March 19, 2025
Senator Ann H. Rest, Chair, called the Legislative Audit Commission (LAC) meeting to order at 9:37 a.m. A quorum was present. She began with an update on program evaluation topic selection for the Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA). Chair Rest confirmed with Senator Dibble, Evaluation Subcommittee Chair, that the first meeting on topic selection was held the previous Friday. During that meeting, the subcommittee was presented with proposed changes to topic selection timing and frequency. Chair Rest then called on Judy Randall, Legislative Auditor, and Jodi Munson Rodríguez, Deputy Legislative Auditor of the Program Evaluation Division, to present the proposed changes to the LAC.
Ms. Munson Rodríguez walked through the Topic Selection Policy that the LAC adopted in October of 2024. This policy lists criteria that the LAC will use to select topics and establishes two categories from which one topic must be selected each year (one board, committee, council, or authority or advisory task force of the Executive Branch; and one follow up to an OLA evaluation that was completed at least five years prior). In response to questions, she told members that OLA could provide a list of prior program evaluations at the beginning of the next topic selection process.
Senator Drazkowski moved to have OLA bring a list of all prior program evaluations to the first meeting of the next topic selection process. Chair Rest said she would like to limit the list to evaluations completed in the last 20 years, since some agencies or programs previously evaluated no longer exist. The motion prevailed. Chair Rest then asked Ms. Munson Rodríguez to introduce OLA’s proposals for changing the timing of topic selection
Ms. Munson Rodríguez explained the reasoning behind the proposed changes to the topic selection cycle, saying the current process often leads to staffing inefficiencies and that there is often a gap between when evaluations are released, new topics are selected, and new evaluations begin. The proposals were as follows:
Current: Select five to six yearly topics, once in the spring. Evaluation scopes would continue to be larger with more significant research. Time frames to completion would remain around 10 months, with report releases in late spring. Topic suggestions would continue to be collected all year, with selection once during the legislative session.
Proposal 1: Have topic selection two times per year, in the spring and fall. Evaluation scopes would be more variable and focus on areas where OLA identifies it can add value. Time frames to completion would also become variable. Topic suggestions would be collected all year, with some topics selected in the spring, and those remaining on the list reviewed again for fall selection. A new topic list would start the following spring.
Proposal 2: Select seven to eight topics once in the spring, adjusting the number of evaluations based on resources. Evaluation scopes would be more variable and focus on areas where OLA identifies it can add value. Time frames to completion would also become variable. Topic suggestions would continue to be collected all year, with selection once during the legislative session.
Chair Rest opened discussion to members. Representative Hansen said he would prefer to keep the current process for another year since the LAC had just adopted a policy related to topic selection, which constituted a change to the process. He acknowledged that there is often a delay in selecting topics as the commission organizes and new members become familiar with the process. He suggested that perhaps the second year of the biennium could be a bigger year for topic selection. Representative Quam moved to adopt Proposal 1. The motion prevailed with a vote of nine for and one against.
Chair Rest proceeded to legislation related to OLA. Ms. Randall provided overviews of House File 1239 and Senate File 1773, which were housekeeping bills for agencies’ reporting requirements to OLA. She said House File 1240 and Senate File 1772 covered OLA’s proposals to establish its special reviews unit as a division in law, authority to conduct reviews related to noncompliance with any legal requirement, and authority to conduct follow-up reviews on prior special reviews. She briefly discussed House File 1 and Senate File 856, noting that these bills cover the establishment of an Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Chair Rest offered her thoughts on the establishment of an OIG, specifically noting that in its establishment, the Legislature should be careful to keep separate the duties and missions of OLA and OIG.
With no further discussion, Chair Rest adjourned the meeting at 10:34 a.m.
Senator Ann H. Rest, Chair
Jade Lange, Recording Secretary
