this
decision.
H
You
know
somebody
from
the
outside
when
we
have
these
types
of
issues.
How
do
you,
how
do
you
reconcile
maybe
having
an
outside
perspective?
Looking
at
some
of
this
when
it's,
I
know
my
time
in
state
government's,
very,
very
clear
when
rules
say
x,
you
must
follow.
You
know
why.
How
do
you
balance
that?
What
what
what
would
you
do
and
how
would
we
look
at
you
know,
potentially
fixing
that
issue
in
the
future
director.
O
O
Two
private
citizens
that
were
on
the
board
and
don't
hold
me
to
that-
I'm
pretty
sure
it
was
two
and
there
was
also
a
retiree
who
would
be
on
that
board.
O
So
I
think
that
is
something
that
we
can
adjust
to
without
making
another
board
or
commission,
and
I
will
say-
and
I
want
to
make
sure
it's
clear-
the
human
resource
division
administrator-
that's
where
I
was
two
years
ago,
has
sole
authority.
So
say
somebody
comes
to
the
meeting
representative
brown
as
a
layperson
comes
to
the
meeting
and
says
this
policy
is
not
good.
This
is
what
I
would
like
to
see
changed.
O
O
That
person
does
have
an
independent,
it's
not
an
independent
role,
but
that
person
has
the
authority
under
the
statutes,
bless
you
for
looking
at
those
complaints
working
with
the
employee
working
with
the
director
of
that
agency.
If
that's
where
the
problem
lies
to
fix
that
problem,
I
know
that
doesn't
leave
a
lot
of
solace
to
say.
Well,
it's
still
a
state
employee,
but
hrd's
responsibility
is
to
make
sure
that
they
are
working
for
both
the
state
employee
and
for
the
state
of
wyoming
so
that
they
play
that
role
and
that
person
plays
that
role.
O
Well
currently,
so
I
don't
have
as
much
angst
about
it,
but
there
is
a
there
are
things
we
can
look
at
to
see
if
we
can
fix
the
concern
you
have,
because
it's
a
valid
concern-
and
I
think
that's
something
we
can
look
at
in
the
future
too,
when
if
when
and
if
this
commission
goes
away
on
how
we
work
that
out.
O
B
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Maybe
just
an
observation
and
thinking
about
having
the
tools
and
resources
we
need
to
thrive
into
the
future
in
referencing,
the
governor's
economic
development
plan
or
proposal
for
wyoming's
strategy
to
survive,
drive
and
thrive
in
there.
K
Who
do
you
think,
is
the
champion
of
this
efforts
to
make
sure
that
we're
paying
our
state
employees,
you
know
a
market
wage
or
competitive
wage
so
that
we
retain
these
families
and
retain
this
talent.
O
O
O
It's
my
job
to
bring
it
to
the
legislature
to
say
that
we're
behind
we've
we've
done
that
it's
it's
tough!
In
a
year
when
the
budgets
are
rough,
so
it's
difficult.
We
we
talk
about
it,
but
it
has
to
be
a
united
voice.
O
We
are
significantly
behind,
and
so
we'll
have
a
more
of
a
discussion
in
october
on
that,
because
we'll
have
a
nice
little
powerpoint
and
everything
else
to
show
you
on
exactly
where
we
lie.
A
good
example
of
that
is
the
attorney
general's
office.
We
are
significantly
behind
in
in
that
area
and
it
is
apparent
by
the
amount
of
people
that
you're
losing
at
the
ag's
office.
O
So
the
champions,
I
think,
are
a
and
I
to
make
sure
everybody
knows
what
the
problem
is,
and
then
we
have
to
make
sure
that
we
budget
appropriately,
so
that
we
can
move
through
that
market
and
that's
where
the
funding
comes
in
from
the
legislature.
So
I
think,
as
long
as
we
are
giving
it
starts
with
us
and
we
have
to
give
the
right
information
so
that
everybody
understands
what
the
problem
is.
C
C
All
right
any
other
folks
here
that
want
to
speak
to
any
of
the
items
in
this
build
draft
as
state
engineers
office
is
here,
and
they
made
some
suggestions
on
on
on
actually
amendments
to
be
considered
by
the
committee.
So
I
think
I
will
just
specifically
ask
the
state
engineer
to
come
forth
and
just
give
us
some
brief
thoughts
and
then
take
any
questions.
Just
a
committee
knows
certainly
we
have
a
chairman
of
ag
here
on
this
committee.
S
Proceed
you,
mr
chairman,
I'm
greg
lanning
your
state
engineer
and
the
director
of
the
state
engineers
office
when
the
call
came
out
from
the
governor's
office
and
well
just
last
june.
S
Are
there
any
boards
and
committees
and
commissions
that
you
may
want
to
look
at
as
per
the
2017
alvarez
report
recommendations,
and
when
I
took
that
back
to
staff,
it
came
back
pretty
quickly.
We
we
had
one
if
you
would
on
the
shelf
related
to
this
particular
these
this
committee
that
we're
speaking
to
in
this
bill
that
several
years
ago
we
we
questioned
the
efficiency
and
the
efficacy
of
this
committee
as
well
and
its
purpose.
S
It
was
stood
up
back
in
the
you
know,
circa
of
the
50s,
for
instance,
when
the
rest
of
the
groundwater
statutes
pretty
much
were
enhanced
if
you
will
and
embellished
to
meet
all
of
our
needs
at
that
time,
I
think
you'll
find
since
then
that
we've
evolved
a
little
bit
in
this
particular
committee.
Isn't
necessariness
in
my
in
our
minds.
S
The
actual
title
is
a
division
advisory
committee
on
underground
water,
so
that
that's
the
committee
we're
talking
about
we've
since
now
called
that
the
groundwater
advisory
committee,
just
for
your
413
909
talks
a
little
bit
and
it's
referenced.
Also
in
the
bill.
S
The
state
engineer
and
the
powers
generally
and
then
41
319
3913,
are
the
control
areas
and
the
control
areas
are
important
and
they're
very
effective
and
serve
a
purpose
and
I'll
describe
exactly
how
the
control
areas
work
and
how
they
were
tied
together
and
that's
that's.
The
reason
for
a
lot
of
the
highlighted
sections
in
the
bill,
for
instance,
is
that
the
committee
and
it's
earth
and
it's
tied
to
the
control
areas
and
the
control
area
advisory
committees.
S
The
committee
back
when
it
was
set
up
we're
intended
to
have
one
committee
for
each
of
the
four
divisions
that
we
have
in
the
state
of
wyoming.
There's
four
water
divisions
that
we
have
one
superintendent,
for
instance,
for
each
of
those
and
that's
where
the
border
control
and
a
lot
of
our
surface
water
regulation
occurs
as
well.
S
The
you'll
find
in
our
statement
in
the
packet
that
we
have
difficulty
attracting
boards
and
finding
candidates
to
put
to
this
committee.
It
was,
it
really
hasn't,
been
very
active
back
in
2002.
I
was
talking
to
lisa
lindemann,
our
groundwater
administrator,
and
she
says
you
know
greg.
When
I
came
here
in
2002.
The
then
state
engineer
said:
hey
get
this
committee
back
up
and
running
she.
She
did
the
best
she
could
to
try
and
find
people
and
and
populate
this,
this
particular
committee
and
then
ultimately,
we
didn't
do
so
well.
S
S
This
committee
had
the
purpose
of
making
of
electing
these
officials
to
or
these
persons
to,
the
ground
area
control
advisory
boards,
and
we
have
one
right
here
in
the
laramie
county
control
area,
and
you
read
a
lot
about
it
and
we
have
certain
contested
issues.
Groundwater
in
this
area
has
been
stressed
for
a
long
time
and
ultimately,
an
order
came
out
in
2015
regulating
groundwater
better,
but
the
control
area
board
has
been
in
place
for
quite
a
while.
S
So
a
lot
of
my
work
goes
into
the
enforcement
of
that
particular
order
and
there's
some
wells
up
for
consideration
currently
as
a
matter
of
fact
that
tend
to
make
the
articles
as
well
so
the
groundwater
advisory
boards
there's
three
of
them
in
the
state
and
they're
all
in
southeast
wyoming
they've
happened
over
the
period
of
decades.
You
know
20
30
years
and
they
get
stood
up
because
there's
issues
that
need
to
be
addressed,
and
so
you
get
good
representation
in
those
areas
that
need
to
be
addressed
specifically
for
those
control
areas.
S
Even
though
we
had
the
committee
and
these
committee
assignments
getting
back
to
these
the
division
advisory
committee
on
underground
water,
the
one
that
we're
looking
to
eliminate
in
this
case,
one
of
their
they
were
charged
with
setting
up
the
elections
for
these
control
area
boards.
Well,
it
turns
out
that
staff
did
most
of
that
work
anyhow,
and
so,
if
indeed
we
need
another
control
area,
I
think
it
would
be
handled
adequately,
certainly
by
staff,
just
to
simply
go
out,
conduct
the
elections
and
make
sure
the
board
is
staffed.
S
Other
groundwater
advisory
sources,
in
addition
to
the
control
area
advisory
boards,
we
recently
have
also
stood
up
a
state
board
of
examining
water,
well
drill
contractors
and
water
well
pump
installation
contractors.
So
we
have
an
advisory
board
that
advises
us
to
licensing
water
well,
contractors,
as
well
as
advising
us
on
water,
well
standards,
for
instance,
and
then.
E
S
And
us
we
all
get
together
on
a
regular
basis,
as
well
as
agencies
to
discuss
groundwater
that
was
set
up
quite
a
while
ago
and
then
special
projects
as
necessary
in
water-based
planning.
Again
we'd
probably
go
back
if
we
needed
a
study,
for
instance
that
would
go
back
to
probably
water
development
study.
A
certain
area
see
what
the
groundwater
issues
are
and
then
there's
definitely
a
public
process
in
the
water
development
project
and
study
process.
S
So
that's
an
overview
and
that's
why
it's
highlighted
like
it
is
well.
I
should
speak
to
the
highlights
in
the
bill,
and
I
can
reference
pages,
mr
chairman,
if
you
like,
but
there's
a
lot
of
highlights
in
there
and
then
the
reason
I
was
highlighted
like
that,
we've
made
recommendations
and
that's
in
your
packet
also
as
to
how
you
might
go
forward
editing
or
amending
this
bill,
and
let
me
just
give
you
an
example:
real
quick.
If
I
can
find
a
bill.
S
So,
for
instance,
on
page
12,
you
see
on
page
12
line
six,
you
see
a
strikeout
and
the
strikeout
is
exactly
that
title
of
that
committee.
The
division
advisory
board.
S
That's
an
example
of
a
simple
edit,
but
when
we
get
into
the
highlights
like
on
page
13,
the
whole
section
b
has
been
highlighted,
but
on
line
6,
for
instance,
you
can
see
division
advisory
committee
in
this
case
that
would
probably
be
struck
out
also-
and
we
would
substitute,
for
instance,
seo
staff
in
this
case,
if
it
were
in
the
case
of
setting
up
a
as
an
example,
setting
up
an
election
for
a
control
area,
advisory
board
which
seldom
comes
along
by
the
way.
S
So
that's
that's
in
your
packet
you'll
find
recommendations
on
how
to
highlight
or
or
amend
or
edit
those
highlighted
areas.
As
an
example
on
page
13.
C
Sir,
so
I
have
a
question:
represent
brown
first.
H
Mr
chairman,
thank
you,
I'm
just
kind
of
curious
how
many
control
areas
do
we
have
throughout
the
state?
I
know
we've
got
the
one
here
in
laramie
county,
I'm
shocked
here.
It's
been
six
years
since
we've
implemented
that
how
many
other
control
areas
do
we
have
around
the
state.
S
Mr
chairman,
mr
engineer,
we
have
just
three
control
areas
and
are
all
generally
in
the
southeast.
This
part
of
the
state
of
those
areas
where
we
can
develop
groundwater,
for
instance,
there's
a
lot
of
areas
in
the
state
of
wyoming
that
groundwater
is
really
not
available
like
this
and
or
it's
not
used
for
agriculture
in
particular,.
C
G
Hey
thank
you
for
sharing
in
one
of
those
control
areas,
isn't
plaque
county
so
be.
G
Larry
county
down
here,
but
so
just
if
you
could
step
through
who
actually
makes
the
decisions
here
within
these
control
areas
and
just
kind
of
step
through
the
process
that
obviously
we're
talking
about.
You
know
limiting
resources,
conserving
resources,
important
resources
for
our
state,
and
so
I
just
want
to
make
it
clear
who's,
making
the
final
determination.
What
role
exactly
does
the
advisory
board
point
in
that
decision-making
process?
Q
S
The
first
of
all,
it's
important
that
this
division
advisory
committee
on
underground
water
is
separate,
and
apart
from
the
control
area
boards,
and
so
the
control
area
boards
will
continue
to
exist
and
they're
very
play
a
very
vital
part
in
making
decisions
in
control
areas,
in
particular.
S
So
if
you're
in
a
control
area
now
and
an
application
comes
forward
and
it's
a
it's-
an
application,
greater
than
25
gallons
per
minute,
greater
than
a
domestic
or
stock
well,
for
instance,
so
larger
irrigation
wells,
for
instance,
high
production
walls
and
those
are
taken
to
the
advisory
board
and
then
also
at
that
time.
The
advisory
board
takes
public
input
and
so,
together
with
the
advisory
board
and
public
input,
then
that
information
comes
back
to
us
as
to
whether
we're
going
to
permit
them
or
not.
H
H
C
S
The
amount
of
water
that
goes
to
oil
and
gas
development
comparatively
speaking
to
water
that
goes
to
irrigation
out
of
groundwater
sources
is
relatively
small.
Quite
frankly,
you
can
apply
for
a
miscellaneous
well,
specifically
for
oil
and
gas.
Water
and
production
you'll
find
that
it's
time
limited.
In
other
words,
it's
not
a
permanent
water
right
and
it's
usually
got
a
10-year
burn
time
on
that
and
or
you
can
file
for
a
temporary
water
use
agreement,
I
can
take
out
of
production
certain
amount
of
crops.
C
Thank
you
very
much
any
further
questions
on
this
advisory
potential
of
elimination
of
the
groundwater
division,
advisory
committees,
further
discussion,
the
discussion.
Thank
you
very
much.
We
appreciate
your
time.
There
may
be,
and
certainly
I'll
defer
to
the
chairman
of
ag
who's
also
on
select
water.
C
C
Just
so
we're
all
on
the
same
page
and
we
don't
get
to
the
floor
with
the
bill
and
every
water
user
in
the
state
thinks
we're
trying
to
anyway,
anyway,
we'll
we'll
maybe
circle
some
circle,
some
things
and
make
sure
we
have
our
eyes
and
t's
and
all
that
in
so
further
discussion
on
this
advisory
committee
all
right.
Thank
you
very
much.
We
appreciate
it
all
right.
C
Anyone
else
here
going
to
speak
to
any
of
the
other
potential
items
or
does
committee,
and
I
don't
see
anybody
jumping
up
mr
lewis,
in
the
background-
and
I
don't
know
who
you
are
against
the
wall,
but
I
don't
see
you
jumping
up
to
speak
to
any
of
these
anybody
online
amanda.
C
C
Committee
must
be
the
brunch
doldrums,
we're
not
engaging
very
much
all
right.
Further
public
comment,
further
public
comment,
seeing
none
all
right
committee-
I
guess
we.
I
also
have
another
choice
in
this
one.
We
did
heard
no
comments
saying
what
about
or
suggestions
for
amendments,
ms
beaudoin's
you're,
looking
at
me
inquisitively,
you
got
something
you
want
to
okay,
we
heard
no
comments
or
or
suggestions
or
concerns
about
any
of
these
bills
or
the
potential
removal
of
these
repeal
of
these
specified
boards
and
commissions.
C
So
as
opposed
to
the
last
one,
where
last
couple
bills,
where
I
thought
we
did
have
some
substantive
comments
and
further
consideration.
C
It's
the
pleasure,
the
committee,
whether
you
want
to
move
this
bill
forward
for
consideration
and
sponsorship
to
the
budget
session
coming
before
us
or
if
you
want
to
lay
it
back
and
we
can
take
it
up
quickly
at
the
next
meeting.
If
there's
anything
comes
up.
Second
part
of
that
question
is:
is
chairman
boehner?
Do
you
want
to
weigh
in
on
whether
you
want
this
specific
water
con
water
issue
to
be
at
least
brought
forth
as
a
matter
for
your
committee?
C
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
recommend
the
select
mark
I
mean
first
foremost,
are
the
ones
with
the
most
expertise
on
these
matters
and
as
far
as
the
path
forward,
I
would
like
to
think
that
it
would
be
adequate
if
we
would,
even
if
we
moved
forward
with
bill
today,
just
to
let
them
know,
and
maybe
perhaps
with
the
state
engineers
suggested
amendments,
and
certainly
we
can
get
their
input
at
a
later
date,
as
it
goes
through
the
process
in
the
session.
That
would
be
one
method.
G
So
I
given
the
relative
lack
of
decision-making
authority
for
the
groundwater
advisory
committees
that
I'd
like
to
think
this
would
not
be
terribly
controversial,
but
so
I
feel
comfortable
moving
forward
and
having
whatever
clean
up
moments
we
have
later,
but
once
again
it's
a
question
of
workload
of
this
committee
for
our
next
meeting
and
how
much
we
want
to
clear
the
deck
now
how
much
we
want
to
wait
until
later.
C
Well,
with
the
warning
that
the
director
bach
gave
us
that
she
has
a
half
a
day
for
us
at
the
next
meeting
just
alone,
maybe
we
should
clear
some
deck
all
right
committee.
What's
your
pleasure,
mr
chairman,
I
move
the
bill
for
sponsorship
all
right,
so
there's
a
motion,
brown
and
the
second
from
representative
stivar
to
move
22
lso
0-0-7-6
draft
working
version
0.5
for
sponsorship
by
the
managed
audit
committee.
G
Chairman
boner,
mr
chairman,
I
move
that
we
adopt
the
engineers
suggests
amendments
as
it
deals
with
the
groundwater
advisory
committee
and
for
the
sake
of
the
public.
Basically,
it's
saying
the
st
engineers
state
engineers
designee
would
take
over
the
role
of
the
groundwater
advisory
committee
as
it
relates
to
the
process
with
the
advisory
groups
for
the
control
areas,
and
that's
my
understanding
of
it.
C
All
right
so
there's
a
motion
from
senator
boehner,
a
second
from
senator
representative
brown,
to
incorporate
the
suggested
amendments
and
I
think
we'll
give
our
lso
a
little
bit
of
license
to
make
sure
that
they
work
in
the
same
way
that
they
need
to,
with
intent
at
least
of
the
amendments.
C
Any
further
discussion
on
that
from
the
committee
further
discussion
from
the
committee
saying:
no
all
those
in
favor
of
amending
the
bill
based
on
the
recommendations
that
have
been
brought
forth,
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
or
raising
their
hand
all
right.
All
those
opposed
no
or
raise
your
hand.
C
Thank
you.
The
motion
has
been
adopted
to
adopt
the
amendments
into
the
bill,
so
we're
at
kind
of
an
interesting
spot
here
now,
we've
now,
we've
have
an
amended
bill
before
us
and
I'm
comfortable
going
to
the
final
thing.
C
C
They'll
amend
the
bill
at
our
next
meeting
and
then
proceed
with
it.
So
doesn't
this
doesn't
mean
we
can
never
look
at
it
again.
We
can
certainly
reconsider
the
motion
to
to
sponsor,
amend
the
bill
and
then
go
forth
again.
So
I
I
just
want
folks
in
the
public
I'm
saying
that,
because
the
public
likely
did
not
have
these
amendments
available
to
them
if
there
are
concerns
or
that
we
get
concerns
from
our
colleagues
that
have
expertise
in
the
water
world
we
can.
C
Further
discussion
on
the
bill
is
amended,
seeing
none
so
we're
members
we're
going
to
vote
on
the
a
motion
by
representative
brown
made
that
initial
motion
to
sponsor
the
repeal
of
specified
states
and
boards
and
commissions
zero,
seven.
Six
with
no
further
comment.
Somebody
is
calling
the
roll
all
right,
miss
miss
abigail.
Would
you
please
call
the
roll
on
on
this
sponsorship.
D
Mr
chairman,
this
is
a
roll
call
vote
on
22
lso0076
version
five,
as
amended.
Senator
bouchard
senator
guru,
senator
james
senator
perkins.
I
D
C
C
Certainly,
if
something
comes
up
that
needs
to
be
considered
or
there's
further
considerations,
we
can
we
have
that
option
to
revisit
this
bill
and
can
make
some
adjustments
if
our
if
they
are
so
necessary
with
that
members
we're
going
to
we're,
I
guess
we're
seven
minutes
behind
schedule
now.
First
of
all,
I
want
to
thank
the
executive
branch
folks
who
came
today
provided
his
testimony
or
non-testimony
in
the
case
of
the
commissioner
who
just
left
it
be,
let
it
be
so.
Thank
you
to
the
governor's
office,
ms
anderson.
C
Thank
you
very
much
for
assisting
in
this
process,
and
certainly
we
look
forward
to
more
things,
as
you
might
have
heard
this
morning,
in
our
first
session,
we
had
a
discussion
with
state
auditor
raciness
about
funds
and
accounts
that
may
that
the
legislature
may
have
the
may
want
to
look
at
deciding
if
we
need
to
continue
with
them
and
their
purpose
etc.
C
So
certainly
encourage
you
and
invite
you
to
be
a
part
of
that
discussion
as
well
as
auditor
raciness
will
work
with
the
different
agencies
as
they
are
employ
implicated
in
those
or
use
those
funds,
but
certainly
there'll
be
more
discussion
about
things.
We
can
hopefully
clear
the
books
a
little
bit.
So
all
right,
thank
you,
and
if
there
are
more
of
these
type
agencies,
entities
etc
continue
that
work
and
we
will
take
them
up
at
any
time,
we'll
continue
to
be
willing
to
do
that.
C
So
with
that
members,
I
think
we're
going
to
yeah
we're
going
to
we're
going
to
take
our
lunch
break.
Now
we
will
reconvene
at
1
30.,
I'm
going
to
make
make
make
a
couple
comments,
just
in
general
comments,
I'm
not
returning
to
the
meeting
this
afternoon.
As
you
know,
are
we
on
friday
there's
going
to
be
a
service
in.
C
Memory
of
senator
enzi
u.s
senator
enzi,
former
representative
of
the
state
of
wyoming,
former
senator
in
the
wyoming
senate,
former
mayor
of
gillette,
I
bought
my
first
pair
of
tennis
shoes
from
former
senator
mayor
legislator
in
in
my
growing
up
years
on
main
street
in
gillette.
C
So
this
evening
there
are
some
planning
activities
and
some
things
going
on
that
I'm
assisting
the
family
with
so
I'm
gonna
depart
for
part
of
that,
and
then
tomorrow
we
have
some
more
activities
to
in
preparation
for
what
we,
we
think
will
be
a
fairly
significant
memorial
service.
Several
thousand
people,
including
there's
about
55
legislators
and
former
legislators
that
are
going
to
participate,
we're
expecting
folks
from
the
public.
C
So
I
guess
on
behalf
of
myself
as
and
some
of
you
may
have
seen
the
president
docstadter
and
I
put
out
a
a
brief
statement.
You
know
expressing
our
sorrow
on
behalf
of
the
entire
legislature,
but
I'm
just
in
this
forum.
C
I
want
to
invite
anybody
in
the
public
that
certainly
wants
to
join
the
the
family
and
the
community
of
gillette
in
northeast
wyoming
and
commemorating
him
whether
you're,
there,
physically
or
just
in
in
a
moment
of
prayer
on
friday,
at
1
pm
at
the
pronghorn
center
on
gillette
college
and
that's
when
the
service
will
be
so
anyway.
We
thank
you
all.
Those
who
have
had
prayers
and
reached
out
and
the
family
has
been.
C
I've
spoken
with
a
representative
of
a
member
of
the
family
and
they've,
been
really
over
overcome
with
the
amount
of
love
and
support
that
their
family
has
received
and
the,
and
that
the
loss
of
the
father,
husband
or
grandfather,
of
course,
to
them,
but
certainly
a
dedicated
public
servant
to
the
state
of
wyoming
and
to
this
nation.
C
So
certainly
something
that
touches
us
all
a
little
differently
and
I
can
still
remember
the
color
and
the
texture
of
those
shoes
when,
when
he
took
him
out
of
the
box
a
long
long
time
ago.
C
So
so
thank
you
for
your
work
this
morning.
Senator
boehner
will
take
over
this
afternoon
and
share
the
meeting,
and
we've
visited
about
some
of
the
things
on
on
on
the
plate
before
us.
There
certainly
are
some
things
that
we're
trying
to
get
with
our
staff.
Our
staff
now
has
just
made
a
couple
hires,
so
we
thank
our
administrator
for
making
higher
so
we're
getting
closer
to
fully
staffed
and
so
we'll
be
able
to
take
on
some
more
activities.
C
This
committee,
I
think,
is
not
that
we
don't
have
a
capable
staff,
but
we
have
now
more
staff
to
spread
the
workload
around
a
little
bit
and
so
we'll
be
able
to
take
on
those.
So
with
that,
we
are
in
recess
until
chairman
boner,
who
at
1,
30
or
they're
close
to
will
call
you
back
to
order.
Thank
you
for
your
work
and.