[0:11] Hello to the members of the Commission. My name is Special Assistant Attorney General Patrick Reynolds.

[0:16] I'm going to be filling in for Kate Satek in her absence for facilitating these meetings. So looking forward to working with all of you.

[0:24] And without further ado, calling this meeting of the Inspector General Independent Advisory Commission to order.

[0:31] As our first agenda item, we have a few discussion in vote on the meeting minutes from the commission's last meeting.

[0:40] Just July 21st, 2026.

[0:43] Is there any discussion from any commission members on the draft of the meeting minutes?

[0:51] The commission to approve.

[0:54] Motion may in second it, all those in favor.

[0:57] All those opposed.

[0:58] Motion carries.

[0:59] these approved meeting minutes from the July 21 meeting will be posted after this meeting

[1:04] on the Secretary of State's website.

[1:07] Our next agenda item is a presentation from the President of the Association of Inspectors

[1:11] General to talk more about the Association of Inspectors General Certification Process.

[1:23] Based on questions raised in last week's meeting, I would like to briefly clarify the certification

[1:28] process and requirements for the certified inspector general and certified inspector general

[1:34] to investigate or credentials from the association of inspectors general.

[1:39] Most importantly, a person does not need to be or have been an inspector general to receive

[1:45] either of the AIG certifications required in Rhode Island statute.

[1:50] I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough about that last week.

[1:54] However, to obtain a professional certification from the association, those who attend

[1:59] our certification programs must currently be an employee of either an established OIG or another

[2:06] government agent, see with commensurate authority.

[2:10] The AIG certification institute has held twice a year in March and August and consists of

[2:16] 35 hours of in-person training provided by anywhere from 10 to 15 instructors from around

[2:22] the country, who are from around the country, who are experts in investigations, audits, inspections

[2:28] and legal issues.

[2:29] The curriculum is reviewed by NASBA for CPA professional credits.

[2:34] All applications are submitted online and reviewed by the Association's Professional

[2:38] Certification Board, which is made up of AIG, current and former board members who evaluate

[2:45] each prospective institute, the TND.

[2:49] The following certification requirements are current as of the last application period, which

[2:54] from April 1 through July 17th,

[2:57] 2026 for the upcoming August Institute.

[3:00] Applicants for the Inspector General

[3:02] investigator program must satisfy each of the following criteria.

[3:07] Currently employed in an office of Inspector General

[3:10] or agency with commensurate authority,

[3:13] performing or managing investigations,

[3:16] the applicant must have earned a bachelor's

[3:18] a graduate degree from an accredited college or university

[3:21] or have equivalent experience.

[3:24] Applicants to the certified Inspector General Program must satisfy the following criteria.

[3:31] As a senior level staff member in an Inspector General's office or agency with commensurate authority,

[3:39] or currently hold an appointed position as an Inspector General, including interim or acting Inspector General,

[3:45] or those who have received an appointment or at an agency with commensurate authority in public and a public jurisdiction.

[3:53] Currently, the AIG has recorded 1,129 certified inspectors general and 2,141 certified inspector general investigators.

[4:06] Some certified inspectors general may hold both certifications.

[4:15] Thank you, Mr. Fletcher, any further discussion?

[4:18] Yeah, I have a question, I read

[4:24] the statute I gather, and so when the statute requires a professional certificate from the association of inspectors general, including certified inspector general or certified inspector general investigator,

[4:45] it looks like according to the statute, the drafters believed.

[4:52] And I'm asking for affirmation that there were at least two types of certificates issued by the association.

[5:03] That, right?

[5:04] That's right.

[5:05] Are there others?

[5:06] There are others.

[5:07] You can be a certified inspector general.

[5:09] You can be, you can get a certificate certification in, as an auditor, as a site evaluator,

[5:17] or as the most recent certification is for counsel for lawyers who work in IG offices.

[5:29] I mean, the way the statute is written, you know, as the lawyer, one of the lawyers, sitting up here,

[5:33] actually we have three.

[5:35] I mean, I read that statute as the criteria holding any certificate from the association.

[5:48] It says, hold a professional certificate from the Association, including A or B, but not limited

[5:56] to A or B.

[6:00] So I just want to clarify that there are more than two sounds like certificates

[6:10] issued and the applicant for our purposes could have one or both or another from the association.

[6:25] That's why I read it.

[6:27] I don't know if you, it doesn't, it doesn't, it doesn't.

[6:32] It doesn't.

[6:33] It doesn't.

[6:34] It doesn't.

[6:35] It doesn't.

[6:36] It doesn't.

[6:37] that the language doesn't specifically exclude any of the certifications that you can receive

[6:43] from the organization, although it's specifically highlights to it.

[6:59] With your experience, from an advocate for the position that is described in our statute,

[7:09] for the 14th-day basis on what we're looking for here in Rhode Island, other certificates

[7:13] beyond the two specifically described in the statute, would we equally qualify?

[7:20] I would say that if the commission has allowed you to evaluate candidates who have the other certifications they would be worth talking to.

[7:39] But that's important to you now.

[7:42] What I am, my other question is,

[7:48] And, well, have a really odd part of the meaning.

[7:52] Could we at this point talk about when the certificate requirement attaches to that

[8:00] be important to discuss now when we have the way to later, which we discussed that now.

[8:05] And that's the next agenda topic, which obviously dovetails from this one, which is the discussion

[8:10] in possible vote on the qualifications for the inspector general, and I open the floor up for discussion

[8:15] on that agenda topic.

[8:16] So

[8:21] as we, as I mean to the statute, we, uh, we needed as the person was half of

[8:33] the certificate at the time of the vote by the government, um, but before the set was

[8:41] according to the one that is a week.

[8:44] And so based on that, we, if there were candidate who did not back

[8:53] candidate to go to the

[8:55] that would be a tiny issue here, for the other side, for the other side.

[9:02] Getting into Europe's certificate class does require a certain background to begin.

[9:11] But notice, even if we take set three names of them, and let's assume that none of them has to begin.

[9:21] They might not qualify for anything to your class.

[9:28] It's my experience that I then have the appointment from

[9:36] the mayor, from the governor that

[9:40] what's happened as a matter of practice, is that if somebody has been appointed an inspector

[9:44] general, that would alone be reason for them to be admitted into the class.

[9:52] Oh, that's good, okay, good.

[9:55] All right, that's important, because as you can see that by doing it,

[10:01] if that were not the case, we would narrow the breadth

[10:05] of the kinds of applicants that would be available

[10:08] for consideration, right?

[10:11] Because if our view, open for discussion, of course,

[10:15] for our view, as we read the statute is,

[10:17] You have to have that certificate at the time the governor sends the name to the Senate.

[10:28] Is that not correct, Patrick? Is that how we read it?

[10:31] That's our understanding, that's correct.

[10:33] Okay. So the way I've always considered it, which is slightly different than that,

[10:39] but I don't know that I'm correct about it.

[10:41] is that the governor nominates, but doesn't appoint right off the bat.

[10:47] There's a nomination, then it goes to the Senate for confirmation, and at that point if the person is confirmed, then the governor's office creates the appointment letter that gets sent out.

[11:00] So I've always considered that to be that later date following advice and consent to be the appointment, but I might have it wrong.

[11:08] Well, I guess the question turns on, at what point is appointment, does appointment attach, is it at the time, the name is sent, or is it at the point where the Senate confirms.

[11:26] And I don't know if the statute addresses that directly. Does anybody on my legal team know whether the statute addresses that directly?

[11:35] I don't believe it does, so I mean, I understand what you're saying.

[11:40] I think we looked at the specific language in this statute and it looked a little bit more

[11:44] like a point with advice and consent, but we can certainly, we'll give us more time.

[11:52] We'd give the candidate a little bit more time to get that certification if the appointment

[11:57] means the date the appointment letter is actually created.

[12:02] But I think what's clear, regardless of whether you read the statute, the way I read, we read it at the office of the way you read it, Mr. Grant, the governor is not going to be able to send a name to the Senate until, when's the next class?

[12:23] The very next one is August 13, registration is closed, so we're talking March.

[12:30] And so at that point the person having, which is just a handful of days, right?

[12:35] It's not a three month class, it's a two or three day class five days five day class.

[12:41] So at that point next March with the appointment in hand of the Governor could send the name to the Senate.

[12:54] Under your interpretation, Jason went, Mr. Graham, when, when could the governor transmit that aim?

[13:04] Well, he certainly could do it on the date you're talking about, I think.

[13:07] So by the time he makes that, well, that initial announcement,

[13:12] It's not a select.

[13:13] It counts.

[13:14] It counts.

[13:14] It's something spectacular.

[13:16] You know, what I'm suggesting is, it may be post-production consent, command, and

[13:24] it got that form in these.

[13:26] Which one question theory would allow the governor to send the appointment sooner or the nomination

[13:34] sooner?

[13:35] But we're read that way, in other words, the governor could send the name, the governor could send the name, the Senate could confirm, at that point, there would be an appointment, and then the class could take place.

[13:52] That would move the process up, right?

[13:56] I think the class would have to, in terms of time.

[13:58] prior to whatever we call the right, but it could be after the confirmation.

[14:06] Yeah, only your interpretation.

[14:08] Correct.

[14:09] So that interpreting the language that way, I'm not saying I agree with it, but I

[14:14] want to understand the stakes that we're talking about, would actually move the process up.

[14:23] I guess my question would be, how would we clarify that in the posting of the job?

[14:32] Well I think it has to be included and look, I think one of the things that we should think

[14:39] about is what litigation risk is there by getting it wrong and that may be something

[14:48] that perhaps we want to discuss in executive session

[14:54] because somebody agreed by the timing.

[15:00] May.

[15:03] And theory could bring a lawsuit alive, but there may be just pause for a second and seems the live stream has stopped working.

[15:10] So we're trying to see if we can get that back very well.

[15:19] So that's just a time to commission has voted to make into executive session.

[15:24] To discuss qualifications for attorney general as it may involve legal advice and strategy discussions that could implicate potential litigation,

[15:32] and laid to such qualifications, and thus is going to executive session,

[15:36] pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws, chapter 42-46-5A2.

[15:43] Following discussion, the commission will be returning to open session.

[15:48] You guys can come with, right?

[15:51] There you go.

[16:14] The inspector general's independent advisory commission.

[16:18] The commission has returned to back into open session from executive session.

[16:21] Is there a motion to seal the minutes of the July 29th, 2026 executive session?

[16:26] Make a motion to seal the minutes.

[16:29] Motion made and seconded all those in favour say aye.

[16:32] All those against motion carries.

[16:35] The commission met an executive session and discussion was had if the no votes were taken to report.

[16:41] Moving on to the next agenda item.

[16:43] Discussion and possible vote on job description.

[16:46] and qualifications and application process for Inspector General Candace.

[16:50] Secretary Murray.

[16:52] Thank you.

[16:52] Thank you, Patrick.

[16:54] Each of you have received this memo from our office with the proposed draft application

[17:00] process.

[17:01] Job description and salary range.

[17:03] And I know you had an opportunity to review this.

[17:06] Our team came to this memo in this proposal through research, kind of looking at the judicial

[17:14] nominating committee process, as well as the process used in Delaware to select their first

[17:19] inspector general, Delaware recently appointed their first inspector general in May of this year.

[17:26] So I'm going to present some highlights of this memo and propose what I think the commission

[17:30] should adopt moving forward. And of course, we want to hear feedback from the commission members

[17:36] as we go forward. So the job description section of the memo starts on, I'm sorry, the application

[17:45] process starts on page one and goes into page two.

[17:54] And you can see it specifically focuses

[17:58] on where the application would be advertised. It asks all of the members of the Advisory Commission

[18:05] who are able to do so to post on their social media channels website if applicable. Given

[18:11] the timeline of the commission's process, the application will be open for three weeks with

[18:17] deadline of Friday, August 21st, 2026 at 4 p.m.

[18:22] And if you compare that to the background of what Delaware did,

[18:26] they had it open for a month, but our timeline is more condensed than that.

[18:31] As applications are received, the Department of State staff will screen

[18:34] applications for completeness to ensure the applicant has met the minimum

[18:37] qualifications required pursuant to the statute, and that it may be

[18:47] Department of State staff will notify applicants via email that their application has been received and is complete.

[18:53] In complete applications will not be considered, and applicants will be notified that the Department of State staff

[18:58] that their application will not be reviewed by the Commission.

[19:01] Applicants who do not meet the minimum qualifications required pursuant to the statute,

[19:06] who are disqualified by the eligibility restrictions, will be notified by the Department of State staff

[19:11] that they do not meet the qualifications.

[19:13] applications will not be reviewed. When we get to complete applications, the Department of State

[19:18] staff will redact the names of the applicant from all pieces of the application packet and assign

[19:24] each applicant a unique identification number to facilitate a blind recruitment process. Each Friday

[19:30] during the application period, August 7th, 14th and 21st, at close of business, the Department

[19:37] staff will email in PDF format the redacted applications received that week to commission members

[19:43] or designated staff. Commission members will review the application prior to the next

[19:47] commission members. Excuse me, prior to the next commission meeting and the commission members

[19:52] will review and rank each of the applicants to the score 1 to 10, 10 indicating the strongest

[19:59] applicants. The Inspector General Independent Advisory Commission will meet during the week of Monday,

[20:03] August 24th, 2026 to Friday, August 28th if possible, to discuss the candidates and select

[20:10] six candidates of that application pool to interview.

[20:13] To facilitate the discussion, the Department of State will collect preliminary scores from

[20:17] all commission members and provide a total combined score for each applicant to the commission.

[20:22] After a voting to, after voting to approve the six candidates to interview,

[20:26] the Department of State staff will provide the names of the six applicants in open session

[20:30] for the record. And so, we'll open this up to discussion around that application's process.

[20:38] Mr. Secretary, so if we approve this today, you would post it by this Friday?

[20:43] That's correct.

[20:55] First, I want to say that this is still helpful.

[20:59] Great, gentlemen, we have the job description, everything, everything, and tasks.

[21:08] I just have a couple of notes, so I'll just add a little notes that I had here.

[21:13] Going down the Akron Chat part, one thing that I would suggest.

[21:20] So that's not part of the application for our citizens.

[21:24] Okay.

[21:27] Any other something?

[21:28] It's in the job.

[21:29] Job is correct.

[21:30] It's the letter for the interview.

[21:32] Oh, pardon.

[21:33] Okay.

[21:34] You should go back.

[21:35] Yep.

[21:35] It's the 7th of a little point.

[21:38] I'm going to suggest adding the eI commission to the back of the best standard part of the

[21:45] LGBTQ back of the checks.

[21:46] And the Senate also has the school loan when they do the behavior of their advice.

[21:50] And so we can just look for work of links.

[21:52] It's a pleasure to use the financial disclosure statements on a file, submit that to this commission.

[21:59] Sometimes it's relatively difficult, sometimes there's something interesting to go as well.

[22:04] And then also the issue, somewhere it says that we're going to ask you to do a financial disclosure,

[22:09] I don't even have this commission.

[22:12] My suggestion here would be that we have to continue to pay low financial disclosure statements.

[22:19] and submit to this mission, and not fly away against permission, as if they're just happy.

[22:27] It's a bad thing.

[22:29] And then if they are actually appointed to the position, then we have 30 days to fly away against.

[22:35] We would ask them to do it online when you all probably do it.

[22:39] But I just think it makes sense to just have a paper for our mother that just goes to us,

[22:45] confidentially in the beginning.

[22:51] I'm thrilled at the moment I'm not a school worker.

[22:55] I think that's true over the level of that.

[23:04] The issue of having this staff kind of do the preliminary scrutiny,

[23:09] finding out if I can, it makes a whole lot of sense.

[23:12] I think it's true.

[23:13] I would like for us, just as a matter of transparency and kind of delineating checks and balances if they could provide the commission with the list of who they just bought, and with a bullet going to the reason why something like that would be helpful.

[23:32] And then my last question, when we, on the top page 3, we're talking about the disqual

[23:45] line factors that we're going to tell people out, that number 2 and any other public

[23:51] officeholder, I wonder, and that's what the statute says, but I wonder if we want to clarify

[23:57] I'm going to have a patient, job description.

[24:01] If you agree with this interpretation,

[24:04] I assume we're talking about the elected

[24:06] public office worker.

[24:08] I assume that because it meant

[24:09] pulling it also, and it would have been

[24:11] no reason for not having to do it.

[24:13] We're going through it.

[24:15] We're going through it.

[24:15] We can't talk about it.

[24:17] Do I have my assumption is that that

[24:20] this fall of my factory number two

[24:22] would first of all be a human.

[24:24] I'd like to call the calls, and I see that state in, you know, soon.

[24:31] But I think we should clarify that to the staff, we were actually doing it as well.

[24:35] I think the students actually went there.

[24:38] That,

[24:41] I guess, started to find a client and went into the call for that.

[24:50] Those are the economics and other things.

[24:55] They're just very helpful.

[24:57] And I guess if the leave of the committee all go next,

[25:04] you know, as somebody who's hired

[25:06] a lot of prosecutors over the course of the over my career, state and federal, and I

[25:13] equate this job, many of the skill sets, as I think Mr. Fletcher pointed out, are those

[25:19] of a prosecutor, frankly, less of an accountant, more of somebody who can get to truth

[25:25] and understand truth.

[25:28] I don't like the anonymous application process.

[25:33] I think that if you want this job of heavy responsibility,

[25:37] then I think your name from jump ought to be out there.

[25:44] We'll get to that in a minute.

[25:46] If the intent of that is to somehow prevent some kind

[25:51] of bias on the part of the commission,

[25:53] I don't feel that it's necessary.

[25:56] Again, I make a lot of hiring decisions, hard to a lot of lawyers, well, over a hundred

[26:01] over the course of my career, a little long staff, and I rely on the interview process and

[26:07] the collective wisdom of the people who interview people with me to make the appropriate

[26:11] to make the appropriate choices.

[26:16] I also think that the application, you know, if what we're talking about is a cover letter,

[26:20] a background check and a resume. I don't know how that's got so little to it. I just don't

[26:30] understand why it needs to be anonymized. I mean, so I don't feel like it's necessary

[26:36] for me to make fair decisions about who to interview. And I also feel like if the intent

[26:47] is to protect someone who might not apply and could be both or one of the other.

[26:57] Then my view is that if you're going to apply for this job, then which is an important

[27:03] job, excuse me, and Rhode Islanders are going to be looking to this person for answers

[27:10] and quickly, then you should have the confidence in the willingness to put your name out

[27:16] And, you know, moving forward, you know, how we interview these candidates,

[27:22] is going to be one that I would like to be as public as possible, so I would expect them sitting right in front of us, and, you know, all right, we've got their resume.

[27:32] I'll get to some of the other components in a minute, but let's just talk about the resume and the cover letter.

[27:36] Kind of a letter will say, virtually nothing that helps frankly.

[27:40] So what we'll be looking at is the educational background work experience,

[27:44] so we'll want to probe and I think that should be on the record.

[27:48] And frankly, any bias that comes from that people will see in plain sight.

[27:53] So I just don't see the need to do it that way.

[27:56] It seems cumbersome to me.

[27:59] And I also feel like we,

[28:05] I don't suspect that we're going to be overwhelmed with candidates, so I don't feel like I need someone staff,

[28:12] mine or anyone else's, to advise me on who to interview or not.

[28:16] I want to make that call myself, particularly given that, again, what you're going to be looking at is a resume and a cover letter for the most part.

[28:23] And perhaps the results of a background check.

[28:26] And so I have other things to bring up, but rather than go through the laundry list and keep coming back to one or the other,

[28:33] I don't want to suggest my laundry list is incredibly long, but there are things in here as well

[28:39] Don't as this is that I want to expand upon a little bit.

[28:43] I think maybe we could start with that issue.

[28:46] So the screening process was pulled from the Delaware process, and it's just the screening process.

[28:54] So to get to your finalists, and then obviously the finalists would be, would be known.

[28:59] those names would be known.

[29:02] So the reasoning behind it is not necessarily

[29:05] for the applicant, it's for the commission members

[29:09] to take a look at the applications and determine

[29:12] based on those applications, who is qualified plus,

[29:17] based on what we've heard from Mr. Fletcher,

[29:21] to narrow that group down.

[29:23] And I don't know what to predict for the application pool.

[29:25] But if there is a significant application pool,

[29:29] this is a way to ensure that we're looking at qualifications

[29:33] and experience only a not a name associated with whoever

[29:41] that person might be.

[29:42] So the intent, I believe in Delaware, and the intent here,

[29:46] is not necessarily that the person who is applying

[29:49] is kept anonymous, so that the process in winnowing

[29:53] down the number of applicants to a group of finalists

[29:57] is done blindly.

[30:00] Mr. Secretary, this is here that there will send us six applicants, right? So, six will, but we'll determine the six. Okay. Based on the first part of the review, and then meetings, where we discussed those applicants that we've chosen, through the, through the blind process, based on what we see as their resumes.

[30:27] But what would any one of us be able to do appropriately on our own with a name to learn more about them?

[30:36] Like, for example, when somebody applied in my office to be in the Sistine Islands, it's a turning.

[30:40] They weren't going to go through a background check.

[30:42] They're going to go through a hiring committee. They're going to come to me eventually.

[30:46] But we wanted to know the consequences they handled.

[30:48] We wanted to know whether or not judges had disciplined them.

[30:52] You know, these are all things that would go well, if I run this person in Google and the first thing comes up is that Judge Leesie had a real problem with this person.

[31:00] I'm not going to hire that person. I'm not even going to consider them. Certainly not the expense of somebody else who want to perform that kind of really basic basic look in says, okay.

[31:11] All right, this person has a pretty good track of look. They drive that big case out in LA or they handle that big, you know,

[31:17] It's like the tunnel case, well, that's,

[31:19] somebody give that person a lot of responsibility.

[31:22] I want to know that.

[31:23] Now, maybe that's in the cover letter.

[31:25] Maybe it's not, maybe the positive is in there.

[31:27] Maybe the negative isn't.

[31:30] Again, I feel like knowing who I am looking at

[31:35] with the ability to do some common sense.

[31:38] Oh my, not doing a rolling quorum or anything.

[31:42] Arms me to better say, hey, look, this person,

[31:46] whether they're from Rhode Island or not,

[31:49] is somebody who has the pelts on the wall

[31:53] to really get this done.

[31:57] And I think those things, I think that could be helpful.

[32:03] So that's, and I find the point ranking thing

[32:06] to be an artificial way of getting to a good candidate.

[32:11] I feel that's more of an art than a science.

[32:15] And again, having hired a lot of, you know, I will, I will say, I think really good

[32:20] people, you know, I think when there is, there's more of an art than a science, and

[32:27] I want us to have more, more stake in the game, and more, more information at our fingertips

[32:35] other than a cover letter, and this is my resume.

[32:40] But the idea is that the staff would review it based on this process and then we would have access.

[32:52] Well, that's been on base on base qualifications.

[32:55] So which is the rest of the man to cover that?

[32:57] So it's a good person.

[32:58] But an application will be more than it'll, it'll, I assume when you're applying for this job,

[33:04] you're going to demonstrate the things they required in the, in the, the mandated requirements.

[33:09] When you're applying, you're going to say from this date to this date, this is what I did to your point, some big case.

[33:21] And so I agree that when you get to a pool of six or eight, then yes, that is entirely public process.

[33:31] And this is a public process as well. And the point ranking is not based, that doesn't determine who the finalists are.

[33:39] that just gives you kind of a guideline as to how we all interpreted the application.

[33:47] But I'm just going to intent, speaking to intent as to why this was put for me.

[33:50] No, I understand.

[33:52] I mean, to me, give me the resumes, just speak for myself.

[33:55] I would like to see the resumes, I'd like to see who's applied,

[33:58] I'd like to be able to just learn when I can learn about them,

[34:02] and then come, you know, if come to a meeting here in public,

[34:08] identify the people who have applied, identify what about them, you know, go

[34:15] on one by one. I don't, you know, if we have a 200 rule deal with that one,

[34:20] the time comes, what if we have 10, both of them one by one, and here's what we

[34:23] know about them, and here's what, here's what we think.

[34:26] So I think that, to me, you know, more reasonable is, you know, I have the staff

[34:30] that they listed based on experiencing qualifications wants to get to us to give us to us

[34:37] with all the information so that we have a full picture of who is president.

[34:41] But I think from a staff perspective, be great for them to, you know, give their due diligence

[34:47] as well as to who's qualified and I want to say rank it but put it in a way that shows

[34:55] who's more qualified than that for them.

[34:57] the who staff is that is it's it's the combination of five staff but the proposal is not

[35:03] for the staff to do that the proposal is for the staff to eliminate non-qualified people

[35:08] based on the specific requirements of the job so so if you don't hold a batches or above

[35:15] degree you're not going to be screen you don't you never make it to your destiny so that's the

[35:20] only thing but the staff is again but how many people are not going to self are not going to

[35:27] I don't know if it would be so unself-aware that based on those very frankly clear statutory career.

[35:41] But it's going to be clear the way we're going to talk about it in a minute.

[35:45] It's going to be pretty clear, right?

[35:47] So you're going to either have that certificate or not.

[35:50] So you either have a bachelor's or you're not.

[35:52] You're going to have a certificate or you're not.

[35:54] you're going to have 10 years of experience or you're not.

[35:58] How much help do we need to sort out those people?

[36:01] And I would say zero.

[36:04] Give me the information.

[36:07] On the appointee, I don't need staff to help me make that decision.

[36:11] I want to see it.

[36:12] I want to be able to vote.

[36:14] I want the whole University of People who've Applied.

[36:17] And I want the public to see every single person

[36:20] that's put their name in that hat

[36:22] So that nobody thinks anybody was excluded or included for any particular reason or another.

[36:28] Let's see the resumes.

[36:29] Let's the public have them. Let's bring them before us.

[36:33] Let's walk through the qualifications.

[36:34] Let's vote on six or five or seven.

[36:37] I don't know what the magic of six is.

[36:38] To interview, we can decide that now or later.

[36:41] And then go ahead and interview and sit right here in front of us.

[36:44] So that everybody watching on Capitol TV sees the whole process.

[36:47] Start to finish.

[36:48] Nobody's excluded.

[36:50] There's no risks included by anyone other than us.

[36:53] To me, that's transparent, and it helps us who are tasked

[36:59] with ultimately the decision-making process

[37:02] to get to the list.

[37:03] Whether we agree on which six or three to set, who knows?

[37:07] Well, we'll get there.

[37:09] We'll figure that out, but that's the process that I think

[37:13] helps me decide who I'm going to recommend or vote

[37:18] recommend to the governor to choose and that's that's I've got one fifth of that

[37:23] responsibility I want all the information in front of me to be able to make the

[37:29] best decision I can make on behalf of the people of the state of Rhode Island

[37:32] entrusted with this responsibility so you know those are my those are my thoughts

[37:39] on that I don't need to be the dead horse you know I think I've I've waited

[37:42] out and it doesn't mean I'm right it's just that's how I do it

[37:46] If I follow up to what you said, can I just go, just a practical question, are you?

[37:51] How are you envisioning that, once we, let's say, we get 50 applicants, or just call it 50 applicants,

[38:02] are we going to discuss their qualifying and disqualifying all 50 of them by name in open

[38:11] session?

[38:11] I would. I think if you're applying for this job, this job to me is as close to a constitutional officer

[38:19] as you can get without being a constitutional officer. I mean, if you think of the way to respond,

[38:24] you're giving them subpoena power. You're giving them the power to swear people under oath.

[38:28] You're giving them the power to write reports which I can't do. I can't do using a grand jury

[38:33] because that bill's never passed. So you're giving this person as close to an attorney general's power

[38:39] as you're going to get and it seems to me that if you want that power then you should put your name out there

[38:45] and be judged on your resume in public and that gives the people of the state confidence that we looked at all 50

[38:53] these are the names because before you know they're going to do their good research right if we don't do it

[38:59] they're going to do it right and so so let's let's not put any blinders on

[39:05] What's see how many resumes come in now if we get 2,000 resumes when we come back together and we say listen

[39:12] Nobody nobody was a look at 2,000 resumes

[39:15] A lot of these resumes are clearly or our peer to be clearly of people aren't qualified

[39:20] Well then we can come up with a different process. I just don't think that's going to be necessary

[39:25] So that's why that's why I'm trying to answer I mean again

[39:29] We could do it differently obviously, but but I think the more

[39:32] given the awesome responsibility that this statute in the General Assembly has given to this person as close to an attorney general as you're going to find.

[39:42] The only thing they don't have is a grand jury as far as I can tell.

[39:46] And which means a can, and they can't go to the spirit court to immunize the witness, but they're that close.

[39:50] And let me say, when you wish you a report, as somebody who's issued reports, people don't like it.

[39:55] People don't like it, people in power don't like it.

[39:57] That's an awesome responsibility.

[39:59] So you better be ready for the moment, and I think we should, and the public should see exactly who

[40:05] we're considering, and how we're willing people in, and how we're willing people out.

[40:12] That's my answer.

[40:17] First of all, I want to say thanks, echo the executive directors, comments about the work that

[40:25] you're off of, too.

[40:26] Thank you.

[40:26] Secondly, these may be housekeeping things, but is it the normal procedure that when you submit a job application through your office or through to the state of Rhode Island that candidates would have to attest to the truth of their bonifies, their resume, their qualifications, at some point in the application?

[40:56] I'd recommend that you do, you'd say everything in here is true because you'd have a standalone basis to qualify someone if they were to make a false representation in the application.

[41:06] The second thing is,

[41:11] I would ask on behalf of my association that the application materials make it clear that by submitting the application,

[41:22] And the AIG is permitted to share with this commission, the certification that they've received.

[41:33] In other words, if you just write us and say, does this person have a certain certification?

[41:39] We don't say, yeah, so it's not a public, right?

[41:41] So by submitting this application, you're saying, yes, I can, we can, that this association can disclose those details.

[41:52] I have more, but I don't know.

[41:53] So let's get through the application process first

[41:57] and then we'll go to the next part.

[42:00] So if we were to eliminate the blind aspect of this,

[42:04] you receive every application and there's no staff

[42:11] who are done to eliminate folks who don't need

[42:13] minimum qualifications.

[42:15] Each other five members gets the entire package.

[42:19] Unredact with the person's name.

[42:23] How about the other recommendations that Jason made remind you Jason's a little bit.

[42:30] Oh, that was just include ethics commission in the background.

[42:34] Oh, yeah.

[42:35] Yeah.

[42:36] I have.

[42:37] I personally have no objection to those already.

[42:39] I guess I would have said so at the time.

[42:40] Yeah, I just wanted to get us to the point where we can go on that application process,

[42:44] including your suggestions.

[42:45] Yep.

[42:46] I'm not there yet.

[42:47] I have other things to go with.

[42:49] Yeah.

[42:49] I do.

[42:49] Yes, I do. So, there's something in the application process about complete this. Will there be an opportunity or should

[42:59] to be an opportunity for the applicant to cure?

[43:04] So, you know, whatever, whatever the criteria is,

[43:09] they didn't include it. They don't, they don't, they don't attach this certificate. Will someone

[43:14] staff member presumably say, okay, he didn't attach this with their at least be that opportunity to cure.

[43:21] I think it should be, frankly, obviously if they don't have a bachelor degree, you know,

[43:27] they can't cure that within whatever the three-week timeframe, but there may be some sort of technical

[43:32] aspect that's missing. Sure, so we would all get the applications. If we shifted to your proposed

[43:38] we get the applications and then if any one of us saw an application that looked like it was missing

[43:44] something that could possibly be cured, we can bring that to the edge.

[43:48] Yeah, well, I think that's, I think that's correct or it could be simply a ministerial

[43:51] establishment work could reach out, they're going to have access to them too, and they could

[43:55] offer the candidate an opportunity to cure without a vote.

[43:59] I don't know that it needs to vote, maybe we wouldn't want to give them that opportunity.

[44:03] I

[44:08] don't object to that, I don't know.

[44:12] Okay, so when do we, it wasn't clear to me,

[44:15] so this is more of a question or anything else.

[44:17] The background checks, when will they be done?

[44:19] Will they be done prior to our decision

[44:24] who to interview and the interview itself?

[44:30] Or will it follow after the six or three are selected?

[44:35] I think the process is outlined here, it would happen when the six were selected, the finalists.

[44:43] For interview, do we know how long it takes?

[44:46] I'm assuming we're going to task the state police will just task.

[44:50] That right?

[44:53] And do we have any idea what their bandwidth is to do it?

[45:00] No obligation to do it. And the scope of the background check that that is being anticipated. So, for example, there's

[45:10] the kind of background check that you do, which frankly is not, not very extensive. You go through the

[45:17] presidential appointment process. That's a background check. They talk to everybody that you've ever

[45:24] work for since your 18th birthday, federal service,

[45:27] generally I think it's 70 years, it's 20 years,

[45:29] it goes back to 18th birthday.

[45:32] I don't have in my head the scope of what the background

[45:37] check should be, except I do think it should be more

[45:41] than just the running of an NCIC and a AAAI and a BCI.

[45:46] I think, for example, you should provide an end

[45:49] worth statement.

[45:51] You know, we're not just looking for conflicts.

[45:53] We're looking for things that may subject this person to influence, extortion, the person may have been,

[46:04] have discharged dead in bankruptcy.

[46:06] That may or may not weigh in to the more esoteric qualifications that your staff has identified,

[46:12] I think, quite correctly.

[46:14] So I think understanding the scope of that background check and how long it will take to be done,

[46:23] We should give some talk to you.

[46:25] I don't know what the analog is.

[46:27] My sense is, is that in state service.

[46:29] It's not extensive enough.

[46:33] But I think we could start with,

[46:35] maybe this is what the staff conditions I don't know.

[46:38] What they do for judicial candidates.

[46:40] I don't know what that is.

[46:41] I'd like to know more about it,

[46:43] because I sometimes based on, well,

[46:45] I don't want to go farther than that.

[46:46] I just, my sense is that that some of these background checks that are done for state positions don't go far enough.

[46:57] Yeah, I think the background check basis was kind of in the traditional momentary committee, so that that process.

[47:06] Would we know what that is?

[47:07] Which I can't speak to specifically, other than it's a intensive process conducted by the state police.

[47:12] Do you have any staff?

[47:13] I don't know if they are the ready-cifix of the background check.

[47:23] This is the end of the Chief of State policy.

[47:26] We did not research or contemplate the background check process because we only went through the application.

[47:33] And this was not something we proposed to be in the application.

[47:40] understood, but doesn't the application by putting in timelines require us to consider as

[47:49] a practical matter, the length of time it will take to do a backroach.

[47:53] So one of the things that Stapley's tell us, it's going to take us six weeks.

[47:58] I mean, it was 90 days in the federal service to do a backroach, and you've got 25 applicants.

[48:03] You know that will never be interviewing anybody before Christmas.

[48:06] So without envisioning what that background check looks like and how extensive it needs to be.

[48:14] For again, this incredibly important position that we're talking about.

[48:19] I just think some, I think what we need to do to cut to a solution rather than to simply raise the question is.

[48:25] I think that my office can go back as we work with the state police.

[48:29] Find out the willingness, find out what resources they'll commit to it.

[48:33] Find out how long it will take to do it.

[48:35] find out what the process is for judicial nominees and come back at the next meeting so that we know

[48:43] exactly what that time line is so we can build that into our application process.

[48:50] Right because there's me, I don't want any of you so many people.

[48:54] I don't want to embarrass them with nothing else, right?

[48:58] So that was that was background check and so staff, AG staff, can we to me do that?

[49:06] I had a question about six, but I guess six is as good as eight, or as good as seven, or five,

[49:14] should do the interview?

[49:16] Does the application should it tell the interviews?

[49:20] What the applications will, what the interviews will look like?

[49:26] You know, the applicant should be aware prepared to be interviewed in public before by the members of the country.

[49:35] mission. I think it should. Yeah. And that's included. It doesn't

[49:39] include it. Thank you. Sorry, Mr. That. All right, great. We'll get

[49:42] to salary range in a minute.

[49:47] And we talked about the background

[49:49] check.

[49:52] So to link in the executive session, James, do you want to

[49:58] be that? I'm just looking because I'm tired of talking. I think

[50:04] I think we all agree that we were going to stay true to the letter of the law and

[50:13] base the application process on the specifications of the requirements that an applicant needs

[50:20] at the time of applying.

[50:22] So I think that that was the general consensus, but I don't know if anyone else instead of

[50:27] different.

[50:28] Did we tee that up correctly, Patrick?

[50:31] That sounds accurate to me.

[50:31] So just so I have it clear in my head.

[50:35] So what we're saying here is that part of the statute that requires

[50:41] a certificate, a professional certificate from the Association

[50:46] of Inspector's General, that that certificate be in hand

[50:51] at the time of the application.

[50:53] That is how we collectively read that provision based

[50:57] on the plain language of the statute.

[51:02] And then I think it's what we found consensus.

[51:04] Is that accurate?

[51:08] Yeah, I think that it wasn't written crystal clear,

[51:13] but at least speaking for myself,

[51:16] I think that was the intent of it

[51:18] that otherwise it would have said within three months

[51:21] and it refers to a candidate.

[51:24] So I agree with that interpretation.

[51:28] And the last thing that I have is the salary range, I just think, our salary range is too low.

[51:33] I appreciate the staff as they did an excellent job on the application, giving us the

[51:39] comps, but I think that, again, given the expectations of the general assembly and the public

[51:47] with respect to this job and how difficult it's going to be, I think the salary range is too low

[51:52] to get an extraordinary candidate, which I think we want, and so I would recommend that

[51:57] salary range be 175 to 225.

[52:08] I support that.

[52:11] So those are my only comments on the application.

[52:14] Thank you.

[52:15] Of course.

[52:16] I'd like to get some background on what salary range would appeal to someone who is taking on this.

[52:27] And obviously the Delaware salary is even lower than the bottom and of this salary range that is proposed.

[52:33] than that person had to do the exact same thing that this person's going to have to do,

[52:37] which is established the office.

[52:39] So I just want to get some background.

[52:41] I don't disagree that we want to attract someone to this position and in order to do so

[52:46] and to expand the application pool, that certainly would be a way to do that.

[52:49] But I'd like to get some background.

[52:51] So our research on this shows that the salary range for statewide IGs from the information

[52:59] that we could find publicly was from $98,500 all the way up to $271,000.

[53:08] Massachusetts being $188,000 and Delaware being $1,195.

[53:15] So I think that what's being discussed or potentially situating that salary range within

[53:23] Massachusetts, which is your neighbor or state and also Delaware, which is the most recent

[53:27] state to stand up in office of Inspector General, I think would be a competitive salary range.

[53:32] I think that would be good.

[53:35] That would be good.

[53:37] That would be good.

[53:37] It's with the range that was just, that you just proposed.

[53:43] All right, so we would effectively be increasing it for one fifty five to one seventy five to one

[53:47] seventy five to two twenty five.

[53:50] Is that correct?

[53:51] That's correct.

[53:53] Then we can take more comment on that.

[53:58] I'm mostly comfortable with that enhanced range, given the unique nature of what it's going

[54:06] to take.

[54:08] I find a person who's not just a good inspector general, but a person who can come into

[54:15] us and create an agency that doesn't exist, that's going to have to hire 100% of the rest

[54:23] of the staff is going to have to build this thing from the ground up.

[54:28] It really will take an incredible skill set to do that.

[54:34] So at least for this first five-year term,

[54:37] that sounds like from what the state's asking of that person.

[54:41] That sounds like a reasonable range to me.

[54:45] So that's something we should specifically take a vote on.

[54:49] Yeah, maybe I don't feel like I should have to do this.

[54:51] going to do it anyway. I have just so it's clear since I propose the salary range and I have

[54:57] some of the qualifications for this job. I can guarantee and promise the people the state of

[55:02] Rhode that I will never ever apply for this job. I'm prevented by the revolving door, but

[55:08] I can promise you I will never ever apply for this job. Hold this certificate. Yes,

[55:21] I don't

[55:21] How make the motion to create a salary range between 175 and 25?

[55:30] Second, motion made in the seconded.

[55:33] Is there any third discussion?

[55:35] All those in favor say aye?

[55:38] Opposed?

[55:39] Motion carries.

[55:41] But I guess the other motion I would make is to start the application process anyways so that

[55:46] position is advertised, is that we do everything that we suggested here, including the changes

[55:55] that both Jason and the general suggested with the one exception of the background check

[56:04] process, which we will come back to.

[56:08] I guess my question is, are we able to do that?

[56:11] Can we put an application process out there without knowing the timeline?

[56:19] I think we're telling the applicants there's going to be a background check, but can we do that without knowing a specific timeline?

[56:26] Well, I think we can without committing to what the timeline will be after the application closes, right?

[56:33] So there may be a gap in theory between when the application process closes and when the interviews would start

[56:40] Well, those background checks are concluded.

[56:44] I think I want to ask Patrick, Patrick, would it be possible for the members of two staffs

[56:49] to work together?

[56:51] So I would volunteer our staff to work with the Secretary of State staff?

[56:55] Yes, if the Secretary was agreeable, that would allow you.

[56:59] And stay within the bounds of the open meetings act, and then come back.

[57:03] Yes, this body would be the application itself.

[57:06] Yes, because three commissioners or their staff would be a quorum, so two would be less than a quorum, it would not

[57:13] Institute though, man

[57:14] And then we have to vote in open meaning on the newly revised application or could the staffs take the general direction that we have collectively offered them

[57:26] Incorporated and simply put the application up. They'll be up to the commission. The commission could either decide they want to vote on it again

[57:33] or they can vote on the concepts and then vote to delegate that decision to those two staffs.

[57:40] So there are two things at play. There is the job description, which I think we've kind of settled.

[57:47] And then there's the application process, which I'm not sure if we have said it.

[57:54] Yeah, I think the application is based on pace with the suggested changes.

[58:00] have we settled on that or have we not settled on that with the

[58:03] suggestion? Yeah, I have no objection to a non-blind process where the

[58:08] five, I can't speak for anybody, obviously, where the five of us receive

[58:12] every application, review that application and determine who the finalists will be.

[58:21] Yeah, I would say my preference would have been to go blind up until we select

[58:27] people that we want to interview and in which case it's an open book at that point.

[58:35] But, you know, if the commission's will to do it all in the open, then that's what it will be.

[58:45] I can live with it.

[58:47] Here from the other.

[58:48] So, just to clarify, does that mean that the proposal to have your staff sort of vet the minimum

[58:54] qualifications that no longer exists?

[58:57] and we look through all of the applications that's correct. I'm fine with that.

[59:02] Okay, so we can make a, I'll make the motion to accept the application process proposal

[59:10] with the agreed upon adjustments and to accept the job, let's do that first.

[59:19] Let's, let's, let's, I've made the motion to accept the application process with the

[59:22] adjustments that the commission has been doing too.

[59:25] motion made and seconded any further discussion.

[59:29] Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.

[59:31] All those opposed motion carries.

[59:34] And then I would make the motion to approve the job description.

[59:38] One of the things we haven't talked about in the job description

[59:40] is whether or not it is going to be only what is in the statute.

[59:44] Because the memo suggests some of the things

[59:47] that Mr. Fletcher put forth as enhanced, not a qualification, but a preference.

[59:58] Can you hear it, sir?

[1:00:05] Okay, so if you go to page 3 of the memo, you will see the minimum qualifications listed, which I think we've all agreed to, and then the ideal candidate would have the following qualifications, and this is best on this is based on what Mr. Fletcher initiated.

[1:00:29] to mine the right page here.

[1:00:30] I'm a bit of a page.

[1:00:31] I'm a bit of a page.

[1:00:32] Yeah, yeah, the bullet points near the top of the page.

[1:00:36] That's the background, I think.

[1:00:39] I believe it in page five, at the time of the point.

[1:00:44] Time of the point.

[1:00:44] Yeah, some pull back to the finish, there it is.

[1:00:47] So, yes.

[1:00:48] Supplemental information, which would be enhanced

[1:00:51] is on questionable integrity, independent

[1:00:52] courage and unwavering commitment to the truth.

[1:00:54] The things that Mr. Fledger put forward in the

[1:00:59] in the last meeting.

[1:01:01] We can add that or we can eliminate that.

[1:01:03] There.

[1:01:08] I'm comfortable with all of the additional requirements.

[1:01:12] I think it provides a little bit more information.

[1:01:15] One piece of information that I would like to see in here is just to let potential applicants know that this doesn't exist yet.

[1:01:24] that you're applying to establish and staff and office from the ground floor up.

[1:01:34] There may be many people who are qualified for this that wouldn't sign on for that, for instance.

[1:01:40] You know, they might want to go to an established office and have a great staff already in hand,

[1:01:44] and just be the head of it rather than quite a bit, you know, this is a lot of work, right?

[1:01:52] And we want to attract that kind of person who wants that kind of...

[1:01:58] Well that would be additional supplemental information within the job description.

[1:02:05] That is not considered a requirement but considered important information.

[1:02:09] Or maybe just right up front in the general statement of duties,

[1:02:12] just an extra sentence or two that explains that.

[1:02:16] would say the Rhode Island is standing up and also the spectrogens.

[1:02:21] So you gave that a motion of first time?

[1:02:23] Yeah.

[1:02:23] I'll say that.

[1:02:25] What are we doing again at the financial disclosure piece?

[1:02:28] No.

[1:02:29] We're adding straightforward statement at the top of the process that indicates this is beyond

[1:02:37] an Inspector General's job and is standing up and Inspector General is office and then

[1:02:42] becoming Inspector General.

[1:02:47] I could live with it, you know, I don't know how you evaluate supplemental information or qualifications with one of them as courage.

[1:03:02] Forgive me, I'm thinking of, you know what, I'm thinking of the cowardly law.

[1:03:07] But that's why this is, this is in addition to kind of outlining who the, who the ideal candidate, this type of person.

[1:03:17] You can live with it, but I would also strengthen, I mean, I think, or keep parts of it in a lot of others.

[1:03:22] I think I think those are all things that we're going to probe and prod because they come naturally with the kind of person who has the statutory qualifications as written out.

[1:03:35] So, you know, if, if for me, you know, shorter is always, is always, in this case, better, and I would probably eliminate it, but if, obviously, you know, we can, you know, we reach, because that's a straight up, we don't, we can vote, whatever, whatever you think people think.

[1:03:50] Are you talking about these bullet points here on page three, or are you talking about this?

[1:03:55] Very end of page five.

[1:03:58] It's basically a, as I read it, an encapsulation of what you described as what the ideal candidate would have, and there's no question we're going to be looking for those things, but I don't know that they need to be stated in such a way.

[1:04:13] It's, I mean, it certainly is aspirational in terms of the search, but to me, some of it would go without saying, but

[1:04:21] I agree, I think that the questions that the interview, the information that's supposed to be

[1:04:26] elicited by the interview should get to the heart of some of these things.

[1:04:29] I don't know that they ought to be.

[1:04:33] I don't.

[1:04:35] I'm fine with that.

[1:04:36] We put that forward as an opportunity to talk about what was presented, but I'm fine with moving

[1:04:44] forward on the specific qualifications that are listed without enhanced or supplemented.

[1:04:52] Thanks.

[1:04:52] Yeah, I mean, go ahead, I'm sorry.

[1:04:54] No, I think I don't know if it was clear again and there are peace about, I know the process

[1:05:01] of the financial disclosure to the ethics commission that we want, what we've voted on,

[1:05:07] accepting the, accepting the, accepting the recommendations that's all I have.

[1:05:11] Yeah, and I'm, I'm very happy that, you know, what I said last week, you know,

[1:05:16] appear to be taken a heart and I just want to make sure that we are, when we're interviewing

[1:05:20] I mean, the candidates that with these are the things that we were looking for.

[1:05:23] Yeah, right.

[1:05:24] Okay.

[1:05:24] There are certainly aspirations.

[1:05:28] Okay.

[1:05:28] So hopefully it achieves.

[1:05:29] So I'll restate the motion only without the supplemental information.

[1:05:38] So it would be just a civic job requirements.

[1:05:40] In addition to a notifier that this is standing up in office of the Inspector General.

[1:05:46] I just to put on the I would leave all of that supplemental information in there. I'm very comfortable with having it in the job description, but although yes on this motion.

[1:05:59] So a motion made by Secretary Moray is there a second. Seconded.

[1:06:03] Any further discussion? All those in favor state I. All those opposed motion carries.

[1:06:11] Is there any further discussion on this agenda item?

[1:06:16] Hearing none, we'll move on to the final agenda item, which is discussion and possible vote on funding and reimbursement processes for the expenses of the commission.

[1:06:24] Treasurer Dioza.

[1:06:25] Thank you so much.

[1:06:26] And our last meeting, we discussed the matter of covering expenses related to the search process.

[1:06:33] And that same day, we received a letter from Acting Director Thomas Verdi of the Department of Administration who wrote that.

[1:06:41] commission, I quote, reasonable, expensive directly related to their selection of the first

[1:06:47] inspector general, are chargeable to the fiscal year 2027 appropriation establishment for

[1:06:53] that office. And so these expenses would include travel arrangements for qualified out-of-state

[1:07:01] campus who may be called to appear in person before this commission. Travel arrangements for commission

[1:07:07] members traveling from out of state and across associated with potentially

[1:07:12] advertising the position in a publication or on a site.

[1:07:17] Talking to DOA staff, my staff would work with them to establish a process and as a result

[1:07:25] I'm proposing and ask the Commission to take a vote to approve the use of funds for expenses

[1:07:31] related to the selection process, specifically to cover travel arrangements for out-of-state

[1:07:36] candidates and commission members and to cover the possible advertisement of this position

[1:07:41] is so dealing by the commission and to designate my office as the commission's liaison

[1:07:46] with DOA to simplify the coordination of travel arrangements and process related expenses.

[1:07:54] And DOA has agreed to assign a point of contact to work with my office.

[1:07:59] And we are meeting the office of the general treasurer.

[1:08:04] We'll cover the first expenses of your travel.

[1:08:07] Prior to this meeting.

[1:08:11] And so I would like to open up for a discussion.

[1:08:14] If anything.

[1:08:19] Fantastic.

[1:08:23] Hello.

[1:08:23] Member questions?

[1:08:24] Thank you.

[1:08:26] Motion made and seconded any further discussion.

[1:08:29] Hearing none.

[1:08:30] All those in favor state.

[1:08:32] All those opposed.

[1:08:33] Motion carries.

[1:08:34] Peter, can we go back to seven that allowable?

[1:08:39] Yes.

[1:08:41] So did we vote, forgive me if I, if I would be didn't I forgot?

[1:08:47] But did we vote on whether or not we were going to ask the staff to bring a written document back for us to vote on,

[1:08:54] or whether we were going to give or in the alternative given the direction that we have given them at this meeting,

[1:09:01] We were going to rely on them to incorporate it so that the application can be posted prior to our next.

[1:09:08] We voted on the letter.

[1:09:10] And we voted that the staff could do it.

[1:09:13] Okay, good.

[1:09:14] All right.

[1:09:14] Thank you.

[1:09:16] With no other business, I'll take a motion to adjourn.

[1:09:20] Make a motion to adjourn.

[1:09:21] Second.

[1:09:22] Should be it.

[1:09:22] And seconded, all those in favor state aye.

[1:09:25] All those opposed.

[1:09:27] The meeting is now adjourned at 5.

[1:09:30] 18.

Inspector General Independent Advisory Commission: 7-29-2026

Transcript