Skip to content
Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit

Agency Responses to Audit Recommendations

Previous Audit Recommendations Agency Updates as of August 2024
Audit Report ID Recommendation Current Status Description of Current Status
Secretary of State
Reviewing Kansas’s Procedures for Election Security, Part 1 (2023) 1 The Secretary of State should more proactively hold county election officers accountable for reviewing annual training, which may include requiring and tracking session attendance. Will Not Implement In the agency’s audit response, the agency agreed that county election officers (CEOs) should receive annual training, but expressed concerns with the attendance tracking recommendation for the following reasons:
  • Clerks are independent, elected officials and state law does not authorize the Secretary of State’s Office (SOS) to exercise enforcement authority over county clerks in their role as county election officials (CEOs).
  • State law requires the SOS to provide annual in-person training but does not compel CEOs to attend. The SOS works with CEOs to ensure those unable to attend in-person training receive and understand the material that is presented. Therefore, tracking in-person training session attendance is not an indicator of whether training was received.
    •  
  • Therefore, the SOS will continue its current practice of proactively working with all CEOs to ensure they receive annual training without imposing an unenforceable requirement on these elected officials to receive training. The SOS is also working to enhance training delivery to provide additional options to receive annual training.
The SOS also has implemented a certification training program to provide enhanced training to county election officers. This training, where attendance is taken, requires participants to complete a series of classes covering many aspects of election administration, including voter registration list maintenance, security of election systems, ballot preparation, and poll worker training. Once a CEO has taken all the required courses, a CEO will achieve a certified election official designation. To date more than 150 CEOs have received certification training.
Reviewing Kansas’s Procedures for Election Security, Part 2 (2023) 1 The Secretary of State’s office should create example election security policies and standardized forms to offer to county election officers to use at their discretion. The Secretary of State’s office should consider working with officials from counties with stronger practices to adapt these practices for all counties to use. In Progress The Secretary of State’s office is working with a group of county election officials (CEOs) to develop certain standardized forms, as identified by CEO’s as beneficial, for use by counties. The Secretary of State’s office conducted it’s first procedural audit in 2023 and identified areas counties should review with respect to standardizing processes, including developing and maintaining forms and security policies. A new Kansas Administrative Regulation has been adopted that requires each county to do an annual review and update of their security procedures. This must be certified to the Secretary of State upon completion.
2 The Secretary of State’s office should use county election officers’ annual training or new certification program to train them in the importance, proper implementation, and effective oversight of election security statutes and best practices. This would include guidance on which security best practices counties should implement as a baseline. Have Implemented The Secretary of State’s office has used annual training over multiple years to provide security training, which has included presentations from security officials and private security specialists. Ensuring election security is an ongoing process that occurs throughout the year, therefore, providing training, information, and best practices is not limited to annual training.
3 The Secretary of State’s office should provide guidance to county election officers on what materials to seal in ballot containers and what materials should not be sealed so they are available for public review. Have Implemented The Secretary of State’s office routinely reminds counties of the requirements of KSA 25-3008 both prior to and following each election. This reminder occurs both verbally and in writing, Further, during certification training, counties are instructed on ballot security measures and retention laws, with emphasis on what should and should not be included in sealed ballot containers. This guidance is also provided in the election standards.
Ground Water Management District #1
Evaluating Groundwater Management Districts’ Efforts to Conserve Water (2023) 1 Groundwater management districts should develop written policies that describe when and how they will revise their management programs Have Implemented On November 9th 2023 the GMD1 Board of Directors passed an official policy titled the Official Management Program Revision Policy, which has been attached to this submission for your review. The Policy requires that the GMD1 Board of Directors review the Management Program on an annual basis, during the Regular August Board Meeting to assess the need to revise or reaffirm the Management Program. The Management Program will then be presented at the District’s Annual Meeting.
Ground Water Management District #2
Evaluating Groundwater Management Districts’ Efforts to Conserve Water (2023) 1 Groundwater management districts should develop written policies that describe when and how they will revise their management programs Have Implemented The Equus Beds GMD2 Board of Directors approved a formal District Standard and Policy on December 21, 2023, that sets forth the procedure and time schedule for reviewing and revising the District’s management program. We provided a copy of the approved District Standard and Policy to the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit on January 22, 2024.
Ground Water Management District #3
Evaluating Groundwater Management Districts’ Efforts to Conserve Water (2023) 1 Groundwater management districts should develop written policies that describe when and how they will revise their management programs Have Implemented The GMD3 Board of Directors passed resolution 2023-5 adopting the Official Management Program Revision Policy dated October 31, 2023, that is intended to be applied so as to be consistent with the provisions of K.S.A. 82a-1029 of the GMD Act.
Ground Water Management District #4
Evaluating Groundwater Management Districts’ Efforts to Conserve Water (2023) 1 Groundwater management districts should develop written policies that describe when and how they will revise their management programs Have Implemented We implemented the policy during the regular scheduled board meeting in conjunction with our annual meeting.  The management program is currently being updated.
Ground Water Management District #5
Evaluating Groundwater Management Districts’ Efforts to Conserve Water (2023) 1 Groundwater management districts should develop written policies that describe when and how they will revise their management programs Have Implemented In December 2023, the District board approved and adopted an administrative policy to guide the District in reviewing and amending the management program of the District. This policy may be amended as necessary in the future as the District begins implementing it in 2024.
Kansas Department of Education
Evaluating At-Risk Expenditures and Statutory Compliance (2023) 1 The department should ensure that its guidance document accurately reflects the at-risk related statutes. In Progress The guidance documents have been updated for 2024-2025 and 2025-2026. However, House sub for SB 387 made changes to procedures involving at-risk expenditures for districts. Following a two year pilot program, the guidance documents will be updated for the 2026-2027 school year.
2 The department should re-review all currently approved programs to ensure that approved programs meet all the requirements described in state law. Have Implemented KSDE has reviewed each item on the Evidence-Based Programs and Practices list. KSDE has updated the list to ensure each program and practice listed is in compliance with at-risk related state statutes as updated by House sub for SB 387. The updated list is published and available for school district to utilize for the 2024-25 school year.
3 Districts should review K.S.A. 72-5153, which specifies allowable uses for spending from the at-risk fund, and ensure that their policies, training, and guidance are in alignment with those laws. In Progress As part of the 2024 KSDE Budget Workshops, districts are being provided updated guidance. In 2024-2025 and 2025-2026, ten districts will participate in a pilot to develop new procedures for at-risk planning, implementation, and reporting in accordance with House sub for SB 387. In 2026, districts will receive updated guidance and training in compliance with House sub for SB 387 and relevant amendments.
The African American Affairs Commission
Reviewing the African American Affairs Commission’s Statutory Compliance and Expenditures (2023) 1 The executive director should ensure the commission holds an annual vote for Chair and Secretary positions in accordance with state law. Have Implemented The commission held elections on July 7, 2023, re-electing Mark McCormick as chair and Jonathan McRoy as vice-chair. The next election will be at the last meeting before the end of the next fiscal year.
2 The executive director should ensure the commission elects several members to each of the standing committees included in the commission’s bylaws. Have Implemented During the August 11, 2023 meeting, each commission member volunteered for each of the standing committees. Currently, there is at least one commissioner on each of the standing committees. Standing committee membership will be finalized once the bylaw review is complete.
3 The executive director should get written approval from the Governor’s Office for all non-routine expenses to ensure there’s documentation of the purpose and planned amount before proceeding with the activity. Have Implemented KAAAC Commissioners continue to maintain access to the commission’s financials. That said, the commission is currently updating the bylaws to formalize how this information can be more easily shared in the future. This may involve restructuring the committees to add a finance or budget committee or adding a treasurer position to the commission.
4 The executive director should share the commission’s budget details and financial transactions (in detail or summary) with the commission periodically and on request. In Progress The commission is currently updating the bylaws to formalize how this information is shared consistently. This may involve restructuring the committees or adding a treasurer whose responsibility it is to have oversight on budget questions.
5 The executive director should provide training to commissioners to clarify what travel expenses are reimbursable, and inform members of the process to claim and submit such expenditures. In Progress The commission has engaged the Governor’s Office’s newly appointed Director of Finance and Office Management to conduct a training for commissioners over the state’s various travel policies and procedures. This training will occur at a future meeting of the commission.
15 Audited Entities
Information Systems: Reviewing Specific IT Security Controls Across State Agencies and School Districts (January 2024) 2 All 15 entities should report their progress to us by July 1, 2024 as part of our 6-month follow up process, taking a clear position on which findings are fixed, in progress, not started, or refused. In Progress We asked the 15 audited entities to report their 6-month progress on individual findings in the areas of Systems Operations & Configuration, Continuity of Operations Planning, and Data Center Controls. Of the 137 problem findings, entities reported having resolved 50 findings, with 48 additional findings in progress, 12 findings not yet started, and 5 findings refused as of July 1, 2024. For the remaining 22 findings, entities either didn’t address or take a clear position on progress towards remediation. (This included one entity that had a leadership change at the turn of the fiscal year and was not in a position to produce an update.)