House file 2891 would require grants‑management certification, site visits and a central debarment registry

House File 2891 (HF2891) — an oversight committee bill discussed at the May 5 hearing — would require state employees with grants‑management responsibilities to complete a certification program, expand the use of site visits and create a centralized reporting and debarment registry administered by the Office of Grants Management (OGM) in the Department of Administration.

Why it matters: the Office of Legislative Auditor and agency witnesses said inconsistent training, monitoring and fragmented enterprise data make it harder to detect and prevent misuse of state grant funds. HF2891 seeks to standardize training, clarify grants‑management responsibilities and provide a single flagging system so other agencies can see administrative actions or credible allegations tied to grantees.

Key testimony and agency concerns

Betsy Hayes, Assistant Commissioner at the Department of Administration (OGM), said the agency supports a certification program but requested additional resources and time for design and implementation. "Adding a certification element to this would bolster this already strengthened training regimen," she said, but added the bill should specify an effective date that allows about 18 months to hire staff and build the program.

OGM also asked the committee to change the statutory phrase "monitoring visit" to "site visit" to reflect the intended scope. Hayes explained that "monitoring visits" typically require extensive planning and financial reconciliation, whereas the committee’s intent was often to allow for shorter unannounced site verifications that confirm an organization is operating from an actual address and providing services.

The Office of Legislative Auditor (OLA) — represented by Legislative Auditor Judy Randall — told members the certification requirement aligns with OLA recommendations. Randall said OLA’s earlier work found many agencies and frontline staff were unaware of available OGM training and that turnover and distributed responsibility for grants management reduces oversight effectiveness. "A lot of the rules and requirements that you are looking for are already in place... The real issue ... is that state employees don't necessarily know all of them, haven't necessarily been trained on all of them," Randall said.

Debate and fiscal considerations

Chair Robbins noted the bill’s fiscal note reviewed by the committee showed a sizable cost estimate in an early draft (discussed in the hearing at roughly $7 million per biennium), and she emphasized that while the investment could be justified if it prevents large‑scale fraud, the committee must consider costs, exceptions for grantees without fixed addresses and whether OGM or each agency should hold the debarment authority.

OGM recommended centralizing debarment determinations in OGM to ensure consistency and limit duplicative staffing needs across agencies; some agencies had advocated for agency‑level debarment authority, which OGM said could increase cost and inconsistency. OLA recommended clarifying reporting requirements and noted OLA already has authority to review SWIFT (the statewide accounting system) and to follow up on credible allegations.

Ending

The committee took no formal vote on HF2891 at the hearing. Members called for further discussion of fiscal impacts, exception lists, the exact scope of site visits, and privacy and disclosure limits for any centralized registry. Several members expressed support for moving ahead with tighter training and clearer grants‑management responsibilities as a priority for the interim.