the August 26th meeting of the Legislative Inspector General Advisory Commission. I've been assigned and designated by Majority Leader Aaron Murphy as required under Minnesota Law Chapter 29 to convene the first meeting of the commission. Um, I just want to say uh my name is Heather Gustoson. I'm a state senator for SD36, which is primarily Vades Heights, White Bear Lake, and the Lino Lakes area. And I just want to thank everybody for being here today and welcome. Um, in a moment I'm going to ask members and staff to introduce themselves. But first, I just wanted to say a few brief words because this is a historic moment for Minnesota when we passed the bill to establish an independent office of inspector general. Our state took a very serious step forward creating an office to detect and investigate fraud and safeguard the integrity of the programs that motans rely on. This office has teeth. It has subpoena power, investigative investigative authority, and real consequences for fraud and misuse of public funds. And this commission carries the weight of that commitment. Our job over the next several months is to identify and recommend a candidate worthy of this office's independence and responsibility. That candidate will set the tone for this office for years to come. How rigorously it investigates, how fairly it treats those it oversees, and how much public trust it earns. We have a statutory deadline of January 1st to make our recommendation and the governor must appoint by February 1st. Um Minnesota has not had an office like this before. How we build it and who we choose to lead it will define what accountability looks like in this state for generations. Thank you again for everyone for being here. And now let's get to work and we can start with introductions. Um, should we start with uh let's start with our staff first and just go around the table. Thank you. >> Good morning, Madam Chair and members. I'm Colby Sullivan with the nonpartisan House Research Department. >> Um, Madame Chair and members, my name is Stephanie James. I'm Senate Council. >> Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Eric Putnham. I'm the state senator from the greater St. cloud area. Um I do want to just uh take a brief moment to thank you uh Madam Chair and Senator Krin in particular for your bipartisan work on this and um realizing that while we're making some decisions today, it's a product of a lot of work that's gone on for the past couple years. You >> Madam Chair, my name is Michael Kr, State Senator, District 32, Blaine Ham Lake, Columbus and Lexington. Um well, we finally got here. Um the Office of Inspector General is happening. We're going to get this off the ground and it's going to make a a a big difference in Minnesota. It's a culture shift in Minnesota. Um, and I'm happy to have been a part of it. Uh, I look forward to our work here in this group making sure that we uh do our part to implement the intent of of what we spent two years crafting and pushing uh to get over the finish line and passed into law. So, I'd like to thank the members and look forward to working with you. Uh, madam chair, state senator Mark Cran represent Chicago and ai counties about 40 miles north of St. Paul, Minneapolis. And I'm also excited as you know um and many many may not know except for the few in the room here that we met every single week um of 2025 every single Tuesday at 5:00 and a couple hours Republican, Democrat, partisan staff, nonpartisan staff and everybody worked extraordinarily hard. It's a great foundation. And I think uh in addition to a variety of us met every Friday um with a variety of OIGs across the country and the associations to ensure that we balance the needs of the constitutionality and the uh the ability to sustain the office regardless of who the executive is. And so I think we did a great job at balancing that. It's it's not the end- all beall solution to solve and cure for all today's problems. at the at the end of the day, it's a great solution to um stop the things that have been systemic for us in the waste and utilization both internally from uh state government and externally. Uh it it'll be a great I'm I'm I'm honored that that my our caucus chose us to be a part of this. Um and so we will work extraordinary how to make sure hard to make sure we this is a found create foundation and then build upon it that we are the oversight for all state agencies and then ultimately so many things we do carry down to the counties who deliver many of our services and so um glad to be a part of it and uh thank you everyone. >> Hi I'm Sally Olsen. a commission administrator with the legislative coordinating commission and helping to provide admin support to the commission. >> I'm state representative Jenny Cleorne and I represent the communities of Plymouth and Medicine Lake in the northwest suburbs and I co-chair state government with um my colleague Jim Nash. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, members. Representative Jim Nash, uh pleased to be here today, pleased for the bipartisan work that has been on full display for this whole effort. I'm most excited because what I hear from people is that they are tired of the fraud and um if you'll indulge me, Madam Chair, this is where all the fraud money comes from for people around the state of Minnesota comes from one of these and it is time that we put this now in motion. Do an excellent job. make sure we are achieving bipartisanship so that people who have uh seen the money evaporating from their wallets know that state government is actually looking critically and is going to shut down the fraud that we have been so plagued by. So I'm pleased to be here. >> Chair Gersonen, uh members, I'm Matt Norris. I have the privilege of representing the communities of Blaine and Lexington in the Minnesota House of Representatives. And uh it's exciting to be here today. It's been great to work with you, Chair Gustoson, Senator Kun, Representative Anderson, and and a number of folks around the table in a real bipartisan process to get us uh to this point today. Um I think, you know, the the quality of our work uh really started to shine for me when I looked at the position description and saw the things that this office is going to be tasked with. And you know, as you page through it, you really see that yes, this is the sort of thing that we need here in Minnesota to restore that confidence in the accountability of our taxpayer dollars. And so I'm excited to be um embarking on this next stage of the journey with all of you. >> Good morning everybody. Representative Tom Sexton. I represent 19B which is Medford, Owatana, Wasika area. Uh I also have in the background 26 years of service in the air force where I retired as a full colonel and the idea of an inspector general is deeply embedded within the military each service as well as jointly. So I'm looking forward to helping to evolve what we do with the inspector general. And more than anything else, when you come into the culture of the military, you learn quickly that anybody can report anything to the inspector general and realize that there are no repercussions because we want a better military to serve all of us in our nation. So, we need to bring that to Minnesota. Thank you. >> Good morning, members. I'm Michelle Urick. I'm the director of the Legislative Coordinating Commission, which is a nonpartisan joint office here at the legislature. and our office is charged with providing administrative support to the commission. We're looking forward to working with all of you. >> Good morning. My name is Rosie Lagner. I am the HR director with the Legislative Coordinating Commission. >> Thank you everybody. Um we're going to hear now an overview of the commission responsibilities from Miss Urick. Good morning. For the record, Michelle Urick with the Legislative Coordinating Commission. I'm going to be presenting several pieces of information to you today. The first is an overview of the commission's responsibilities. Um, within your packet, you'll find a memo from me that is titled Commission/Oranizational Overview. The commission is established and its responsibilities were outlined in chapter 92 article 1 sections 15 and 18. The commission is comprised of eight members, four members each from the house and the senate with two members representing each caucus within those bodies. The members serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority and until a replacement is appointed. There is no term limit for the um members of the commission. Uh for today's meeting, the first meeting of the commission, as Senator Gustoson mentioned, Senator the Senate majority leader was required to identify an individual to convene the meeting. Also, during today's meeting, the commission is to elect a chair from among its Senate members. In January of next year, the commission is to elect a chair from among the House members, and the chair is scheduled to alternate between the House and the Senate every two years. The commission's primary responsibility is to make recommendations for the appointment of the inspector general to the governor. For this appointment to the position, the commission's recommendations must be made by January 1st, 2027. The commission is also required to hold at least one hearing and provide recommendations to the chairs and ranking members of the committees with jurisdiction over commerce and public safety as to whether the financial crimes and fraud section of the department of public safety should be merged with the office of the inspector general. This recommendation must also be made by January 1st, 2027. In addition to the responsibilities for this year, the commission on an ongoing basis may conduct hearings to oversee and review the work of the inspector general and is also responsible for conducting a competitive process to make recommendations for the inspector general position in the event there is a vacancy, the governorappointed candidate is not confirmed by the senate or every five years which is the term of the inspector general appointment. The third page of the memo outlines the criteria by which the commiss commission must select candidates, the qualifications a candidate must hold, and the requirements for candidates to disclose political and partisan activities. To be recommended by the commission, a candidate must receive an affirmative vote of at least five members. The commission is also subject to the legislaturator's open meeting requirements and members of the commission may receive pdeium and expense reimbursement in accordance with the policies of their bodies. That concludes my overview of the responsibilities of the commission. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Members, any questions? And I will just say too going forward, we're we're going to hear several different presentations of the setup of this office. People should feel free to ask direct questions. There is a part on the agenda though on uh section 8 I believe where we can go into more further discussion or debate but um please at any moment feel free to raise your hand and ask questions. All right seeing none thank you Miss Urick and we will move on to the third item of the agenda chair election. So our first order of formal business is to elect a chair for the commission per chapter 29. The chair must be from among the Senate members. Uh call for nominations of a Senate member to serve as chair. And if there is only one nomination, we can proceed with a voice vote. So any nominations for uh chair? >> Chair. >> Uh Senator Kurin, >> I would like to nominate Senator Heather August as chair. >> Right. Thank you. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> All those opposed say nay. Recommendation accepted. Thank you very much. Um and now um going forward I think just to keep in tradition of uh similar offices uh that we have here at the legislature and to continue in our bipartisan spirit. I think it would be wise of us to elect a vice chair to serve just not only for efficiency purposes but also to show a unity of leadership staff. Um I think it would be appropriate to nominate someone from the house. Um I would like to nominate Representative Jim Nash to be vice chair. Any discussion? Representative Clear. >> Thank you very much. And um I appreciate uh the nomination of my colleague Jim Nash. I do. Um I also think that it's important that um it be recognized that Matt Norris um was your colleague and the co-author in the House. So I would also put into nomination Matt Norris's name. >> All right. Thank you, Representative Clear. Anybody else? Okay. Um I no bigger fan at this table of Representative Matt Norris than myself. Um, and I think we all have to recognize the extraordinary work that Representative Norris did on this bill. He was the chief author in the House. He was instrumental in writing the bill and pushing it forward. I think he did an excellent job. Um, and my only reservation would just be that we really do want to keep this bipartisan as we have been so good about doing uh since the beginning of the of of the bill um in its writing. So, um I'll stick with the since I've already put it out there, I'll stick with my uh recommendation, but um we will take it to a vote if there's any other discussion. All right. Uh so, roll call. Yes. Thank you. >> Senator Gustoson, >> just to be clear, are we we're going with my initial motion a recommendation? >> Just say the name. >> Or you could say the name. >> Got it. Okay. Sorry. Uh, Nash. >> Senator Karan. >> Nash. >> Senator Kruan. >> Nash. >> Senator Putnham. >> Nash. >> Representative Clebourne. >> Norris. >> Representative Nash. >> Nash. >> Representative Norris. >> Nash. >> Representative Ston. >> Nash. >> Seven Nash. One Norris. >> There are seven Nash and one Norris. So, vice chair would be Representative Jim Nash. Um, okay. All right. We are now on to number four of our agenda, the Department of Administration overview of OIG implementation office and proposed position description. I'd like to welcome to the table uh Miss Anne Freeman. Please state your name for the record and begin when ready. >> All right. Good morning. For the record, my name is Anne Feman. Um, good morning, Madame Chair, vice chair, and commission members. Um, I'm Anne Fam. I am the human resources director at the Department of Administration. My office uh provides HR support to the department of administration along with 46 other small agencies, boards and councils under what we call the smart program or the small agency resource team. I'm honored to be a part of the office of inspector general implementation team and I'm here today to talk with you and ask for your guidance, your input, your recommendations into the draft materials materials provided to you today along with your decision on the process for which we'll use to hire the next inspector general. So just a couple of items on the agenda for my presentation include a brief overview of our OIG implementation team, both the purpose and our work streams and an overview of the proposed draft inspector general position description. The OA implementation team um under session law chapter 92 or Minnesota state statute 15e.10, 10. It gave admin the authority to help establish and set up the office of the inspector general. The OIG implementation team exists to manage and support the operational establishment of this office during its first 12 to 18 months. And the team aims to prepare and support the set of the initial structure and infrastructure resources and solutions to help make the launch of this office successful. You'll see on this slide our implementation team. This includes our implementation lead along with project support. That includes our project manager as well as our project coordinator as well as several different work streams to help make this project successful. These specific work streams include work with human resources which I'm happy um to be the lead on that specific work stream of finance legal intergovernmental relations and specifically related to any transition of staff including the Minnesota Department of Education OIG excuse me transfer to this office um communications and change management IT and operations. operations include space planning as well. And then finally, research and resource development. And of course, we'd be happy in further discussions to provide more information on our implementation work. In your packets, you have several draft items uh related to this meeting today. Um first is the position description. You also have a draft job posting along with a proposed hiring process and timeline uh that Miss Urick will provide additional information on and our marketing and outreach plan. The IG position description was initially drafted um by the Minnesota management and bud budgets classification team with input from stakeholders and the PD is mainly based on the duties outlined in those in the statute. The first part of the position description, part A, covers the position purpose. It also covers who this position reports to along with who it supervises as well as the budget and the clientele. The position purpose is to establish and lead this office as an independent oversight entity within the executive branch in compliance with statutory deadlines, professional standards, and legislativelymandated reporting requirements. It's responsible for safeguarding the integrity, accountability, and transparency in the operations of state um executive branch agencies and programs. It establishes and enforces statewide standards for fraud prevention and investigative processes. It conducts and coordinates inspections and program integrity investigations across agencies. And then finally, it ensures that all findings, actions, and operations are documented through a robust reporting systems. The IG will report to the governor. It will supervise the deputy inspector general along with additional office of inspector general staff. We estimate approximately 44 um full-time staff at least in this initial establishment. The clientele will of course include the governor, executive branch agencies and leadership as well as agency inspector generals, law enforcement, prosecutorial partners, legislative oversight bodies, including closely working with the office of the legislative auditor, private entities, contractors, service providers, internal OIG staff, and contracted external reviewers, and of course, members of the public. The budget will include a little over $2 million in fiscal year 27 that this position will oversee as well as just over 6.5 million in the base budget in fiscal years 28 and 29. The next part of the position description lays out the principal responsibilities. This is in part B of that position description. These um principal responsibilities include directing the operations personnel and administrative systems of the OIG, develop and enforce statewide standards for agency inspector general operations. Conduct independent inspections, evaluations, and investigations of state programs, local governments, and private recipients of state funds to detect fraud. Direct the development strategic use of statewide data analytics and intelligence capabilities to strengthen fraud prevention, detection, investigation, and enforcement. Issue referrals, fraud alerts, and exclusion list determinations. Maintain statewide fraud reporting and complaint tracking systems, and provide independent legislative and policy recommendations to strengthen statewide program integrity. You'll see in the position descriptions principal responsibilities percentages that we roughly estimate that this position will spend in doing or overseeing at least each of these items. And then finally we moved we move to part C. Part C of that position description includes the knowledge, skills and abilities needed for this position. It talks about the nature and scope of this position, the relationships that this position will engage with, and the level of level of problem solving this position will have along with the level of authority and independence this position will have under the freedom to act section. This slide highlights the knowledge, skills, and abilities, specifically those statutory minimum qualifications that are required for this position. This position will need to hold a bachelor's or higher degree in criminal justice, public administration, law, or related field. Have at least 10 years of professional experience in auditing, investigations, law enforcement program integrity, or related discipline. Possess a professional certification in the Association of Inspector Generals. And then demonstrate commitment to public service integrity. and provide public disclosure of prior professional opinions or actions that may influence the approach to this role. So with that, um, I will turn it back over to you to see if there are any additional questions. >> Thank you, Miss Fayman. Any questions from members? >> Representative Cleburn. >> Thank you very much. Uh, one of the pieces that I find a little bit difficult in the section C is this demonstration of commitment. Um, will you be able to provide to the committee some examples of what that demonstration of commitment? I know you've done it at a very high level, but I think that's the piece that is more subjective than objective. So, I I don't know how does that work, >> Miss Feman. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, and in under that light as well, I think we have to I think we will lean back as we talk about not only the the position that takes a leadership role, but the operational policies for everybody that operates within that uh agency as well. And so we do go through great lengths, right, to make sure that partisanship or bipartisanship is is um non-existent or and it goes into practices in in the OA where we we don't allow them to run for office. those types of things or to be able to overtly identify in their private life, right, to in order to serve in the capacity. I think we need to mirror those types of um hiring and operational policies from the from the agency head all the way through the staff and operations. >> Representative Cleburn. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just asking for concrete kinds of examples. I don't disagree with the neutrality of the office. I don't disagree with the items that you're stating. I'm just asking how do we get to the most neutral position possible in doing that commitment to public service >> and I think we can probably hear too from Miss Feayman who can maybe answer your question directly. >> Thank you. Thank you Representative Cleorne for the question. I um would hate to speculate on specific examples here at this table necessarily. I think it's going to obviously depend on the candidate, but we are really looking for accountability and transparency in terms of identifying any potential conflicts of interest that may impact the judgment of this individual. I think we can all agree that motans really need to be able to trust the individual in this particular um position. And so doing that nonpartisan check with the legislative um coordinating commission and making sure that we are identifying any potential conflicts of interest so that that person um is coming to the table essentially having that transparent right accountability and then I think for all of you to essentially take a look and assess whether any of those potential conflicts or viewpoints right might get in the way um of that person's judment. ment in this role. >> Followup, Representative Cleorne. >> Well, I just want to say thank you because it is that public trust that we're trying to get to and so your answer was spot on. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. >> Any other questions, members? All right, seeing none, thank you very much. We will move to uh compensation council salary determination and welcome back to the table Miss Urick. Members, the compensation council under Minnesota statute 15A.082 was charged with setting the starting salary for the inspector general position. This council also sets the salary of other executive branch agency heads. They met over the summer and considered several pieces of information. They compared the work of the inspector general to other similar positions and considered recommendations from Minnesota management and budget who had conducted a hay study on the position description that you have before you today. Their fi the compensation council's final determination was to set the salary at $198,000214 19814 $198,000 sorry say that again $214 which was the result of the hay study rating on the position. The next compensation council will meet again in February of next year and at that time they can make a determination about whether or not there are any changes to the salary for the position and their determination would go into effect on July 1st of next year. >> Members, any questions? Senator Krin. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. uh on the compensation, is there room for flexibility in this process? Um depending on who is actually appointed uh or who's under consideration um in any event, it sounds like the timeline may not work for that. But as with a lot of jobs, um there's maybe a range depending and then you wait and see if the applicants how much experience they have and that sort of thing. You could be at the top of the range or at the bottom of the range or in the middle of the range. Is there any flexibility in this process for that uh approach? >> Miss Zurich. >> Madame Chair and Senator Curran, the um the authorizing legislation for the inspector general set the um salary for the inspector general similar to other agency head salaries which is a set amount. It is not a range. So it's a set amount as determined by the compensation council. Any other questions, members? Oh, Senator Kun. Oh, all right. Thank you very much. Um, moving on to the sixth item, presentation on recruitment, screening, and hiring process processes. Um, this is where I think we'll probably have a little bit more detail of, um, what it looks like to actually go through the screening process to the hiring process to having them here before our commission. So feel free to ask questions at any time members and again we can debate or deliberate a little bit more um when we get further down in the agenda. Miss Urick, Madame Chair and members, the Legislative Coordinating Commission worked in consultation with nonpartisan House and Senate staff as well as the Department of Administration to bring forward a proposed um process for your consideration today. The process we're bringing forward to you is a hybrid of both legislative and executive branch director level and agency head hiring processes. Considering that this position is ultimately an executive branch position, I'll be presenting an overview of some current hiring processes. One is the legislative auditor hiring process and the other is the LCC process to appoint executive directors of the executive branch councils that are under the authority of the LCC. Anne Feeman will also talk a bit about the process of hiring agency heads and then we will provide an overview of the recommended process for the inspector general position. In your packets, you have three documents that I'll be speaking to. The first is a memo to the members of the legislative audit commission providing an overview of the legislative auditor appointment process when it was last vacant in 2021. The legislative auditor is appointed to a six-year term by the legislative audit commission. The process of selecting an individual to serve in that position involves the LCC posting the position and receiving applications. A nonpartisan panel of House, Senate, and LCC staff that screen the resumeumés for qualified candidates and conduct first round interviews. A panel of LAC members, the Legislative Audit Commission is biccameal, bipartisan. And what they do is they identify individuals from each of the bodies and each of the caucuses to serve um as a second round interview process of candidates and part of that is protecting the privacy of the candidates who have applied for the position. The panel of LAC members then makes a recommendation of any candidates to advance to the full legislative audit commission for consideration of appointment. Prior to that uh advancement, a nonpartisan review is conducted, a background study is conducted and reference checks are also conducted um before appointment of the legislative audit commission. So before I move on to the next process, I would I'll pause and see if you have any questions about the process of appointment of the legislative auditor. >> Thank you members. Any questions? Senator Kern. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. in that process with the legislative auditor. Um once it goes from kind of the the initial interviews to the to the public one, is there a set number of people in that process or or is it more flexible in terms of how many candidates advance to that that next um round? >> Miss Urick, Chair Gustoson and Senator Kern, the there isn't a set number. So the the legislative audit subcommittee makes the determination in 2021. They determined that there was one candidate to advance to the public meeting of the legislative audit commission. >> Senator, anybody else members? All right. Thank you. Welcome. The next process that I'll speak to is the legislative coordinating commission appointment process for executive branch employees who serve as executive director of there are four councils that the LCC has appointment authority for. The most recent vacancy occurred with the Minnesota Council of Latino Affairs and a copy of the memo outlining that process is also included in your packets. This process involved the LCC working in consultation with the council and the department of administration for the following steps. The department of administration having it be an an executive branch position posted the position and received applications. They then provided all applications to the Legislative Coordinating Commission and a panel of nonpartisan LCC, House, and Senate staff as well as individuals that were representing the council reviewed the resumeumés and identified individuals to invite to a first round interview. The first round interview was also conducted by the same panel of individuals. But prior to the interviews taking place, the Department of Administration and the Legislative Coordinating Commission HR directors review the candidates that had been identified to ensure that they met the minimum qualifications for the position. The LCC conducted a partisan review and reference check on finalists. Um the finalists met in a meet and greet with the full council and then leadership staff representing the four caucuses at the Minnesota legislature interviewed finalists and made a recommendation for appointment and a subcommittee of the legislative coordinating commission made the final appointment of the executive director for that position. Are there any questions that I can answer? >> Members, any questions? All right. Next. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Miss Fahan. >> Thank you. Thank you, chair. Um, so I'm here to just talk briefly about the Department of Administration's internal hiring process related to executive level positions. I'm not here to discuss how the governor's process works related to commissioners uh but specifically our executive level positions both within department of admin and in other boards um smaller agencies and councils. Uh when we hire for these executive level positions, our process typically includes a similar process to our regular competitive process. We develop and review the position description for accuracy. We post the job uh for approximately 30 days or more depending on how hard it might be to recruit for that particular position. We'll review résumés for those minimum qualifications often along the side of the hiring authority. We'll determine the interview pool um and then we'll interview uh with a panel of stakeholders. Um generally it's the first panel is often different from the second panel when it proceeds to the second round interview. Uh what those finalists will be identified to go to that second round interview and then generally we'll work with that hiring authority. We'll do reference checks and um background checks uh through the department of our well our human resources office in the department and then uh we'll make an offer to the the finalist of that position. Any questions about that process? >> Representative Nash. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a question. I was talking with Representative Norris just here. Is do we feel that 30 days is a sufficient window to receive applications? You know, I've hired hundreds of people, and there have been times that we leave jobs open longer than 30 days. And I don't necessarily want to inhibit a 30-day window, but I also don't want it to be the only expressed measurement of time if we feel like we need to expand the number of people who we're uh getting this in front of. And the follow-up question to that, Madam Chair, is are we simply posting this or will there be recruiters that get involved as well? I I just wondered because I I talked to Representative Norris and I don't believe the statute expresses uh how people will be recruited or made aware of the job being posted. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Thank you, Representative Nash. I don't want to get ahead of of your answer, but I think you've got probably a recruitment plan in here too that we're going to discuss. Um but if you want to answer his question about the 30 days, I think that's valid. We are in a tight timetable, but you could say more. And I'm sorry I keep getting your name wrong, Miss Fayman. Thank you, Chair Gustoson. Um, so initially in the timeline, you'll see that we allowed for 30 days with some play, I would think, of another week or two to give us some extra time. Uh, because of the timeline, Representative Nash, it with the recommendation having to go to the governor by January 1st, it's a very tight timeline. Uh so we are saying let's post initially for 30 days and see how many candidates uh we get who meet those qualifications and if we do need to extend it a little bit we can yes there is um also an outreach plan that is located um within your packet and we do plan to work with our our statewide recruiters as well. >> Followups members representative Ston. >> Thank you Madam Chair. Um question on the professional certification from the associate of inspector generals. I noticed uh visiting their website that's only a five-day course for both um certified inspector general survive inspector general investigator. If someone doesn't currently possess that, can we still interview them? It seems like it would be fairly easy to get that before the January 1 timeline if you know it was a serious candidate had everything else. Is that some flexibility we can build in? >> Miss Fayman. >> Uh, thank you, Chair Gustoson, Representative Ston. Uh, because it is a statutory requirement, we will have to make sure that they possess it at the time we select them for interview because we're required to have candidates that meet those minimum qualifications at the time of interview. >> Representative Oh, sorry. >> Thank you. Nothing further. >> Representative Norris. Thank you, Chair Gustoson. I like the idea of initially, especially given the timeline, posting for 30 days and then kind of reassessing. I guess my question is that reassessment process, is that solely staff driven? Are members of this commission going to be able to be involved in making that determination of whether we have a good pool of candidates or we need to extend? >> Miss Fayman, >> Chair Gases, and Representative Norris. uh we would recommend that we work closely with you to determine do we have enough candidates? Do you want to keep that timeline open a little longer? Thank you, Miss Fayman. I think it's part of our ongoing before we close out today too to see when you know set the next meeting and uh address what that agenda might be. Any other questions on the timeline before we move to the next thing? All right, seeing none, I believe we are on number seven, proposed recruitment, screening, recommendation, and hiring process. >> Yes, Madam Chair. I'm just sharing the screen again. Okay, next one. There we go. Um, thank you, Madam Chair and members. So, in your packet, you have a document titled Inspector General Proposed Hiring Process. And the last questions and conversations started to to um look at the details of this. There are also two other documents that supplement this process. The recruitment overview and the draft of the position posting. As mentioned, the Department of Administration, the Legislative Coordinating Commission, and nonpartisan staff from the House and the Senate have put this process together for your consideration today. The process involves the LCC providing administrative support to the commission by working collaboratively with nonpartisan House and Senate staff, the Department of Administration, and members of the commission. The considerations we made when developing this process were to align a legislative and executive branch hiring process so that the commission's process would inform the governor's ultimate appointment decision and to protect the privacy of applicants until they are considered as finalists to be recommended by the full commission. The process before you involves the department of administration posting the position and receiving the applications. All applications are then provided to the Legislative Coordinating Commission. A panel of nonpartisan LCC, House, and Senate staff, as well as design from the commission that represent each body and each caucus, would review the applications and identify candidates for a first round interview. The LCC and Department of Administration human resource directors would then review those candidates to confirm that they meet the minimum qualifications for the position. A panel of nonpartisan LCC House and Senate staff would conduct the first round interviews and identify candidates to advance to a second round interview. The LCC HR director would conduct the disclosure of political affiliations and activities for candidates identified to advance to a second round. A panel of commission members again representing each body um and each caucus would conduct second round interviews. Those inter both the first round and the second round interviews would be private interviews. So the candidates names would not be publicly revealed at that time. The commission members then that participate in that second round interview would be identifying finalists to v to advance to the full commission for consideration. Prior to the advancement, the LCC and Department of Administration human resource directors would conduct reference checks and background studies um and report the results to the panel of commission members who would formally then determine which candidates would advance to the full commission. And then the full commission would meet in a public meeting to recommend candidates to the governor. At this point, the identification of the finalists would become public information. We've also included in the in the proposed um hiring process the t steps and timeline for the governor to make the final appointment and recognize that it's subject to Senate confirmation as well. >> All right, members questions. Senator Kurrin. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um the the proposal creates a sub panel of this commission for the second round interviews which would be private. Um my question is you know I you know it's a relatively small group of eight there. there could be good arguments to have a sub panel to go to four. But I guess my question is from um a legal standpoint. Um does it need to be a sub panel because the second round interviews are private or could that theoretically under the law be the whole um commission? >> Uh Senator Gustoson and Chair Gustoson and Senator Cruin. Um there is no provision in the legislation that would permit the full commission to meet privately with those candidates. So it certainly could um the process could have the second round interviews be conducted by the full commission but those would have to be conducted in a public meeting and therefore then all of the individuals would be known at that time. >> Senator, >> thank you Madam Chair. Just so I'm understanding if we wanted to have the full body here present and participate in the second round interview that would have to be a public meeting. Did I did I understand that correctly? >> Chair Gustoson and Senator Kurin. Yes, that's correct. It would have to be a public meeting >> and it is your recommend the proposal in front of us I should say is the smaller group and that would ideally be two or four of a sub panel that does the private interviews. Chair Gustiffson, the recommendation would be that it be a panel of four so that there are two members of the Senate from each caucus and two members of the House from each caucus who are participating in the second round interview and making the recommendation of candidates to advance to the full commission. >> Okay. >> And that is consistent with the legislative auditor process as well as the um director of the legislative budget office. >> Okay. Members, any other Oh, sorry. Senator Kin. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And then so if we go with the sub panel and have the second round interviews be private, would it be up to that sub panel then how many names would advance to that third round? >> Miss York. >> Madame Chair and Senator Cruin. Uh yes, that's correct. Unless the full commission were to instruct and and indicate that they would like to see at least X number of candidates. >> Senator Kerman. Sorry. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So we could construct a process where the full body here could give the sub panel some parameters to work within and then the sub panels would panelists would take those parameters go to that second round interview in private and then use their discretion under the umbrella of those parameters to advance names to the third round interview. Is that correct? >> Chair Gustoson and Senator Curin. Yes, that's correct. the full commission could provide instruction to to the process of things. >> Right. Senator Clever or >> Representative Repres. Yeah. >> Um, thank you. And this is I know the answer but I think because we're discussing this process for the first time for people um what happens if we advance a candidate and the Senate because the hurdle for the Senate to confirm is very high. Could you just kind of briefly uh inform the public what would happen if that Senate confirmation does not go forward? >> Miss York. Madame Chair and Representative Clayornne, if this if the candidate is not confirmed by the Senate, then the commission would start the process over. So the commission then would be charged with opening up a competitive process and screening candidates and again making recommendations to the governor. The governor would make a new appointment for consideration of Senate appointment. >> Senator Kun. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. in that event um in the event that was just described or perhaps a resignation in the middle of the five-year term or some other um proc some some other event that happens that isn't um the full uh appointment process at the end of the 5-year term. Would the process have to stay the exact same as the initial process or would this body have the ability to truncate it or change the process? Miss Urick, >> Chair Gustoson, and Senator Cruin, the the commission would have the authority to develop a new process. >> All right. All right. Thank you very much. Um, we're now at the point of discussion. So, we've absorbed all of the different ways of the hiring process, the compensation, the job duties. This is where members can, you know, discuss what they think we should do going forward. We do have some motions going forward of the proposal. We can talk about the parameters. Um, but I leave it sort of open because here's where we have to decide what we're going to do going forward, how many more meetings we're going to need to confirm before we leave today. Um, and so this is this is the place for that. Look through your packets and if there are questions, we're ready for those now. You guys did such a great job. Just take a minute. >> Representative Ston. >> Madam Chair, uh not sure who to direct the question to. Are we going to talk about the job class uh particular document that was included? >> Thank you, Representative Saxton. Um, yes. Are either one of you at the table ready to talk about that the job class? >> Um, yes. Yes, chair. So, I guess is there a question specific to the job class? The job class is the inspector general. >> There is. >> Ma'am, >> I'm sorry, Representative Ston. >> Yes, ma'am. Um, so as I looked at this, um, it seemed like it was fairly congruent with the principal responsibilities described in part B of your slides until I got down to the last sentence, which is paragraph two of the first page. When something isn't working the way it should, we step in with courage, expertise, and a commitment to fixing problems at their source. To me, that statement is in congruent with everything else in the job description because it sounds more like a coach. My recommendation, the panel would be that we just delete that and proceed. Uh, Miss Fayman or Miss Urick, is there any objection to getting rid of that last statement? Does that do anything to the job class or affect the job in any way? >> No, it would not. Um, thank you, Chair Gustoson. Um, Representative Ston, it will not impact the job class at all. This first, um, particular couple of paragraphs under the work you'll do is more than just a job. It's just a way essentially for us to kind of market and get people interested in the position. I'm happy to get rid of that statement or modify it. If you would like us to modify it, >> Representative Cleorne, >> thank you. And, uh, Representative Ston, I appreciate I really do appreciate you bringing the question forward. Um, when I read that, I thought maybe that implied that we have a system that's, let's say, an operation in DHS and we see that or the inspector general's office sees that it's maybe not functioning the way it could um the system could be enhanced. I'll put it that way. And this was just state that we welcome an inspector general who's going to be looking at our overall policies and making recommendations for improvement. Um, and we want you to do that. We don't want you to be a rubber stamp for systems that are already in place. So, that's kind of how I read it. I don't have a problem with it being removed, but I also think it's really important that we empower this in this individual to be bold and make recommendations for improvement. But maybe you could clarify that, >> Miss Fayman. >> Yes, thank you, Chair. Um, I I mean, I kind of look at it both ways, right? there is this enforcement authority and oversight authority where the IG can step in and subpoena and take, you know, legal actions and things like that. Um, and then and then hopefully, yes, there is a more proactive way to stop some of these things happening at its source. But again, I'm open to any feedback that you all have. >> And I'm sorry, I just want to go back to Representative Ston. Did you get everything you needed out of that answer? This was your question originally. Uh yes ma'am. Yes chair. Uh my recommendation is we just delete it because I don't think it's congruent with everything else that we're stating in the job description. It comes across to me as a coach. Um and what we're here with the inspector general is to go in inspect report and we allow leaders to take further action. Um to me the supervisor should be doing that particular statement that's in there for whoever is being inspected. So again, I just recommend deleting it's not necessary. >> Representative Nash, I believe you have your hand up. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I would uh support Representative Ston's uh motion to strike that and would make it a formal motion, but I I think by very virtue of the nature of this position that is going to be appointed, they are going to walk in with absolutely no uh emotion. I hope they're going to walk in and they're going to they're going to look at something and say this is malfeence or this is not working. This is this is broken. And I I don't know that the person that who I would ultimately want to hire were I hiring in my private sector life uh that I would I would encourage them to be brave or have courage. I would want them to go in and just say this is not working and we're going to get rid of it or fix it or prosecute the people who are doing something wrong. So I I think and madam chair if you would indulge me I would make a motion to strike that sentence >> discussion. >> Yeah. Yes. Let's go to Senator Karan. >> Thank you Madam Chair and I also second I I agree with the with the comment. It's a statement without action or purpose. And so I it adds nothing. the work that we need to do to make sure to to ensure we select the proper people who are going to do the functional tasks that we expect them to do. This does nothing. Who who will? It's open. H how do you know when something's not working? Who's going to who's going to determine that? And if we if if that person um hasn't figured it out, um that's going to be our role, right? And and from an oversight perspective on what is working and what isn't working and to take the actions appropriate to correct it. And so I I think we we will have to pick the person who will operate at a high level through the or multiple people for selection. It's a again it's a statement without any purpose or meaning. So I think we remove it. >> Representative Clewood. >> Thank you. Um I I I don't personally care if the sentence stays in or is struck. It it doesn't matter. But I think when you were talking about we step in with courage, expertise, and commitment. Okay. In the job summary that's listed on this very page, it says set statewide standards for fraud prevention. If you go to the next page, it says create and communicate a strategic vision. And then it says advocate for policies. To me, those words and those phrases are when we see something's not working, we work to fix it. So, I don't believe that it's completely inongruent. But, I mean, whether it stays or goes, I I think we want whoever applies for this position to be someone who is going to come in and engage with systems that we have and look for ways to improve the systems. I think we want somebody who's going to come in and do a denovo review, right? I I think that's something that we want. If we're saying the status quo isn't working and we have this fraud, then yeah, we want someone who's going to say if this isn't working, we step in with courage and expertise. But it the sentence staying or going, I'm open to either either position. Senator Putnham. >> Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Everyone else's talk, so I kind of feel like I have to. Um, but for the record, I don't really care a whole lot about this specific sentence. I will say that that whole section is primarily narrative and function. It's there to sort of create a theme or a feeling. It's not supposed to be substantial at the you can tell by the subheading, which is the work you do is more than just a job. It actually is a job. >> Uh, so we could say that that's irrelevant, too. I mean, again, I'll go back to my earlier point that I don't really care. Um but just for clarity sake in terms of the the composition of the document that whole paragraph is functionally irrelevant and is much more thematic in nature. All right. >> All right. All those in favor of uh deleting the line starting with when something isn't working and ending with at their source say I. >> I. >> I. All those oppose say nay. It's removed. Sorry. All right. Any other uh discussions, questions, inquiries, curiosities. We may need just a minute. Okay, I leaned over to ask a side question. It turned into discussion, so we're just going to make it a discussion. Um, we're wondering if we would like to talk about the parameters. We talked about a sub panel that would be part of that hiring process and what those parameters would look like. First of all, we should talk about how people feel about a sub panel. Um, one from each uh caucus, one from each chamber. um if everyone's okay with that and then talk about what some of those parameters might look like um as far as just guidance as they're in those rooms for those initial screening processes. So um first of all, how are we all feeling about a sub panel uh one from each caucus, one from each chamber? Does that feel efficient enough for the early process? I do think eight members in screening um is a little bit especially it's a lot and especially for the timetable we're on. So um I think for this part of it I think a lean mean machine that is just uh working with nonpartisan is efficient is every Senator Kruin. >> Thank you Madam Chair. Not sure if eight is too many, but I think the more important aspect is um you want to encourage people to move on in the process and hopefully we have a pool of candidates that are very professional um highle candidates that have existing employment um and to encourage them to move forward in the process. I think having that second round not being public and waiting for the public hearing on the third round is probably important and if that means we have to have the sub panel then that's the direction we ought to go. It seems to me I think the threshold question that I have is that we should probably discuss is do we want to have a process or what is the process for coming up with that sub panel and then we can maybe talk about what the the bigger body wants to do in terms of parameters. Representative Clelebourne. >> Thank you. Um I think it's um I mean I think an easy way for us to do this is for this committee to take a small recess um just a couple minutes and so the House DFL members meet the House uh Republican members meet Senate House our Senate our Senate Republican Senate Democrats meet separately. So we're not meeting as a committee of the whole, right? It would be two, two, two, two and two. There is a private room where we can go and have a quick discussion and we determine ourselves which one of us would be on the committee, the subcommittee. I don't I don't think it's that hard. Um it's just >> Madam Chair, >> Senator Cran. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And so yeah, on the Legislative Audit Commission and the on the schedule, it shows by September 15th. And so what we've traditionally done is the chair and the vice chair, right? Facilitate look for we can decide on today. I think we'd like one person from each caucus. I think that makes sense in the process and then between the chair and vice chair solicit who wants to volunteer first depend on the schedule. Um that's how we've worked it out and we we we haven't had a problem or had a formal deliberative debate um publicly. But I do think the the piece that's relevant for us to decide today. Yeah, I think we'd like to just move continue move forward in the bipartisan nature in which we do that in the in the LAC as well. Um so one person from each caucus we can and you just need to turn it. We don't need to take formal action. It's a matter of getting them identified, documenting them, providing LCC and so when the when that process or their involvement then steps forward, we have that team will be prepared. So I I I recommend we just agree. We agree. Yes, we'd like to have one person from each caucus. The chair and the vice chair can solicit um volunteers from each of the caucuses. We'll collect that list and we'll be done. >> I think that sounds awesome. >> Okay. So, just to be clear, we're we are moving forward with the sub panel of four members bipartisan bicameal um and the vice chair and chair can come up with uh or solicit four volunteers. They need to come from this commission though. >> So we do we want to take a break to find out people who are interested or are there anybody who would like to express their interest now? We could take a short recess just to determine if people are interested of who would like to be part of that. Let's just do that. All right. We're going to take a brief recess, two minutes. Thank you. We'll be right back. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. Honey, hey. Heat. Heat. Little baby. Sh. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. All All right, we are back. Uh, the Senate U would like to put forward names for the sub panel. Um, Senator Eric Putnham and Senator Michael Kruan. House Vice Chair Nash. >> Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. I believe the House is going to be forwarding Representative Matt Norris and Representative uh Tom Ston. >> All right. So, the sub panel is in place. um is now would be a good time to talk about some of the concerns or questions or debates or discussions about um parameters that you would like the sub panel to know going forward as they start that screening process. >> Sorry, Senator Kurin. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. that I think that for discussion purposes what I'm most interested in is whether this body as a whole uh wants to set some parameters to the sub uh group what are we calling that now the subcommittee >> the lack sub panel I don't know we'll work on it >> um you I think you want to we want to think about what is and this can all be flexible and I'm assuming can change through the course of the process if if we want to meet again. But um you know what what is the end product that this body wants to move forward in terms of recommendations to the governor? Do we want to send one name, two names, three names? What is what does that look like from our preference? because then we would need to work backwards in terms of the second round interviews um and how many candidates ideally we would like to advance to a third round public interview. And so I I just would I'm interested in other members uh perspective um on that issue. >> Senator K. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And I think Senator Krin brings up a great question. I think today if I had if in a perfect world I think we need to set the expectation we would love to find three extraordinarily qualified people that um complete the entire process and that we could forward to the governor and I think that will help from the LCC perspective that the pool right you'll get notice and you'll start to see in all your preliminary get of those qualified um but if we set that then everybody has everybody can set the expectation Do we have there's a we haven't met it in the four-week window. Maybe we got to go six week and 6 weeks to try to find as many qualified so we get to that um the three. If at the end of the day we wash out to where we have the two highest qualified people where where we look and see their head and shoulders, I I think we'd be comfortable that as a commission that we would say we're good with these two options. Um, but I think we should shoot high and shoot for three highly qualified that we believe will will meet our expectations at the at the end of the day to be able to present to the governor for selection and that all of us will be extraordinarily comfortable with any of those selections. We can modify it if if the pool doesn't if something needs to change or modify that we'll we there's no limits on when we meet um to be able to address those types of things that'll evolve through this process. >> Thank you. I would also say we should probably be careful of having a number in our head. We don't know what the candidates are going to how many candidates are going to come forward, what their qualifications and experience are going to be. So, if there are 12 people and they're all fantastic, then 12 it is. But I just don't want us to have a a certain number. They're all going to have to come back before the full commission um anyway. And at that point, we'll be able to ask our questions and debate and take a look at what is um been screened. But um I think I'm excited to see who steps forward and I think we um will I have faith that our sub panel will be able to make those determinations on their experiences. Anybody else members? Senator Corin. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And I I I want a flexible process and I don't want a a hard number that we're bound by for sure. But um just thinking through it I think would be helpful helpful to the the sub panel um in in in doing the sub panel's work in advancing names to the the final interview the final public interview so that um we don't get to a position where we're advancing two names to the final interview and every and then the people that are on the sub panel are like well this is it you know I want to send two names of the governor and and I don't feel like I've been a part of the process. Um and so, you know, if if there's kind of a guiding light of of ideally at least three we would send to the governor, then the sub panel can take that number, work backwards, and use their best judgment on how many candidates to send to that final interview. If I could ask a question to to Stephanie James. Um we I know that this was like a very thorough and thoughtout process when we were talking about the list and what we can present to the governor. Just constitutionally we cannot tell the governor what name to pick and this is why we provide a list. Um is there a limit on the number? So if if the commission submits two names or 10 names or whatever, it doesn't matter. Okay. >> Sorry, >> Madam Chair and members. Yes, that's right. Uh there would be no limit or constraints on the number that you could recommend. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Representative Cleburn, >> I just would like to ask a clarifying question. Um Senator Krun, um at first I thought you were saying one thing and then when I heard you clarify, I heard something different. So this is really just clarification for me. So are you suggesting that at least three names come forward so that or at least five names come forward for the entire panel to discuss. It can't be that it's limited but if we have less than three then the subcommittee needs to sound the alarm that we need to look at the posting. >> Senator K. >> Thank you Madam Chair. Representative Cleorne. Yeah, I mean I'm as a sub panelist, I would want to understand what the expectation is from the body as a whole before we go into those interviews. If the expectation fully acknowledging that it's flexible, but if the expectation is ideally we'd like to send three names to the governor, well then you know that I I would be cognizant of that not sending two names to to the whole panel and then it getting here and like we'll we're only left with two and and and so I would I would be cognizant of sending more than three names at that point to that final if that is what this body wants to do. And that's why I thought we start with ideally roughly speaking how many what what does it look like? How many names we want to send to the governor and then we work backwards from there for the work of the sub panel. >> Madam chair. >> Oh yeah. Senator Kun or Karan sorry. >> Yeah madam chair and and represent clever. I think what we're setting is a goal, right? We we are never going to um change our standards or expectations, but the the alarm will be first by the LCC. Our pool is either large enough that we think we can get there, right? We don't know. We'd be lucky to have to have these to have an opportunity that we that we at the end of the day the final product that we had three extraordinarily qualified people that we all we just go and say any one of these three we're happy with. But that entire process of their recruitment, where do they recruit from, the pool that come forward, uh their down select, all the all the all the work that they're going to do to be even qualified to present those to the subcommittee and then hopefully in the subcommittee it's pruned down to hell, it'd be great to have uh 10 highly qualified people to the subcommittee. Then we got to decide from that who are the most qualified um and put us in a position that one, the governor is going to pick them, but two, that they're the most qualified. We're not limited, but I think if we set a goal, if we if we set a goal of one, you know, it's gonna it's going to shrink the pool that they have to recruit from and and we get one highly qualified. I want us to have an an arduous uh decision-m that we have extraordinarily qualified and they're going to sound the alarm that we're either meeting or we're not and and we're going to have to look and say, is it a pay? What what are those things that we don't think are are being met to attract the highest qualified just from the initial applicants? And we won't know what what who who who all come through the background checks or any of those things. Um but I think if we set a goal that we would love I think three is three is three would be would we would have an extraordinary pool um number of people to get three extraordinarily highly qualified that we would all be comfortable with sending to the governor. So I think we're just saying here's some basic parameters. Nothing's set in stone but that will give them the guideline that says hey we've got a red flag. We're either we're not getting a pool. We got to extend the time frame. whatever that is to to get to give us that subcommittee enough people to uh highly qualified to down select from. >> Vice Chair Nash. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. you. So, I've gone through something similar to this uh as a trustee of a college and when it was time to pick a new president, the parameters that were given to the search committee were uh we did say we wanted a set number of people to come from the search committee up to the full body of trustees >> to say we want I believe we said we wanted at least three to come before because once you got to that point, each person would spend one-on-one time interviewing the potent potential new president questions were asked and then we came as a as a body of the whole and other questions were asked and they would make a presentation to us. So I think to Senator Kruan's point having a a an expectation I don't know that we need to have it uh written into some document but we're we are all here eight of us to figure out who this next person is going to be and I think that we can make an agreement amongst us to say in the interest of a great work product we want at least three people coming up from the sub panel uh knowing that each of us as a different thing that we may be looking for. Um, quite honestly, there was a person that I thought would have made a great president at the at this the college I was a trustee at. They had a horrible interview and they got removed. All the things that we've ever gone through as business owners or managers or whoever is you're hiring someone, those come to play. And it's with that in mind that I think having something that's sort of a tacit agreement amongst us that there will be at least three would be a really wise move. so that we have uh once it gets to the committee of the whole that we have the ability to to not uh have to go back to the drawing board once once we've gotten there. >> I agree. Anyone else? Any other members? Okay. Well, I think all this conversation is a really good way to highlight how seriously we're taking this. I think we're all feeling the weight of this uh commission and what we're what we're doing. So, um I feel that we're off to a really good start. Um we do need to make a motion. Um Vice Chair Nash moves to adopt the proposed recruitment screening and recommendation process as presented during today's meeting. LCC staff are authorized to work with the department of administration to proceed with the posting of the inspector general position and to implement the process. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> All those opposed say nay. Motion adopted. >> Okay. And with that, we are next to future meeting dates and topics. Uh we're going to need to hold at least one me Oh, sorry. Hold on one second. The commission will need to hold at least one meeting to discuss a recommendation on merging the financial crimes and fraud section at DPS into the OIG. Um and so we'll need to decide on that and then we'll have to at least need to meet the week of December 14th uh to interview finalists. So uh Representative Cleorne >> um Madam Chair, I just want to make sure that I'm clear. We just voted for them to have a process to determine a process, >> but we didn't really address the question that was before the body for the subcommittee to have some direction. Are we in agreement? I think at least three for recommendations coming forward is a really good choice, but I want to make sure that um we are clear on that. >> Senator Kern, >> thank you, Madam Chair. Here's how I'm thinking about it, and you all can let me know if you're thinking about it the same way. Obviously, this is all flexible, so we don't I don't think we need any formal motions or numbers. But the way I'm thinking about it as a sub panelist is ideally if the applicants are strong enough and we have the numbers, we would want to send at least three names to the governor, which tells me as a sub panelist, ideally in a perfect world, we send more than three names to the full body. So I would, you know, I don't want to put a number on that, but something to give the full body um meaningful input and to winnow that down to ideally three. So something more than three would come for that final interview. That's how I'm thinking about it. >> Representative Cleorne. >> No, that's great. I just want to make sure that, you know, um people define things with their own thoughts and their own understanding and I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. So if the idea is that at least three to the governor then I trust you to do the work that you need to do. Thank you. >> Great. So moving forward your form at the back of your packet. fill it out. Leave it with the chair. >> Oh, you didn't have one. >> Yes, you donated your time. All right, our final question um is, you know, as I talked about future meeting dates and topics um one on the financial crimes and fraud section at DPS going to OIG um and then of course as we go forward with the screening, but particularly in the financial crimes and fraud section at DPS, is there any information that would be helpful for the commission uh to have before we meet on that particular meeting? And if you think of something later, you are always feel free to um you know email all of us about information that you might need on that meeting. Of course, an agenda will be introduced to you before the meeting is announced, but if there's anything you can think of now, please let us know. Otherwise, we're going to be polling for dates to find out when people are available. There'll be a hybrid option. Um and uh yeah, let us know. Yeah, Representative Cleorne. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it would be really great for us to hear from the office uh the legislative auditor to see how they currently work with BCA. I think it would also be very good for us to hear from BCA. Um I know we had them testify in state government about clarity of rules, how they do things. I think it would be good for us to hear how they would see themselves interacting with an OIG if that's if that's the decision we're going to be making. >> No, I agree with you. I think that would be great information to have as we move forward. Anyone else? All right. Okay. Well, we will add that. U please check your emails for poll on uh dates available. Um we'll be putting that forward along with materials, resources, and the agenda as soon as um a date is decided on. All right. There being no more business before the commission, the meeting is adjourned.