The State Government Finance and Policy Committee on Feb. 11 advanced House File 3, a proposal from Chair Jim Nash to require the Office of the Legislative Auditor to compile and deliver to legislative committees a matrix showing how many OLA recommendations each agency has implemented.

The measure, which Nash said is aimed at reducing “waste, fraud and abuse,” was amended and then referred to the House Ways and Means Committee following a roll-call vote. The committee adopted an author’s amendment (A6) that Nash said aligns the bill with conversations he and Senate sponsors had in the other body, and a subsequent A7 amendment that adds an appropriation matching the bill’s fiscal note.

Why it matters: Nash and supporters said the matrix would give chairs and members earlier, clearer information about agency internal controls before legislators decide on funding. Nash said the tool is intended to “make waste, fraud, and abuse less possible and less rampant in our state” by surfacing agency follow-through on OLA recommendations. Legislative Auditor Judy Randall said the OLA already collects implementation information and that a regular, standardized report would help committees, but acknowledged the office currently relies in part on agency self-attestation and would need additional resources to independently confirm agency claims.

What committee members debated: Randall told the committee that OLA’s update report shows categories for implemented, partially implemented, and not implemented recommendations, and that some entries reflect self‑attestation because OLA lacks the resources for full confirmation. “Given our limited resources, we are not able to independently confirm a lot of the information they provide to us,” Randall said during testimony.

Supporters called the bill a preventive tool. Rhianna Lee, legislative and coalitions director for the Americans for Prosperity–Minnesota chapter, testified: “This bill requires the OLA to provide an annual report to legislators highlighting whether agencies are acting on recommendations related to improving financial practices, internal controls and overall management.”

Members raised limits and risks. Representative Freiberg and others warned the proposal could give disproportionate weight to OLA recommendations—especially program-evaluation “should” recommendations that are not black-letter law—and asked whether OLA staff have subject-matter expertise for every recommendation. Randall replied that program evaluators are generalists skilled in policy research and that recommendations are grounded in standards and best practices, but conceded program-evaluation findings can be more open to discussion than compliance-focused financial audits. Representative Kraft urged the committee to avoid turning the matrix into an inspection regime that prizes a single score over context. Representative Cleavern (Lehi Cleburne) questioned whether chairs would rely on the matrix instead of doing oversight themselves and said the proposal needs a larger fiscal note and added staffing for agencies and OLA to make follow-up meaningful.

Actions and amendments: Chair Nash moved HF3 and the A6 author’s amendment; the committee adopted the author’s amendment by voice vote. Representative Clardy moved and the committee adopted the A7 amendment, which added a general‑fund appropriation to match the fiscal note. A motion to re-refer the bill to the Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Policy Committee failed. A subsequent roll-call motion to re-refer to the Committee on Ways and Means prevailed (tally recorded in committee as 7 yes, 6 no), and the bill will move to Ways and Means as amended.

What remains: Auditors and several members said changes would be needed to ensure the report distinguishes legally mandatory recommendations from discretionary “best practice” suggestions and to confirm OLA’s ability to verify implementation rather than rely on self-reporting. Those resource and classification questions will likely be revisited as the bill proceeds.

Ending: The committee advanced HF3 with bipartisan and partisan support, sending a version that includes the A6 author’s amendment and an A7 appropriation to Ways and Means for further consideration.