Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education California State Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 1
I also wanted to ask you about the final program narrative report that you had provided to us. So the strong reader partnership stated that the State Library provided guidance to the partnership in October 2024 that the 4,800,000.0 that it already allocated to the partnership was not subject to redirection. Do you remember or or recall providing this communication to the StrongGreeter partnership?
Speaker 2
Yes. We had a legal we sought a legal opinion by our council which said so long as the partnership continued to spend the money in furtherance of expanding the Dolly Parton Imagination Library in California, that that was satisfactory and in furtherance of the activities that they outlined in their initial application.
Speaker 1
So you sought an opinion from Ledge Council that the 4,800,000.0 was that was allocated to them was not subject to redirection. Is that correct?
Speaker 1
An opinion by the State Library's Council. And what was the direction and guidance at the State Library provided to the strong reader partnership on a b one fifty seven and how the $4,800,000 should be spent?
Speaker 2
It's it's exactly what I just said that if you continue to spend this money, it needs to be in the manner that was outlined in your application and in furtherance of the goals of expanding the Dolly Parton Imagination Library in California.
Speaker 1
Do you know how many books do you estimate, mister Lucas, were provided to children on behalf of the Strong Reader Partnership, a nonprofit that you oversaw?
Speaker 2
I I don't. I I do know that most of the work of the partnership before the money was redirected away from them was done in laying a foundation for a statewide program. As as you said earlier, madam chair, we we, the state library, gave a check directly to the Dollywood Foundation to help them buy some bilingual books at the beginning of the program because they had no cash to do that.
Speaker 1
Mhmm. And I understand that the dollars provided to the Dollywood Foundation were used to purchase books, but was there any sort of accounting that you had of the number of books that were purchased by the Strong Reader Partnership?
Speaker 1
Now the state library did not redirect at least 90% of the Imagination Library investment to the Dollywood Foundation even though it was required by law in a b one fifty seven. Why why was that the case, mister Lucas?
Speaker 2
We directed 90% of the funds on hand, is approximately $55,000,000, to the Dollywood Foundation when they submitted the paperwork requesting it. They did not do that within the forty five day period set by the legislation, although we had a number of conversations with them about there's a forty five day timeline. So so just to finish. So we provided the 55 we awarded them the 55,000,000, which was 90% of the funds that were on hand. And then as is our policy with every grantee or everyone that seeks use of public funds through the state library, we provided them with a percentage of it upfront, right, which I think was 24, 25,000,000 in that range with the stipulation that the remaining 30 will be forthcoming when you demonstrate reaching the performance benchmarks that were mutually agreed to.
Speaker 1
I wanna highlight something, mister Lucas, as we're having this conversation. I think both the last time that you had attended a hearing as as well as during this discussion that there's there seems to be this constant issue coming up with the nonprofit Strong Reader partnership that you're overseeing not meeting the deadlines that you're laying out, whether it's this forty five day deadline in order to redirect 90% of the finances, whether it's providing you with invoices or other documentation that you're requesting in a timely manner. It concerns me because you're the agency providing oversight to them. So at what point were you communicating what the consequences would be, what the urgency would be to follow the law that's laid out in a bill such as a b one fifty seven in order to meet these demands that are not just a rule that you're laying out. This is a law that the state legislature has passed and implemented and signed by the governor.
Speaker 2
Thank you, madam chair. As as I said earlier, our legal counsel said that they the partnership could continue to spend the 4,800,000.0 that we had provided them so long as it was in furtherance of the the the activities that they outlined in their original grant and in expanding the Dolly Parton Imagination Library in California. When I forgot the bill number. AB one fifty seven was approved, we immediately contacted the Dollywood Foundation and said, we're going to provide you with 90% of the unspent funds. You need to submit some paperwork to that effect.
And when you do, we'll provide you the 90%, which we did, as I just said, the 55,000,000.
Speaker 1
And I understand that that you had a misunderstanding about the 4,800,000.0 and what the bill was stating versus the advice that you were given by by counsel. But what I'm pointing out here is that you just acknowledge that SRP did not meet the forty five day timeline that was laid out and in terms of these timeline issues this is a chronic issue right and ensuring a nonprofit that you're overseeing is following the law providing you documents in a timely manner, returning funds in a timely manner, and that is an issue of concern. I'm gonna move on now to a letter that we received from you, Mr. Lucas, dated 04/02/2026 that states that the State Library received the final program narrative and the final financial expenditure detail report on Friday 11/07/2025 and that after assessing the filings the State Library requested additional information on 11/12/2025 from the Strong Reader Partnership to better connect the financial expenditure detail to the activities conducted under the grant as described in the program narrative. You know, I I wanna start off by first highlighting, you know, mister Lucas, by the time that we received this report from you, it was actually last month.
We received this report from you on in March 2026, but you were saying that you received these documents in November 2025, which is almost five months after you received the documents. So why did the State Library not provide these documents to the committee after it received them?
Speaker 2
We received the final report of the activities of the partnership when they basically closed their operations in on 11/07/2025. And we followed up with as the demand letter, right, that we sent the other day says, we followed up with a conversation with them to provide us with additional documentation. So we received their final report. Yes. We received a list of the ways that they had spent the money, but we sought additional information connecting those expenses, right, to the activities that were set out in the in the grant application and in the grant agreement.
Speaker 1
But at what point mister Lucas did you think that it would be necessary to let committee staff know that you had received the final program narrative and that you received some documentation? I don't think that committee staff even had any idea that you had received a final program narrative and that you were seeking out additional documentation. That's almost five months that you were sitting on a report from the nonprofit before you provided it to committee staff.
Speaker 2
I apologize for not providing it to committee staff. I mean, it is a public document, but, you're right. We we should have forwarded it to you in a more timely manner.
Speaker 1
Yes. And I I speak to this mister Lucas because again the state library is acting as the overseer of this. Right? And so when staff is requesting this information from you, you're not communicating back then we don't know what information that you've received. Our staff is depending on you to act as a facilitator of these conversations.
Now what information additional information did the State Library receive to better connect the financial details activities described in the program narrative? Was it that all the invoices that we received last month? Is that is that what you were seeking out?
Speaker 2
Yes. We received the same thing that the subcommittee did, about 87 pages of bank statements, receipts, invoices, and and a narrative accompanying that that connected the spending with the the the million dollars in spending, right, with the activities that were conducted by the partnership.
Speaker 1
And is it your opinion that you received an adequate response to those requests that that information helped to connect the expenditure details to the grant activities?
Speaker 2
Yes. There were a couple of small errors which the committee pointed out and which we noticed. But, yes, the materials that we've received are satisfactory and everything appears to be in order.
Speaker 1
Now, mister Lucas, I wanna speak to, an issue that I noticed as I was going through the documents. Do you acknowledge that the contract between the Strong Reader Partnership and State Library explicitly stated that grant funds will not be used lobbying or otherwise attempting to influence legislation?
Speaker 2
The grant agreement specifically prohibits lobbying as defined by the Internal Revenue Service.
Speaker 1
Well, and your staff also acknowledged this as well. Right? On 10/13/2025, I believe that they also provided information to staff. I actually have the email here from one of your staff members that also acknowledged this as well. Is that correct?
Speaker 2
There's an email from October 13 where, the subcommittee asked, was any of this money to I wanna say it's Changecraft, maybe. There's a specific vendor, and I I can't recall the name, was used for lobbying and we reached out to the partnership and they said, no, it wasn't. It was used for communications and stakeholder outreach, which is what we reported to the subcommittee.
Speaker 1
Well, and that's I think part of my concern here, mister Lucas, because when I look at the Changecraft charges in particular, I find that the timeline of events, you know appears that it is slopping services. So it's $14,500 that were paid to Changecraft. The billing period on that invoice was for a period of six days beginning on 08/24/2024 which coincides with the date that AB SB157 went into print and it ended on 08/29/2024 which coincides with the date that a b January was approved by the legislature. In addition to that, I also have emails here that Changecraft sent to budget staff on 08/25/2024 attempting to influence a b one fifty seven, and expressing concerns, about the bill. Have you had an opportunity to look at any of these documents related to the changecraft
Speaker 2
Yes. I read the contract, which was in the most recent batch of material that was provided to the subcommittee.
Speaker 1
And so after reading that contract and also reviewing these emails from Changecraft, is it still your opinion that this is not engaging in lobbying or attempting to influence legislation?
Speaker 2
You're gonna have to ask the partnership that, madam chair. It doesn't it doesn't appear to from reading the contract. There's certainly the word lobbying doesn't appear in in there.
Speaker 1
The word lobbying is not used in their contract, and I do have their contract here. And I understand that their contract states public affairs as well as, you know, other work that it outlines. But they are very clearly in this document reaching out to staff specifically to express concerns about SB 157 slash AB 157 And because the change craft is not here, you know, won't get into naming names, but they reached out directly to budget staff in order to express their opposition to the bill.
Speaker 2
As I say, the grant agreement that we signed with the partnership prohibits lobbying. We when you when the subcommittee asked us what was this money spent for, we we didn't have the contract in hand at that time. We reached out to the partnership and they told us what I just told you, which is that it was spent for communications and stakeholder outreach, which is what we then told the subcommittee in our email.
Speaker 1
Mister Lucas, the state library is supposed to be overseeing this nonprofit providing guidance and in my opinion should be providing some of these guardrails and stopping when it sees behavior that appears to be violating what was set out in state law. And what was very clearly set out in state law is that these funds were not to be used for lobbying. And so when you saw indicators that there was an appearance of lobbying, when you heard from committee staff that there was concern that funds were being used for lobbying, at what point did you or your staff think that it would be a good idea to reach out to SRP to express your concerns or to highlight that this is not the way that funds were intended to be used?
Speaker 2
We we reached out to them in October when you asked what when the subcommittee asked whether the funds were used for some for lobbying, and they replied that it was not. They're also as I say, they're prohibited in the grant agreement from lobbying. So that's we both signed the state library signs that agreement, the partnership or any grantee, in fact, right, that receives money from the state library. And those are mutually agreed upon parameters and terms and conditions.
Speaker 1
Mister Lucas, moving forward, you know, I just wanna highlight that it's my expectation that the state library when they are overseeing a non profit that they are providing tighter oversight and accountability you know around these issues and if there are questions or concerns where it looks like a nonprofit entity that the State Library is overseeing may be in violation of the contract or there's an appearance that there may be a violation of the contract that you all are taking action to communicate with the nonprofit and if there's uncertainty that you're working with staff to resolve some of those questions.
Speaker 2
We we would take action if that were the case. And we do provide oversight. That's what this the final report process is about. Was the money spent in an appropriate manner? Was the money spent right in furtherance of what what you, the grantee, have proposed you're going to use it on?
So that's that's part of what this process is, has has been determining, right, the appropriateness of the spending through the 87 pages of bank statements, receipts, and invoices.
Speaker 1
And I I do wanna highlight mister Lucas, I've spent a lot of time going through these documents and I have to note there is a real lack of information throughout these invoices. There's details that are lacking and overall we still do not have any sort of numbers or accounting for the number of books that were ultimately purchased and given to children and that to me is really concerning. Now we can speak to dollars that were given to the Dollywood Foundation, how those dollars actually led to books for children but what I have yet to hear is how the Strong Reader Partnership delivered on its commitment to providing books to children And you've shared with me that you don't appear to have that information either. Is that correct?
Speaker 1
And that is the concern here. So I'm going to go ahead and see if senator Grove has, questions and turn it over to her now.
Speaker 3
You, madam chair, for inviting me again to participate. I appreciate your, due diligence on this, program. It was a a very incredible program offering a foster of love to learn to read in English and in Spanish, and I just appreciated working with my counterpart, this former pro tem, who I hopefully is watching online. Mister Lucas, I wanna thank you for providing the documents that the committee had requested several times, and I appreciate them there. But I think they were pretty vague.
In the real world, I'm a business owner, and I have a CFO that takes care of the financial pieces. And when I ask for a document, it comes with details, receipts attached. It your the documents that I feel like you provided to this committee were very, very vague. And then I have some questions on the success of the program. You provided documents that said, for instance, five hundred and eighty one thousand seven hundred and eight dollars and fifty five cents for Shipyard, but the documents don't provide, don't provide information on in any detail what whatsoever.
There's not very much detail or what's acceptable. Shipyard, it's a full service ad advertising agency. Right?
Speaker 3
And you this the program that you oversee that you oversaw and has the strong reader program, This program was allocated $581,708. I just wanna make sure we understand that, and 55¢. And what do you think that was used for?
Speaker 2
That was used to help establish the foundation and the the partnership could speak to this with more detail. But in reading the materials, it was it was contract was designed to set up a statewide program to help expand the Imagination Library in California.
Speaker 3
Which would include a website and social media and things like that because they're an advertising outreach agency?
Speaker 2
I I believe that was part of the marketing plan. Yes. But as as I say, the partnership can speak to that with more detail.
Speaker 3
But speaking to you, sir, mister Lucas, because you oversee this program, do you have measurable goals that you would attribute to anybody who gets a contract and use of state money and a program that you oversee? Are there goals you would expect for spending 580, $1,708.55? Is there a goal you would expect to happen?
Speaker 2
Of course. Any any person who seeks a grant or money from the state library, right, fills out an application and says, here's what we're gonna do with the money if you give it to us. Right? We review that, and then we give them a portion of the money. We sign a good an agreement, and then there's benchmarks and progress reports that are established as part of signing that agreement.
Right? And if you don't meet them, we don't we don't send you more money.
Speaker 3
Okay. So are you saying that there was only a lump sum of 587 or excuse me, $581,000.700 excuse me, $551,000.
Speaker 3
But based on your testimony that you just said, you give a portion of the total dollar amount to an organization who applies for this grant, then they give you measurable goals that they say they're going to meet, and then you check to make sure they're meeting those goals before you release more taxpayer dollars to them. Basically, that's what you just said.
Speaker 3
Okay. So I'd like to find out if you if this 500 this dollar amount, this total dollar amount of $581,708.55, if that was an a one lump sum, was it the first portion of it, or was it divided and they earned and met those metrics that you felt were satisfactory? And then you additionally gave them more money which included is included in this total?
Speaker 2
The strong reader partnership submitted an application for $19,000,000, which we approved. Right? We sent them 4,800,000.0 as a initial upfront payment.
Speaker 2
Right? Of of the 4.8, 3.7 was returned to the state, and they spent a million dollars, of which a portion of the million dollars is that contract with shipyard. So whether we then we, at the end of the period, right, the grant period, they submit a final report, and we look at that and see how the money was spent. Okay. I cannot tell you whether it was a lump sum payment to Shipyard or multiple payments.
The partnership certainly can.
Speaker 3
Okay. I'll ask them when they come up here. Overseeing this program, again, I'm just using my business background and what I do. If we set a goal to accomplish something in the business and we we measure those goals as we move forward, If I was to authorize somebody on my staff to spend that amount of money on digital media and marketing, I would expect some type of return on my investment. Would you feel the same way?
Speaker 3
So with this $581,708.55 that was used for social media, social media channels, creating marketing, outreach, and social media contact for multiple language developed in multiple materials and public relations activities, primarily earned media and social media. Social media, would you consider Instagram social media?
Speaker 3
Do you think giving a contract to a media corporation, Shipyard for $581,708.55 of state taxpayer resources to create a social media program with 12 followers is a good use of taxpayer resources?
Speaker 2
Senator, the the the funding that went to the partnership was to create the foundation for a statewide program. The administration of the program was shifted so that all of the funding, 90% of the unspent funding, was to be sent to the Dollywood Foundation directly, which which has happened. I under Sorry.
Speaker 2
Oh, well, I was just gonna say, so the initial work that was done by the partnership never came to fruition because they the money was returned to the state. So if you're saying what's the return on this investment Right. That there there was no return because they couldn't complete the work or begin doing what the grant or to complete the work that they had in the grant program because the money was was removed from them.
Speaker 3
Okay. Let's talk about just the $1,100,000 that you did receive or that the the program the strong reader program that you created over this in the state library that you oversaw. Let's just talk about the $1,100,000, not the money that they got the 4.8 and then the balance of it was reverted back. Out of that $1,100,000, they spent almost $600,000 on developing social media. In that social media, you have an Instagram page for the strong reader program that has 14 followers.
There's no web page. There's no multiple languages. There's nothing that says what you said the contract in the shipyard was allocated for. In that $1,100,000, this program that was authorized by the legislature, signed by the governor, was to foster a love for reading in English and Spanish to to one to five year olds zero to five year olds
Speaker 3
So that they could be ready for kindergarten or TK. K? It was to allow them to read. Out of that $1,100,000, what was the total grants given for people to provide books, nonprofits, out of the reader program? How much money was given to people to actually provide good books to kids?
Just the 1,100,000.0.
Speaker 2
Yeah. I don't that's as I said, I I don't believe any of it was, but the partnership can speak to that better. When we were working with the Dollywood Foundation prior to the establishment of the partnership, the book purchases are primarily done by the foundation. I don't know if that can continued to be the case.
Speaker 2
I I don't know. They can answer that question for you as as as I said. I don't think that the grant that they applied the grant that they applied for was to establish a foundation for a statewide program that would expand the number of kids who would be getting books. I don't they did not get to the second phase. They did not get to sort of turn the light switch on the work that they had done to establish that initial foundation or platform.
Speaker 3
Okay. So I'll just, read the information that I have since you don't have it since you oversaw the program. I did not. I was part of the the the I was one of the authors of the bills, but you did oversee the program. You did, and it was under your authority to make sure that this program operated correctly.
There was one grant given out for $5,000. One. Out of 1,100,000, I'm not talking about the money you sent back, I'm talking about the money that you allowed to go to the strong reader program that you set up, you created. And I appreciate you sending your staff over to share with me that my ledge aide had offered you several emails in in coordination when this bill was being referred to because you opposed this program from the very beginning, and we were trying to offer solutions to help you administer this program. And one of the things was is that maybe you could look at creating a nonprofit.
And there were two other alternatives that were brought in forth. But the final iteration of this bill, and I'll get back to that $5,000 in just a second, the final iteration of this bill that was signed by the governor, passed by the legislator, the state librarian, which is you, shall coordinate with a nonprofit entity. It doesn't say create one. It says coordinate with one. Qualified under the section five zero one c three, the internal revenue code, and organized solely for to promote and encourage reading by the children of the state for the purposes of implementing this article.
It didn't say and I realize those words are, like, kinda, you know, similar, create and coordinate, but did it not allow you to create your own nonprofit program for the state library and spend $1,100,000 of taxpayer money with no return on your investment, whether it was a beginning or an end. You issued one the the strong reader program, the program that you created, issued 1 $5,000 grant to support the legislation out of $1,100,000, $15,000 grant. In comparison in comparison to that, for the $1,500,000 on the September 23 that you gave the Dollywood Foundation And, in April 2023, the California State Library for $1,500,000, it covered the cost of more than 1,000,000 books. So your nonprofit that you created and you contracted with gave it a $5,000 grant for $1,100,000 in money that you gave to that nonprofit in comparison to giving Dolly Parton Foundation 1,100,000.0 or, excuse me, $1,500,000, and they issued a million books and enrolled almost a 163,104 children. And at the end of the program that they got that money, which is a total of almost $3,000,000 that was reverted back to them, 2,900,000 books were issued in English and Spanish in the state of California.
Do you think that the strong reader program with their $1,100,000 and the $5,000 grant issued to provide books with no accountability of how many books were provided for was a good use of taxpayer dollars?
Speaker 2
Senator, I don't we did we did not create the nonprofit. We worked with the Dollywood Foundation. We provided them with the proposed bylaws. We worked in concert with them. The the model that happened in California was one that the Dollywood Foundation has used in other states in implementing the Dolly Parton library.
Speaker 2
we created it in the state of California, the state library working with the Dollywood Foundation and in and in conjunction with the legislature.
Speaker 3
So I I guess you I just asked you one more time, I'll ask you the question. You created the state library. We, as in meaning you, the state librarian, and you created that strong reader program instead of just using the Dolly Parton Foundation. You spent $1,100,000, or you authorized the you authorized and provided a grant to the strong reader program of taxpayer dollars for $1,100,000. And out of all of that, they provided one reading grant to one nonprofit for $5,000 out of the $1,100,000 they received.
Do you think that's a good use of taxpayer dollars in conjunction with what the intent of this legislation this legislation was?
Speaker 2
Intent of the legislation, senator, as you as you know, you authored it. It was to expand the Dolly Parton library into California and be cognizant of the things that make California unique.
Speaker 3
Do you think it was a good use of taxpayer dollars to provide one the nonprofit the state librarian set up? Do you think it was a good use of taxpayer dollars to give one grant for $5,000 out of a $1,000,000 1,100,000.0 grant.
Speaker 2
As I understand it, the partnership was unable to provide additional grants because the money was transferred to send it directly to the Dollywood Foundation.
Speaker 3
Sir, the Dollywood Foundation for $1.1500000.0. Now I realize it's $400,000 more than what the strong reader program got. They, in September 23, provided 85,401 children were enrolled in the program and provided 46,500 new enrollees and a total of 52,000 and delivered almost a million books for $1,500,000. The program that you created on behalf of the state librarian and the organization that you partnered with or that you created and put on the board, they got just $400,000 less than that, $1,100,000, and they provided one grant for $5,000. And you don't see and I've asked you three different ways, and I'm trying to be very nice about this.
And you you don't see I'm asking you. Do you think spending $5,000 on the intent of this program out of $1,100,000 is a good use of taxpayer money? Yes or no?
Speaker 3
It is. You think so you think every taxpayer that we represent, our taxpayers in the state of California, would be okay with spending $1,100,000 in taxpayer money to provide one nonprofit with a $5,000 grant to provide books to children to learn to read. In contrast, let me ask you this. Do you think the success of the Dolly Parton Imagination Library and the Dollywood Foundation that provided, that got $1,500,000 and provided, enrolled 85,401 children and then also distributed almost 2,900,000 books. Do you think that that is a better success than the statewide program that you created, or are you sticking to your guns that the $5,000 that you that this nonprofit allowed out was a great success on behalf?
Why aren't we touting that on social media if we're so proud of that?
Speaker 2
The two the two expenditures were for different things. So the Dollywood Foundation came to us and said, we need some money to purchase these bilingual books. Right? They had committed to providing books in both English and Spanish as part of the program, which is very cool.
Speaker 2
Well, I if I could answer, I maybe I can answer your question. There was a $19,000,000 application application from the strong reader partnership of which there were several phases. The first phase was to lay this foundation for a state program. Before that could come to fruition, the money was transferred away to the Dollywood Foundation. So the investment that was made in establishing a program, right, that would expand the Dolly Parton library in California, I think, was a sound investment.
I think the partnership can better answer your question about the $5,000 grant and why there were not more.
Speaker 3
The chair of this committee and I represent California is very diverse, and we represent very diverse different districts, from one side to the other side of the aisle. But I can almost 100% speak in unison, I believe, the chair, I'm not speaking with her, that her constituents nor my constituents or any other people in the state of California would agree with you that giving you $1,100,000 to give out to another a nonprofit that provide a $15,000 grant to provide books for children to read would be a good investment or return on an ROI or return on their investment for using stack taxpayer dollars. In contrast with the Dollywood Foundation that put this together and issued over a million books for roughly the same amount of money and enrolled, several, 64,000 kids into the program. And you're saying you're really I mean, and I I you're looking at me with a straight face with all due respect, and you're telling me that that investment of taxpayer dollars of what you did with the southern nonprofit you created was a good investment for the state of California, and I completely disagree with you. Respectfully disagree with you because you can't there's no way and I guess that's the mishap of government.
Right? You think spending $1,100,000 and having a $5,000 return on your investment is significant. That's maybe why we're completely in deficit in the state of California because people operate like you in the state state government. I have questions for the, for the individuals that are in the in the on the board and when they come up, but I I am really disappointed in the questions and the response that you got. And to be the head of the state as the state librarian and oversee, I think you said, a $900,000,000 budget.
Was it $90,100 or 90,000,000 in the last committee? You said you oversee a budget of how much money total, not just this program.
Speaker 2
There's about $600,000,000 annually in grants that move through the state library.
Speaker 3
Okay. $600,000,000 in grants. Out of that $1,000,000, 5,000 was used to benefit the state of California. $5,000. If you oversee $600,000,000 on that ratio, the state library is in big trouble.
That's just completely unacceptable. But thank you for being here today to respond to our questions. Thank you, management, for the time.
Speaker 1
Thank you, senator Grove. Mister Lucas, I, first of all want to acknowledge that you did respond to our request as I mentioned before in helping to deliver these documents, but I am troubled and concerned that it took us having a committee hearing and going through a round of questions in order for us to receive these documents. You know, I wanna highlight what senator Grove mentioned, which is, you know, you are a you are leading a state agency, massive state, you know, the state library is no small endeavor, and you just acknowledge yourself there's $600,000,000 that you're overseeing and managing there. I recognize that this is a small program by comparison, but it is still your responsibility to provide oversight and accountability. There were two years of time that this money was allocated to the Strong Reader Partnership from 2022 until 2024.
And in that time period, we do not have any sort of accounting for what books were provided to children. And there was $1,100,000 spent and you've said it's to lay the groundwork and foundation to set up this program but you don't have any sense of the timeline of the work that they were doing, of when those deliverables were coming to fruition, whether or not there was a single book provided to a child. I also want to underscore something as well because I decided to look into the $5,000 grant that was expended to the United Way of the California capital and we requested that information specifically from United Way as well as from the Strong Reader partnership. Have you looked at all into the $5,000 grant and to see how it was used or how that money was applied?
Speaker 1
Well, did you see how those funds were actually used to meet the overall goal of the program, which was providing books to students?
Speaker 1
Because the documents that were provided to us is a $5,000 grant via check was for net paid media meta ad placements. Now I'm very familiar with meta ads because I've ran for office. So meta ads actually stay online for about ten, fifteen years. You can see my ads from when I ran for City Council, you can see my ads when I ran for this seat, and you can also see ads that were deleted. I went to the ad library, anybody can access it by just going on to Facebook, and there are only three ads that have ever been posted by United Way California capital region and the last live advertisement was in 2024.
This program was supposed to go into effect in June 2025. So the intended purpose that was stated in this document, which is that this was to be used for advertising for this program, it it never even came to fruition. There's no receipt of it online.
Speaker 1
I understand that, mister Lucas, but as was mentioned before, as as somebody that is in an appointed position, who is overseeing a program, who's trusted with overseeing taxpayer dollars, there needed to be more oversight and accountability here. And the fact that you are not able to provide us with answers and you don't have a better understanding of what happened with this program I think is really concerning and I know there's numerous other programs that the State Library manages and oversees And I think it's our priority to make sure that those taxpayer funds are being used responsibly. And I hope you can understand and agree with that, mister Lucas.
Speaker 1
Thank you. I appreciate you being here, mister Lucas. I appreciate you assisting with getting us these documents.
Speaker 1
So next, I'd like to call up the members of the Strong Reader Partnership that we have with us here today, and that includes miss Jackie Wong, miss Sonia Harris, and miss Laura Fink. Hi. I thank you all for being here, and appreciate you joining us. I'll start off by asking a round of questions, and then again, we'll turn it over to senator Grove. First and foremost, know, think it would be helpful for us to understand what was the process for the strong reader partnership used to select the vendors that it worked with.
I know that we have several vendors that you all worked with here. Shipyard who was hired, it looks like for both communications as well as web and digital services, $581,000, $326,000 to Sage Strategies, as well as a $110,000 to Lotus Financial Solutions. So what was the process that you all used to select these vendors and and ultimately to determine who you'd be working with?
Speaker 5
So I wanted to say good morning and thank you for having us, senator Grove, chair Perez. We're happy to be here today to provide clarity to the committee. We have an opening statement, I understand, but I think we'll provide some clarity if that's something you're interested in.
Speaker 5
I'm happy to do that. So our process for evaluating vendors and allocations, we were a working board. So I was appointed by former pro tem senator Tony Atkins, and and we were all appointed to the board from various legislatures and other places. So our charge was audacious. Our job was to get books in the hands of 2,200,000 kids and to develop an agency and an institution that was long standing and self sustaining.
We needed to be self sufficient over the course of the year. So we our job was to lay the groundwork and infrastructure. So part of that as a working board, obviously, we were in startup mode. And so we were able to evaluate contracts collectively together and make those choices with all of the members of the board present. We met regularly, frequently, and evaluated contracts based on that mission and building that infrastructure.
Speaker 3
May I ask you to ask the witness to introduce themselves initially for the record?
Speaker 1
Yes. Absolutely. If you all and I apologize, senator Grove. If you all wouldn't mind introducing yourselves for a moment. And sorry.
I'm mindful of the time we have in this room.
Speaker 5
So please My name is Laura Fink. I am a board member of the Strong Reader Partnership appointed by senator Tony Atkins, former pro tem.
Speaker 4
My name is Jackie Wong. I am the chair of the Strong Readership Partnership, and I was appointed by the governor of the California State Labor.
Speaker 6
Good morning, senators. My name is Sonia Harris. I'm the former executive director of Strong Readership, and I also serve as the chief executive officer of Sage Strategies.
Speaker 1
No, of course, Senator Grove. So the process then was there an RFP process or what was the process that was used then to ultimately select the vendors?
Speaker 1
All of the vendors. Was there a different process for each vendor that you selected?
Speaker 5
No, there's not a different process. We would meet collaboratively as a board and discuss and receive the documentation and we also were able to interview board members or excuse me potential contractors as well. Multiple vendors.
Speaker 1
So I want to ask a little bit about Lotus Financial Solutions who was selected to do bookkeeping services and just so we can overview a little bit here from the committee report that was provided to the public. It's a $110,000 to Lotus Financial Solution an Oakland based bookkeeping service to record and manage all financial transactions in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles including the setup of financial systems to support a multi million dollar grant administration dispensing of sub grants and high volume of payments over time. Now in addition to the Lotus Financial Solution, bank statements and invoices, there's also another three additional companies that are providing financial management services to the nonprofit. Dollars $13.99 in total was paid to Intuit QuickBooks, so QuickBooks was also used. $19.62 was paid to Bowman and Company.
According to the Strong Reader Partnership, $13.25 was paid to All About Taxes. So I would like to better understand why did the Strong Reader partnership hire four separate vendors for its financial management?
Speaker 6
I'm happy to speak to that senator. Lotus Financial served as intended to serve as the back of house for the operation. So as stated earlier, the grant in total contemplated a $19,000,000 sort of program that did include hard costs associated with book purchases as well as all of the operations of the nonprofit. So, Lotus sort of was intended to be sort of our financial services back of house. The three additional vendors were identified to support that work with regard to the Intuit related expenditures.
Typically we would want to own the data that were housing related to you know expenses and such, so that was why quick books was utilized. The second vendor all about taxes was used for tax preparation services while Lotus did have the responsibility for financial back of house as well as ten ninety nine preparation similar to what would be you know a w two of sorts and actually preparing the documents for the tax person to then you know prepare the nine ninety filing. The last that you called out was an independent auditor per requirements organizations five zero one c threes that receive more than $2,000,000 in revenue in any given year typically would undergo an audit to ensure that all of the appropriate controls were in place. On balance the four vendors were also chosen to ensure we had some checks and balances on different vendors to make sure of course accountability of funds.
Speaker 1
So when Lotus Financial Solutions was selected to provide its bookkeeping services, did you not also ask them if they were able to provide tax prep services, if they were able to ensure that you all would own your own data as you stated, which is why you used Intuit QuickBooks. What was the process that was used to select Lotus, and why did Lotus not meet the needs that SRP had?
Speaker 6
Thank you for the question senator. As I mentioned, Lotus was intended to be the back of house to keep all expenditures and that was separate from actual tax preparation services, tax preparation submission.
Speaker 1
So you felt as though Lotus could not meet all of the needs that you all had which is why you had to hire three other financial management services?
Speaker 6
Thank you for the question. The actual tax preparation submission was outside of their scope of work.
Speaker 1
Now I wanna underscore, we've been requesting documents from you all for a very long time, and you've received, as you've acknowledged, multiple communications from the state library. Is that correct?
Speaker 1
And there were six requests that went out from this committee staff for documents. Did you all receive six requests? I And I know that those dates weren't listed in this hearings agenda but they were listed in the first one that was posted on 03/12/2026 and those dates were 11/05/2025 11/13/2025 12/03/2025 01/05/2026 01/22/2026, and 02/17/2026. So were you aware of committee staff's request for those documents?
Speaker 5
We were aware of state libraries interaction with us, which we've detailed, in line item all of the communications that we had with the state library over that period. I can't speak to your communication with the state library.
Speaker 1
So if you all have four vendors that are doing financial management, why were you not able to produce invoices or bank statements for almost five, six months?
Speaker 4
Yeah. Go ahead. Okay. We appreciate the question, and we understand the the concern. As stated earlier by the state library, we're in midst of transition, and we wanted to make sure that we actually had a complete set of documents for which you have now, and we appreciate your patience and grace as we collected those documents.
Speaker 1
I'm sorry. You're going to need to repeat that again because you mumbled through the end of What was the reason? Can you state that again? That you were not able to provide documents despite having four different vendors?
Speaker 4
We're in the middle of transition and and had to cancel a lot of our our vendors and our support, and so we were a working board that no longer had those supports available to us. And so it took a bit of time to ensure that we collected those those invoices that you had requested. So, again, we appreciate your grace and your patience as we were collecting and wanting to make sure that we had a comprehensive set of documentation that you now have.
Speaker 5
And I would also say a lot of the some of the documents were outside the scope. I wanted to sort of make sort of separate the financial vendors from the documents that were requested. So some for example, one was a bank statement. It was a bank statement we hadn't received yet, so we waited to receive it from the bank and we submitted that bank statement. Invoices that we, as was mentioned earlier, Sonya was on leave, we were a volunteer board that had had been defunded, and so we were all working to collect that documentation, all of the individual invoices from all of the vendors, all of the documentation that was required.
So again we regret the lack of timeliness but I we hope that you have what you need today and we've worked with Alacrity in the last several weeks to ensure that you do.
Speaker 1
When was the nonprofit established? Do you remember the time period when the nonprofit was established?
Speaker 1
And what was stated in the agreement that you signed with the library? What was the role of the nonprofit?
Speaker 4
I'm happy to answer that and I believe that the our grant application is in there. So what we knew is that we needed to build an institution that was financially and independently self sustaining. Our priority was to build a program that embraced California's diverse multilingual communities in every single aspect at our of our work. We have been committed to enrolling the hardest to reach kids. Right?
The multilingual kids, those hardest to reach. The Dolly Parton Imagination Library program model, I think it's it's important to understand, required that our expansion be exclusively through a network of local CBOs and public entity partners. These local organizations will be tasked with local outreach and enrollment as well as financing half the cost of the books. So local again, the locals had to build a match that would was up to $60,000,000. Our role essentially was to support that local infrastructure, help communities meet the requirements, and build towards a long term sustainability after the state's initial investment.
Our work was intended not only to support implementation during the state's five year investment, as I said, but also to strengthen that local capacity so the program could continue beyond the duration of the state funding because this is a really locally driven program. It's not one entity. It was not just us. It wasn't just Dollywood Foundation. It wasn't just a library.
The model itself is a collective impact model where all of us needed to get, you know, behind the local communities to to support sustainably and to get these books into the hands of kids because there is a real hard cost to the locals, a $1 per $1 match.
Speaker 1
So the contract required that the Strong Reader Partnership to, among other things, administer the dollar for dollar match and provide quarterly financial and activity reports every three months. So I want to repeat that again, quarterly financial and activity reports every three months. And so what you're sharing with me is that you all were not producing that and so by the time that those reports were produced, it was at the end of this period. You were not doing this on a quarterly basis.
Speaker 5
Senator, that's correct. And but I will say this, we provided every document, every we've met every requirement of the California State Library. When our reporting when we we submitted our report in September, we answered every question that the State Library asked of us and provided every document that they requested of us at that time. So we have been in compliance as far as we know in our communication with the California State Library and, you know, and and and it is our and, Jackie, did you wanna say something?
Speaker 4
And that's a very fair question. We were in regular communication with the California State Library. We had verbal communication. We had email communication. We requested forms because states have regular reporting forms and requested those of the state library in the course of the time we existed.
Speaker 1
I'm going to be honest with you all. I disagree when you say that you are meeting the contract requirements that were established with the State Library, if you are not providing quarterly financial activity reports every three months, that is not meeting the contract requirements that were laid out. There were you had a mission, there were two goals that were laid out in that contract, and you did not meet one of them.
Speaker 5
Respectfully, senator, we did request for reporting structure and documentation from the California State Library, and we were not given the mechanism by which to report quarterly.
Speaker 1
So you requested a mechanism to be able to report to the state library and the state library did not provide you with one? Okay. I'd like to get into our next piece here, which is what we were discussing earlier in regards to the Changecraft invoice that begins on 08/24/2024 the day AB 157 went into print until 08/29/2024 the day that the legislature approved AB 157. $14,500 was paid to Changecraft for what its invoice describes as stakeholder materials and communication services but as the agenda notes the committee received outreach from Changecraft on August 25 and August 2024 with proposed amendments to AB 157. I also want to note that the contract between the Strong Reader Partnership and the State Library explicitly states that grant funds will not be used for the purpose of lobbying or otherwise attempting to influence legislation.
Were you all aware and are you all aware of language in the contract that explicitly states that grant funds are not supposed to be used for lobbying or influencing legislation?
Speaker 1
so what would you call the changecraft services then that were utilized for a b one fifty seven?
Speaker 4
Stakeholder engagement and communications. I also wanna clarify the record is that Chaincraft did not do this did not bill us for their communications with the subcommittee. And I'm not sure if they're here today. I know you invited folks to talk about that, but that was not part of our contract. And we do understand noted that they reached out to you.
Speaker 1
And Jay Craft is not here, but we do have communication from them attempting to influence legislation and influence a b one fifty seven?
Speaker 5
You know, I I don't wanna speculate, but I would imagine that they have other clients as well that may have been interested in that advocacy. And, generally, I understand that they do this on
Speaker 1
So there was no communication between you all and Changecraft to recruit them for services to try to influence a b one fifty seven?
Speaker 1
And I do wanna highlight that I've submitted a letter to you all as well as to the state library asking you all to retain documents related to this matter. Now I have further questions in regards to lobbying services and this is particularly for miss Sonia Harris. Miss Harris, the committee has communication from you in August 2024 from your imagination library california dot org email address with opposition letters and proposed amendments to AB 157. It's our understanding that you are not an employee of the partnership but instead your firm Sage Strategies. Build the partnership for your and your staff's time providing management consulting services.
Were any of the hours billed to the partnership by Sage Strategies in August 2024 or September 2024 for your time spent on advocacy efforts with the legislature, the governor's office, or other state agencies to oppose and amend AB 157?
Speaker 6
Thank you for the question senator. I would have to go back to double check records to ensure that they were not. But in the instance that you mentioned, I was communicating on behalf of the board as we understood the dollars would be redirected.
Speaker 1
Now Sonya here I have invoice your invoice sheet from August 2024, and you know this is actually a frequent issue that I find not just with your invoicing but with a lot of the invoicing that you all have retained which is that it lacks details. I was a consultant before I came into this role. I had the pleasure of working on Prop one. I've worked for California Calls and with other agencies and so in that process have had to produce my own invoices and I am a little surprised by the lack of description. All you have here is a first initial, last name, date, and then hours and that's it.
There's no details in terms of the work that was done and so whether or not any of these individuals that are working for you and Sage strategies are lobbying or not, I have no idea because there's no details in regards to any of the work that they performed. It just looks like over time, you charged in the month of August $43,500 for that work and that's all the details that I have. Is this how you typically do your invoicing?
Speaker 6
Yes. You know, over the course of different contract terms, typically the individual, the total hours worked hourly rate.
Speaker 1
Do you understand why committee staff and I would be concerned that it appeared that you were lobbying to oppose a b one fifty seven and that during that same period that you sent billing to the nonprofit, while it appeared that you were lobbying and sending in letters to oppose s b one fifty seven, a b one fifty seven,
Speaker 6
the invoice that you referenced senator encompasses all of the work for the month, in administering all the day to day activities on behalf of the board.
Speaker 1
Yes, miss Harris. But it also appears that you're attempting to influence legislation when it's explicitly stated that you are not supposed to use state taxpayer dollars to do so. Do you agree?
Speaker 6
Thank you, senator. Again, the documentation involves all of the day to day management and as directed by the board, I did submit information to the committee.
Speaker 1
Miss Harris you sent over a number of letters from folks including from the first five California which I understand, you know, miss Jackie Wong represents as well, United Way of California capital region, Israel's Read To Me Stockton, and the San Diego Council on Literacy in opposition to a b one fifty seven. Were you meeting with other offices with this documentation as well in order to oppose a b one fifty seven and s b one fifty seven?
Speaker 6
I would need to go back to double check, senator. I believe we did drop off letters to offices to two offices.
Speaker 1
Moving on miss Harris because I have more questions related to some of the work that was held with your firm Sage Strategies. When did Sage Strategies start using 1414 K Street Suite 620 as its primary business address?
Speaker 1
Do you have any sort of detailed summaries about the work that Sage Strategies performed for its billing period? Are all of the invoices it looks like everything that we've received so far lacks details. Do you have anything that summarizes work that was completed over this monthly weekly time period?
Speaker 6
In routine conversations with the board, as Laura mentioned, in being a working board, we had regular communication on the work product over the period of time of the contract.
Speaker 1
So far, I have not seen any sort of detailed summary. So if you have additional documents, miss Harris, that would be helpful. Now I understand that you've not provided the minutes but there is a real lack of detail in terms of work that was performed over this time period. Now miss Wong and miss Fink, we were told that the board made all decisions about expenditures and signed the checks to pay for invoices. The invoices for Sage Strategy, Shipyard, and Lotus Financial Solutions have details on billed hours but little else.
So are these types of invoices with little detail on deliverables for the billing period acceptable to the board? Did you raise concerns And are these invoices, do you consider them to be satisfactory to maintain the partnership's tax exempt status?
Speaker 5
Well, as as I mentioned earlier, we were working board. So we were involved in the day to day operations. We were deeply aware of the work that our contractors were doing. We were deeply aware, in particular, of SAID strategies and the support that they were providing. So, because we had so much input and oversight, we felt apprised of all of the work.
We were working hand in hand together with Sonya and her team to execute and to do the work that was required of us. So this was a was a true partnership and one in which I would say it was more than than financial oversight. We had more involvement than most nonprofit boards would have with their executive director and with the team.
Speaker 4
Adding on to that level of engagement on on a regular basis with the entire board, we felt that the invoicing was sufficient.
Speaker 1
I want to share with you all that I do not feel that it's sufficient at all. Instead, it's left more questions about what work was done during this time period, especially when we still don't have an accounting for how these dollars were actually utilized to get books into the hands of children. And as far as I've seen here and reviewing all of the documents that you've provided to staff, you all don't have an accounting or metric of that either and that's deeply concerning. And so there needed to be more documentation here because we're dealing with state taxpayer funds rather than just providing hours worked and what the ultimate cost of those hours are. Now in the California State Library grant report, the Strong Reader Partnership states that the grant was placed on hold in late August twenty twenty four, at which point we were asked to update the scope of work and work was paused.
The report then indicates that work resumed in April 2025. However, Sage Strategies billed a hundred and nine hours between September through November 2024 for $24,145 and 77.75 hours between December 2024 through March 2025 for $19,700. This is a total of nearly one hundred and eighty seven hours worked for $43,845 during a period of time that the Strong Reader Partnership reported that work was paused. So what work was completed by Sage Strategies between September 2024 and March 2025, and how did this work further implement the statewide Imagination Library to deliver books to children?
Speaker 4
That's a very fair question, so we appreciate it. So thank you very much. During that time, we needed to get clarification from the state library about how to proceed, and that is the work that Sage Strategy was doing on behalf of the board.
Speaker 1
So Sage Strategies was working on receiving clarity from the state library for one hundred and eighty seven hours.
Speaker 5
I think that was certainly part of it, and we would have to go back to our records to examine and and discuss the work that was done. I would say in particular, that transition was difficult when you it came sort of out of the dark that we our funding was revoked. And we had relationships with local partners. We had evaluations. We had a lot of work that needed to be sustained in the interim.
I also want to add that we worked in parallel and in partnership with the Dolly Parton Imagination Library. So we were working alongside them for every book that was delivered. And so I think we want to be clear that our role really was in a supportive capacity, in a capacity expansion, and building infrastructure, and we didn't want to pause all of that with the revocation of funding. And part of that was actually meeting with the Dolly Parton Imagination Library to ensure that whatever transition needed to take place was was smooth and was efficacious.
Speaker 1
So I want to speak to that a little bit because you raised that you all were working in partnership with the Dolly Parton Imagination Library and our staff reached out to the Dollywood Foundation and to the Dolly Parton Imagination Library last year, 10/10/2025, and they provided a response from their staff and I quote, I consulted with the leadership team at the Dollywood Foundation and want to confirm that we were not aware of and did not give approval for the money spent by the Strong Reader Partnership. We did not know how much money they received from the state, when they received the funds, and how they were being spent. Furthermore, we received a letter from miss Jackie Wong on 04/02/2026, so just a few dates ago, in which you stated, miss Wong, we are in receipt of your request for agreements with the Dollywood Foundation after August 2024. We do not have any agreements. It is our understanding that the California State Library administered grants with them directly.
Furthermore, we have additional communication from the Dollywood Foundation on 11/13/2025 in which they stated, we have contractual agreements with each of the local program partners and do not rely on SRP for those relationships. The Dollywood Foundation requested that SRP not engage with our local program partners without our involvement. We have documentation to this effect if that becomes necessary.
Speaker 5
And and to and to speak to that and in agreement with that, we did not coordinate with local partners without Dolly Parton's involvement, the Imagination Library's involvement. We worked in lockstep with them, and I think that is reflected in the comments.
Speaker 1
So how would you describe that you worked in lockstep with them and they are saying that they do not have any sort of consultation with you all in terms of how money is spent, how much money is received from the state, which contractors are used that they're not familiar with any of the contractors, that they are asking you all to not engage with local program partners, that they handle and manage those relationships on their own. I'm just I'm struggling to understand what the agreement and the partnership is supposed to look like if you're working directly with them.
Speaker 4
There that is a a fair question. And the model itself is, as you know, Dolly Parton publishes their own books and manufactures their own books, they actually require that local match, which requires the local direct agreement with the Dollywood Foundation. That's how they do the one for one match. So that is that is true that they do have those relationships directly with the local partners in which our role is to actually help the locals understand the collaborative model. And so we affirm that to be true from the Dollywood Foundation.
We had regular meetings with with them. I we can go back to our records often. And I do believe that they you have documentation that actually provides the updates of the regular updates of when and how we were engaging and talking with the foundation.
Speaker 6
Yeah. And I think to provide a little more detail, the grant as originally submitted sort of contemplated one structure, which then was conformed after sort of the shifts of funds to directly to the Dollywood Foundation. Following that as the board members mentioned, we did engage regularly with leadership of the Dollywood Foundation to really understand how the work could be complementary and additive. I think it was a priority of the board as well as a directive of the library to ensure that that close coordination was happening. We did receive request to ensure that tight coordination.
There were communications that were drafted together to make sure that the local program partners as mentioned, typically their relationship is governed by two different agreements. One is a memorandum of understanding between the Dollywood Foundation and then that local nonprofit. It sort of underscored data privacy related issues, how to use and not use the book order system for example, that's kind of the underlying information technology system that Dolly Parton administers and kind of one of their core roles. So, negotiating the books, selecting the books, producing the books, sort of administrating the mailing list functionally. So, that's how they sort of house the, what I would consider, a primary key performance indicator as you've indicated, you know, how many books are going where to what counties to what zip codes under what partners construct.
The second agreement that each of those local partners engage in is related to a licensing agreement. Obviously, Imagination Library with Dolly Parton, you know, is a very important brand to uphold which we understood, you know very clearly in our sort of onboarding sessions directly with the marketing team there. And so I give you a little bit of that framework because yes sort of the legal related issues in relation to using the actual program or conforming it to the California sort of geography, that's certainly the case. I think where we were really enjoying close collaboration with the Dollywood Pertin Foundation was really around our expertise in sort of that multilingual California approach. And so, in that instance we were working with them to identify you know there were a handful of counties that they had actually submitted where local entities needed a little extra capacity or may want to be considered for additional funds similar to the United Way example that you provided to support sort of their overall work to distribute books to children.
Speaker 1
So you used the term again agreements, but as I mentioned before, miss Wong, you sent us a late letter stating that there are no agreements between you all and the Dollywood Foundation, but you just used that term agreement. So is there an existing agreement between the SRP nonprofit and the Dollywood Foundation? Do you have any sort of documents detailing the agreement that you just described?
Speaker 4
They were collaborative working agreements. So they were verbal. We have regular cadence of meetings. Happy to provide those. And when we're able to produce the minutes, we will you will see the regular cadence of meetings and conversations we do have.
I I have to be direct, and we were actually examining with the board agreements. And so, Laura, I don't know if you wanna talk to that process, which we never were able to execute.
Speaker 5
It was one of our challenges. I mean, throughout you you can imagine that there were significant challenges outside forces that that impeded our progress, frankly. And and and that's difficult for us to say. But one of them was inking an agreement with the Dolly Parton Imagination Library was not done, and that was not because we did not want one.
Speaker 1
I I have trouble justifying that you all had an agreement when you have no documentation that there was one, and when we have direct communication from the Dollywood Foundation saying that not only was there no agreement but that they had no communication or coordination with you all in terms of these vendors being hired, in terms of working together with local program partners, how much money was being utilized or spent, how much money was being received from the state, that there seemed to be real separation between your operations and what the Dollywood Foundation was doing.
Speaker 5
There are financial separation and we are an independent nonprofit with very with aligned goals. But when we say we worked collaborative collaboratively with them, the frequency of meetings and the amount of time that we spent in concert with them, we used their entire model and we're committed to it. Our work was done through the lens of the Dolly Parton model that has been successful across multiple states. Our job was to ensure that it was translated to California's unique population. And our our our goal, like, as I said in in the opening was audacious.
It is incredibly difficult to establish an institution, the groundwork, and the infrastructure that needs to be laid, not just so that we can get books into the hands of kids now, but so that it's self sustaining. So that the local nonprofits are able to have the enrollment capacity and the fundraising capacity to ensure that we don't take the state's dollars and spend them on direct services with no ability to ensure that books will be able to be delivered in the future. And I think in particular, we really focused on ensuring that we wanted to build an infrastructure that would would find and target California's hardest to reach kids in the most underserved areas. So a lot of the work was done to be strategic and to have a planning process to ensure not just a year's worth of books but an institution that would last for decades.
Speaker 1
Ms. Fink, you say that you all utilize the framework had been using, that the Dolly Parton Imagination Library had been using. So how much of the state taxpayer dollars that you were allocated was actually directed towards providing books for children?
Speaker 5
Well, our job was not to directly provide books for children. Our job was to ensure that we built an infrastructure that enabled that. So for example, we didn't purchase books. The Dolly Parton Imagination Library, and I'll let my colleagues speak to the the details there, but our job was to ensure that the local nonprofits were able to boost their enrollment numbers, to expand into new counties, ensure that we had local partners that were available and able to be brought online because that in in the end is how the books end up getting delivered. And so I think the number that you're I don't know that I'm gonna satisfy your question because the number that you're looking for is different than the way in which we operated in alignment with that Dolly Parton model.
Speaker 1
So utilizing what you just said that your goal was to create those partnerships in order to facilitate the process of providing books to children, How many partnerships did you all successfully initiate in order to provide books to children?
Speaker 4
You can talk about the the meetings you had, the the community outreach in. I wanna be quick.
Speaker 1
I don't and I don't I don't wanna hear about the number of meetings. I want to hear about grant dollars provided. I wanna hear about what was executed on because as far as I can see here, there was no local partnerships that you all established in order to facilitate this program over a two year period and then you continued to bill this nonprofit after funding was supposed to be revoked. So it's I'm trying to understand explain to me the information that I'm missing here.
Speaker 6
Yeah. I appreciate your question, senator, of course. You know with regard to sort of what I can speak to you know kind of in the first phase of the work that we were doing you know once the grant was received you know through sort of what I'll call just the second phase of the nonprofit itself. We were focused on establishing you know sort of Imagination Library of California, the statewide sort of presence, we were focused on a variety of different regions, meeting with you know individuals that would be prospective partners in San Diego for example to sort of move beyond the zip codes, the limited zip codes that were there to expand to the entire county. Meeting with different organizations in Fresno, very similarly you know, how can we continue to bolster and expand the program either to move partial counties to full counties or to bring online new counties.
You know we had some conversations in Los Angeles with regard to sort of the service areas that are typical. I had a chance to work on census twenty twenty outreach and knowing sort of the geographic expanse but also the demographics of Los Angeles required sort of maybe a different fit approach there. So in the first phase we worked through sort of identifying where were some of those areas that we could proactively be going to, partners to be working with, etc. And then in the second phase very similarly the board asked for a very specific and targeted approach, so there were a handful of areas that we focused on Fresno, Sacramento, San Diego, I think were the four that we had active conversations with you know in looking at sort of expansion in San Joaquin County for example, what sort of services might help them you know sort of move to their expansion in that particular instance, one of the oldest local program partners had a smaller zip code geography that they were expanding to the whole county and so they were in need of specifically some data management personnel support as just an example.
Speaker 4
The statistics that are actually outlined, in the agenda, so I appreciate it. And over the course of the time, over 3,000,000 close to 3,000,000 books have been delivered. And, it's not solely I wanna be clear that it's actually not solely one organization. It will require the commitment from the locals to do that. And these what what miss Harris just outlined is is is that work.
Right? That commitment, that long term commitment. We also are not in competition with
Speaker 5
the Dolly Parton Imagination Library. We're in alignment with them, and so their success and our success are dovetailed. Every time Sonya takes a meeting in the counties that we're looking to build outreach to and and and in those meetings with the nonprofits as the best practices are shared, additional books go out to kids. And so while we were in the foundation laying stage throughout the time that we were that we had funds, that work is reflected in the increase in numbers as well.
Speaker 1
I I appreciate what you all are saying but it's it's very challenging when I have communication here from 11/13/2025 from the Dollywood Foundation stating very clearly that they have contractual agreements with their local program partners and that they do not rely on SRP for those relationships and that the Dollywood Foundation specifically requested that SRP not engage with their local program partners without their involvement. That doesn't seem like they're relying on you in order to build relationships, it actually seems like they're specifically requesting that you all not be involved in the work that they're engaging in. Now I'm going to continue on here because I have more questions related to invoicing and some of the contracts. SB 105 was in print on 09/08/2025 and then it was enacted on 09/17/2025 and that stipulated that all remaining funds including ones held by the nonprofit be returned to the state for allocation by DGS. SAGE strategies build two hundred and five point five hours between September 26 and 10/31/2025, so that's about a month, a little over a month period, and invoice the nonprofit for a total of $40,000.07 $40,000 and $7.75.
In comparison, Sage strategies billed a 166.75 hours for $39,000 for work between June 1 to June 30, a hundred and fifty eight hours for $36,400 for work between June 1 to July 31, and billed a hundred and fourteen hours for $21,000 for work between August 1 to August 31. So as I mentioned this was after this period when this funding was supposed to be returned to the state. So did this invoice further implement the statewide Imagination Library to deliver books to children? What was this invoice during this time period for?
Speaker 5
Senator, I'm sorry. Could you repeat the time period to which you were referring?
Speaker 1
So the time period that I'm referring to is billing from September 26 to October 31, and this was after SB one zero five, the budget bill was enacted, was on September 17.
Speaker 5
So when we we we take our relationship and our oversight of taxpayer dollars seriously as well. And when we received notice that there was a rescission of funds, we worked within the parameters of our grant agreement which requires a forty five day period in which the money is returned and grant reporting requirements are met. And we were able to submit that on time answering every question and submitting every document that was requested at that time. And as you will note, every dollar that we was in our possession was returned to the state.
Speaker 4
In furtherance of that, we asked, the state library for clarification, because we were, a little bit surprised, of the notice, but understand that, as stewards of of the state budget and taxpayer dollars, that was the request. And so, if we could continue to to bill the grant, and they they confirmed that we could as we closed out canceled contracts, agree potential agreements with locals, etcetera. So we did seek clarification of whether or we were allowed to continue to, use the grant for closeout activities, and that was confirmed.
Speaker 1
This was also during the time period when our staff began requesting some of this financial reporting rate. And as I stated before, you all were not producing the quarterly financial reporting that you all were supposed to be producing.
Speaker 5
In order to produce that, we would need a structure and a grant reporting requirements and deliverables. And and we do not we did not receive those. We requested them. We did not receive them. But we agree.
That would have been helpful.
Speaker 1
And so this the totality of this work during this period was so that you could produce and close out the nonprofit and and end some of these contracts and move some of these funds. Is that correct?
Speaker 1
And all of the quarterly financial reporting that was supposed to be done on a regular three month basis was basically done during this time period during the last few months because none of it was done previously?
Speaker 5
We received our initial I can't remember the date that we received the final closeout grant reporting requirements, but we received them from the state library during that time period after the rescission, and we completed them within our contractually required window within that forty five days.
Speaker 1
I find it a little bit strange that you have four folks, four different vendors rather, that are supposed to be managing your finances. You also have miss Harris who is utilizing Sage Strategies as well as your team and your staff to support the closeout that this is being done in such a last minute manner and in addition to that that there seems to be so many errors. We have bank statements that show checks bouncing, there was also errors in the financial reports that you all provided that were inaccurate. I think at one point there was like a $110,000 in terms of that was misreported. I mean, of these things are are really concerning.
Do you agree?
Speaker 4
Those are those are fair questions and observations. We were rapidly trying to remit the the adult the tax dollars that were left back to the state of California and they were they were in some cases rushed as you saw in your staff report that outlined some errors or over reporting and under billing.
Speaker 1
Miss Wong, would you agree that when it comes to the handling of these finances, the details around these invoices that they were not handled responsibly?
Speaker 1
So when you have checks bouncing, when financial reports are not being provided in a timely manner, when you have misreporting on documents that you're providing to senate committee staff, those things are not troubling to you?
Speaker 5
We were pleased to have the opportunity after collecting the documents, reporting within that forty five day window, which which is for multiple years of accounting work, is a short time period. We definitely regret that there were reconciliation errors, and we have resolved them. We're grateful to the committee and to the state library for helping us do so, and we're also pleased to see that in fact it was the discrepancies were resolved in the state's favor.
Speaker 1
I have real concerns with how your finances were managed and the fact that you did approve some of these invoices, the fact that you had four different vendors that were managing your finances and yet there seemed to be a number of errors even in the very very delayed time period that the committee decided to accept these documents from you all. The next few questions that I have are related to the contract that you all executed with Shipyard which is a full service advertising agency. How was Shipyard selected to provide marketing services for the Strong Reader partnership? What was the process used to select them?
Speaker 5
I think we referred to our we approached Shipyard as we approached other vendors previously, and the goal in hiring them was to ensure that we boosted our enrollment numbers, which I'm I'm hearing is a concern was a concern of ours as well. And in order to do that, we needed to have professional help in terms of targeting an outreach. Something that the local nonprofits and the Dolly Parton Imagination Library also was work that was not being performed. And so we were really working on a long term investment and strategy to create institutional knowledge and understanding and resources so that they could be used not just in one county by one nonprofit, but we really wanted to provide strategic and effective support to ensure that we worked to enroll kids, and you see the beginning of that work happened. And and actually, we had an entire campaign prepared.
In addition, we have multiple assets and we're hearing earlier in the hearing, there are many many assets that were just on the precipice of being deployed when the rescission came came in. And so we're we're deeply disappointed that all of that work and investment was abandoned, but we do have those assets and we hope that the Imagination Library and whoever is continuing with this program will leverage that research and all of those graphic assets and strategy.
Speaker 1
So I have four invoices here for web digital landing page. There's one for $18,000 another for $50,000 another one for $25,000 and another one for $32,000 totaling a $125,000. And I also have an image of the website that was taken when it was live and still up. It's actually less than a page. It has two buttons, one to sign up for free books and the other to contact.
Do you think that it's reasonable for a website to cost a $125,000, especially one that is incredibly simple in its design?
Speaker 6
Thank you, senator. I'm happy to answer that question. Appreciate the reference that you provided. I'm not necessarily familiar with that, but I can speak to the work that Shipyard was doing at the time. The plan as mentioned earlier was to deploy a multilingual outreach and education campaign that would meet the needs of many families throughout the state of California.
They did build sort of the back end of the website. As you referenced, we did have a phased approach that intended to build with the program over time. This did include both English and Spanish sort of website architecture. In addition, there's typically advanced work that must be completed in order to develop and deploy the website both in the wireframe and the user experience to make sure that we're driving, you know, whomever is visiting the site to core places as quickly as possible.
Speaker 1
So when you knew that money was going to be revoked from SRP, why would if those services weren't delivered upon, if this website is then taken down, why why would you pay a $125,000 for services that you've not received? And as far as I can see, there was no translations posted on this website. It's in English.
Speaker 5
We're happy to ensure that the committee has the aggregation of assets. I also I I'm I'm not fully understanding the $125,000 connection to simply the website. There was an overarching body of work that Shipyard performed that would institute this statewide multilingual campaign, and it involved it's a persuasion effort. And so research has to be done in order to engage in that persuasion effort so that we ensure that it's as effective as possible. And then the individual assets need to be developed and where we stopped, and that was all done over months through engagement with the board and with Sonya's team, and where we stopped was deploying those assets was the going live, which is why you you see that the social media does not have followers because we were arrested in and we were unable to launch.
Right? And our timeline, it almost coincided exactly with when we were planning to launch.
Speaker 1
So I'm referencing the 125,000 for a website because that's what it appears it's for. On the invoices that you've provided, and again, there's only so much detail that I have here to refer to, it states that these were all for web, digital, landing page fee. That's what these four invoices are for. So if it's not a $125,000 for this single page website, then what is web digital landing page fee beyond the website page?
Speaker 5
We can go back and look at that particular line item and provide you with additional documentation and understanding I don't have those resources in front of me at this time.
Speaker 1
So there are additional documents that you will have that you've not provided to the committee?
Speaker 5
That that was not my that that was not the reference that I was making. Forgive my misspeaking. We we can get back to you on that line item after we have reviewed it, and we can talk about the all of the allocations of doll of dollars in a more specific detail.
Speaker 4
And as miss Fink outlined is that we actually do have the assets that were not requested, but happy to produce those assets and what that looked like, the full web design, the multilingual pages, etcetera, the research that may be helpful to better getting a more complete understanding of what that work looked like. So that is that is not included in your documentation. I
Speaker 5
would also say we would love to present the work because the work is substantial. I think it's valuable, and I think it has we would love to see it utilized.
Speaker 1
Well if there are more details and more information that you have about the work that you all had been producing over the two year time period that you had received funding, the time to provide that documentation was when it was requested of you. I mean, that is what the committee is trying to understand. And so you've provided these invoices and these bank statements, and they lack detail. They lack substance. And so when my staff and I are trying to make sense of how public taxpayer dollars were utilized in order to accomplish the goal and the stated goal is to provide books to children, I'm not seeing that reflected here and what you're expressing is that there's more documentations, there's there's other pieces of this that that will further justify that you were meeting that goal.
And you know the reason why I ask questions about first of all that being a very high price tag for a website, $125,000, very very costly. There was also $581,000 in total that was expended to Shipyard, which is a very large sum of money and you know this was supposed to be for them to assist with the strong reader partnerships brand, develop all owned properties such as the website, social media channels, create marketing outreach and social media content in multiple languages, etcetera, but we don't actually see the product of that work And so you expended that money without receiving the product. So I'm I'm just I'm trying to better understand here how these dollars were used. That's half $1,000,000 that you paid to an advertising agency, and I don't see the results of that.
Speaker 4
We acknowledge that the assets are not included in your documentation. We were responding to specific requests about receipts and invoices and financial information. So we acknowledge that the deliverables and the product is not are not included. We understand that would have been good to have, but yet not requested of us from the state library at that in when we were closing out.
Speaker 4
We will gladly provide the assets. And we will confirm that we had shared the assets, with the state library, and they were aware of this work product.
Speaker 1
So you shared details related to the website, you shared details related to this advertising plan for SRP with the State Library, so that's documentation that you've given them and that apparently this committee hasn't received.
Speaker 5
Well, they are they are assets too. Like, these are all there's photographic assets. There's advertising assets. There's a significant portfolio of assets.
Speaker 1
I I wanna note as well, and this is separate and it's small in comparison to all these big pieces, but there was also an invoice for a photographer that you all apparently hired, but the only photos that we see posted on social media are stock photos. And so I'm not quite sure, like, what kind of photography services have happened and where those photos are and where they exist.
Speaker 6
The photos were taken in conjunction with preparing for our public launch of the first campaign and through phase two or with sort of a specific reference to the narrative that we submitted.
Speaker 4
In addition to that, that was, we should add, is that the Dolly Parton Imagination Library wanted to announce miss Harris as the executive director of California, and these assets were part of that.
Speaker 1
I I have I have a number of questions about the contractors and it I I want to make clear, you knew that you were coming to this committee hearing today. You've seen the questions. We had brought mister Lucas in to our last budget subcommittee on March 12 so that we could discuss some of these items. At what point did you think that it would be a good idea to provide us with documents showing us the work that was produced using state taxpayer dollars?
Speaker 5
You mean proactively to provide you with documentation, which specific documentation? We did submit our final report to the library. The final report and the narrative, were both submitted, but our I'm I'm just not understanding the question of what we were what you're asking us about.
Speaker 1
Website, photos, any sort of justification showing that you all were delivering on the state's intended purpose of this program, that is what appears to be missing here and you all are saying that you have more of those documents and these are the very things that I'm asking you for. Right? There are a number of contracts, hundreds of thousands of dollars of state funds that were spent and I don't have evidence of that work. And you all have provided invoices that lack detail, that lack specifics, and so we are not able to understand what you all were doing with these dollars. That is the whole purpose of this hearing.
Yeah. We appreciate that, and we appreciate the subcommittee's due diligence in making sure that the the monies was were expended within the guardrails of the legislation. If I'm being direct, it didn't occur to me until right now that we should turn over those assets because the questions that were being asked of us were financial and invoices. And so we didn't it just it didn't occur to us until right now to actually offer up the assets, the website and the bilingual and we understand now that's what is missing and we take responsibility for not being more proactive and producing those assets for the subcommittee without the direct questions so we will take responsibility for
And I appreciate you all getting those documents to us as soon as possible. The reason why I asked so many of these questions and I want to revisit something that I brought up while mister Lucas was up here is, you know, when I look deeper into some of these invoices when I have the ability to do so, that I'm I'm not seeing the work actually reflected in dollars being utilized the way that it's stated in these invoices. You know as was mentioned earlier, know United Way of the California capital region, you know at first I thought it was a grant when I was first looking at your documentation paperwork and then I realized that it was an invoice. It was an invoice for 07/15/2025 and the invoice was for marketing. When staff asked you to provide more details in terms of how this grant was utilized and how United Way of the California capital region was selected, you provided a PowerPoint presentation as did United Way and in that PowerPoint presentation it talks about creating a online strategy to target parents and caregivers with children under five and what that targeting would look like through social media particularly utilizing meta ad placements and using SRP logo for co branding assets.
But as I mentioned before, when you create a meta ad or a Facebook ad, it continues to live online, you can see the details of it. I went on to the California Capital region's back end in the ad library and there was no advertisement. They didn't do any ads for the year of 2025. They have done only three ads in their existence as a Facebook platform. Two of those ads were from 2019.
One was from 2024. So how did this these dollars get utilized, and how did you work with United Way in order to make sure that this program was going live? Do you even know if it went live?
Speaker 6
the $5,000 grant? Yeah. I can talk about the work we did prior to the dissolution of our contract. We did engage directly with United Way and Shipyard, and we saw this as an opportunity way to pilot and sort of a partnership with a local entity. In sort of the the complete plan, it was contemplated that we would offer marketing support for you know specific organizations and the formative research that we conducted directly with local program partners, it had been sort of indicated that there were specific capacity gaps, So you know perhaps a nonprofit you know maybe didn't have a full time you know marketing team, maybe you know they didn't have a bilingual Spanish proficiency example and such.
And so, know, the goal was really to take a step back and make sure that we were working with a local partner. You know, our goal was never to come in and sort of wish something specific on them, but really do this in collaboration with them. What do you really need? So in this instance, we did work directly with United Way. I believe at the time they had a specific sort of campaign that they were doing to enroll children into the Dolly Parton Imagination Library program and so this was intended to sort of do direct outreach to a specific population to drive enrollment.
Speaker 1
That's fantastic. That advertising never went live. Do you know if that advertising went live?
Speaker 1
Did you follow-up with United Way given that they invoiced you all as a vendor for services to see when that program would be going live and when that advertising would be going live?
Speaker 6
In the initial conversation, we did have discussions about the time period. I'd have to go back to get you that specific information, but after our contract was dissolved, I can't speak to what happened after that.
Speaker 1
It's it's not there. I mean, I can tell you I looked myself. So I don't I'm I'm troubled by the fact that the state library is supposed to be providing oversight and accountability for you all, and then you all are then subcontracting with other vendors and not providing any oversight to see if they're actually delivering on the services that they've committed to you all. And there's a number of other services that you all were billed for, and we don't have any evidence of that work either. Do you see my concern with this trend that I'm seeing here with these invoices?
Speaker 1
Do you know of any money that was actually utilized to assist with covering the cost of books for delivery to children or any money that was actually applied towards getting books in the hands of children?
Speaker 1
How were the dollars that you all were provided utilized to get books into the hands of children?
Speaker 5
I would I would say that during the term of our agreement, our job was to build an institution and infrastructure so to deliver those books to kids. So our job was on the back end, was to create local partnerships, to expand into additional counties, to find local partners and ensure that they had the capacity to do the fundraising that was required of them, and also to do outreach to ensure that we enrolled specifically the hardest to reach kids and in in a multilingual fashion. And that that was our work. That was the work of Sonia as our executive director. That was the work that we invested in specific to Shipyard with targeted enrollment so that statewide resources would be available for all of these smaller institutions to be used over time and for us to be able to build that infrastructure to be to make sure that it was impactful.
Speaker 1
You've mentioned building the infrastructure, building the foundation in order to run this program, but I don't see that actually being executed on. There's lots of billing here and, you know, contracts that were executed, you know, with a number of vendors who were paid for work that we still don't see. I think the United Way example, a very small example, is a good example of money that was utilized, and you all have no idea whether or not that was actually implemented and used for a marketing campaign. But I can tell you very easily, and any of you could go online right now to look, that it was not. It would have taken you, what, fifteen seconds to look that up.
You all have a responsibility as well. Right? You all are overseeing public funds as a nonprofit, state taxpayer dollars, and making sure that it's actually being applied and utilized as it stated. You all are hiring these vendors. You all are supposed to be holding them accountable and what I see here is that you did not do so and that makes me incredibly troubled and concerned and the fact that you're telling me that you still have additional documentation that you haven't provided to the committee that we have yet a chance to review is also concerning as well.
Now I want to go ahead and, take a pause now and turn it over to to senator Grove to see if senator Grove has further questions or comments.
Speaker 3
Thank you all for being here to help us understand what you've been doing with the taxpayer, dollars that were provided to you. Several times, you reiterated almost the same thing that you're responsible for setting up a statewide program that to reach, to help, communities and counties with fundraisers to enroll, individuals and nonprofits into the program to establish books for California's most vulnerable, for hard to reach, individuals, the hardest, the hardest to reach kids. How many of those kids did you actually enroll?
Speaker 5
Thank you for the question, senator Grove. We you could if you look at the numbers, the overall enrollment numbers, those numbers were impacted by the work that we are describing today. There was no tracking system in place for us to simply disaggregate our work from the work of the Dolly Parton Imagination Library. As I mentioned, we work
Speaker 3
right there because we're on a time string. We're on content. You know, we I have probably about fifteen minutes left. I'm asking you a question. The Dolly Parton Imagination Library, based on the information that the madam that madam chair provided, they don't want you engaging with their local partners.
I I definitely can see why, based on the email that they provided. So I my question to you is is that I have the numbers in front of me that the Dolly Parton Imagination Library enrolled in each county, helped fundraise in each county, the students that participated in each of the 58 counties, and what they did. I'm asking you what your numbers did. And based on the information that you provided the committee, you issued one $5,000 grant out of $1,100,000. Out of that $5,000 grant, how many children were enrolled in that process or books were delivered for that $5,000 that you actually did give and use taxpayer dollars according what the bill language wanted you to do?
That I just want the numbers. How many kids are enrolled based on what you did at the reader program?
Speaker 5
I appreciate the question, and I would say that based on the frequency of contact, the
Speaker 3
I'm not asking you that. I'm asking you what you did. They say that you haven't participated with them. They didn't want you to participate. Who did you who in what county just give me Sacramento County.
Who did you engage with in Sacramento County of with thank you, madam chair. Who did you engage with other than the United Way? Or what what individual did you engage with, and how many books were distributed based on that $5,000 grant? That's all I'm asking you. How many books?
Speaker 5
Well, we I I just wanna make clear that we worked in partnership and had many, many meetings with the Dolly Parton Imagination Library. And that letter, don't believe, is reflective of the entirety of that relationship. And I we did not disaggregate our numbers from there. But I I will let Sonia speak to that specific 1 $5,000 grant, and I appreciate your question.
Speaker 4
Can can I just I apologize. Thank you, senator Grove. I did not mean to interrupt. No. I I just wanted to make sure that from the beginning, we did not wanna work separately from the Dolly Parton Imagination Library, and we were absolutely instructed not to do that because of the brand recognition and and the fidelity of their model.
Speaker 3
Then why why did you think it was okay to set up a different program? Why not just use the Dolly Parton Imagination Library like the other states that have been successful from doing since 1995? You chose to set up your
Speaker 3
Okay. But the the state librarian allowed you to participate as a nonprofit instead of just using the Dolly Parton Imagination Library. And just frankly, you guys failed. You took the same amount of money, the $1,900,000 that Dolly Parton got $1,500,000 in the same time frame and where they have proven track records of working across the state in 58 counties, raising money for the dollar to dollar match, and then also providing 65,000 books on the ground and enrolling 85,000 or excuse me, 1,500,000 books on excuse me, 1,000,000 books on the ground and 65,000 new students enrolled, you can't tell me what students you've enrolled. Now you're piggybacking and saying that you get credit for what Dolly Parton Imagination Library did, but I'm asking you what the what what the this the smart reader program, what did you do?
How many students did you enroll? Are you the executive director?
Speaker 3
Formerly? As executive director, would it be your responsibility to track that?
Speaker 3
As the executive director of the Smart Reader program, was it one of your job duties to track how many students for measurable goals that you would enroll in the program?
Speaker 3
You can't spend the same amount of money they did and piggyback on their success. I'm asking you what you spent the $1,000,000 in taxpayer dollars for. A lot of it was to different consultants for financial firms that can't provide us information other than, you know, initial and a first name or a name and a $43,000 bill. I mean, there's no data on those invoices, and you paid people to provide that to us. So, I I'm just trying to figure out what you did with your $1,100,000, and how many of those dollars reached actual kids on the ground?
Speaker 6
Yeah. Thank you, senator. I think as board member Fink tried to outline, you know, really our understanding of the Dolly Parton Imagination Program, Imagination Library Program was to conform, you know, and as you mentioned, really help inspire the love of reading. I think this is one of the things that I appreciated most about the program and sort of my history with books with my grandma, she sent she got books sent directly to our home and you know it was a means that I could read with my mother especially while my father you know was on deployment in the Air Force and you know I think that really called to me as a mother of two children as well. So I just want to express I think the deep appreciation that I have had personally but I think the board you know for incredible program that the Dolly Parton Imagination Library team continues to expand you know it incredibly internationally.
Know as it relates to I think your specific question about book enrollment, I think what becomes nuanced is really who is responsible for that insofar as the local program partner. One of the things I also really appreciated having done statewide work across California in a variety of different sort of manners is they really, really honor, I think, the relationship with the local nonprofit.
Speaker 3
But I'm asking you how many local nonprofits did you, the Smart Reader program, participate with, that you enrolled, that you met with and you have agreement that you're gonna provide services to that nonprofit. How many of those do you have? You. Not Dolly, pardon. You.
Speaker 5
to speak to the premise of the question first, which is that as outlined earlier, that we worked through the Dolly Parton Imagination Library. So when when a nonprofit
Speaker 3
I with know, but I'm just saying that they they told you, please don't go don't go to local
Speaker 5
local Right. That is correct. And and we and we honored that request. We honored that request, and we engaged in parallel to them. So when you see New County sign up
Speaker 3
When when they asked you not to do that, who did you go recruit to develop and get this To
Speaker 5
your to your point exactly, we did not go and recruit independently. Our job was to work alongside them and in parallel to and and respectful of their guidelines and rules. Are an established successful nonprofit, and we honored that throughout our relationship. We were an entrepreneurial nonprofit And why was the
Speaker 3
need why why was the need to set up another nonprofit to compete with the Dolly Parton Imagination?
Speaker 5
I was we we were we didn't see ourselves in competition. We saw ourselves in collaboration, and and we worked in partnership together. I was appointed to the board by former senate pro tem, Tony Atkins, in a volunteer capacity. Jackie Wong is also here in and and and we were tremendously excited several years ago, and obviously so much has gone on in between, but we were really moved to ensure that we built a long lasting California solution. We in fact, we we believe that
Speaker 3
I wanna ask you that question. You just said it because you've said it several times. You wanted to ensure that you built a long lasting California solution. Dolly Parton Imagination Library through several states has been in existence since 1995. Do you consider that a long lasting solution?
Speaker 3
Parton Imagination. We just adopt every other program that they have and let the the the people that know how to do it best, the Imagination Library? Why did we have to interfere and create our own California nonprofit and to to make this happen, spend $1,100,000 and not deliver one book? That's what I think happened. I don't think you deliver I think there now was not one book, not one enrollment, not one county participation where you've partnership, you've said, with creating a dollar to dollar for match.
How much money did you help counties raise as the executive director?
Speaker 6
In, five particular counties. We were, in San Diego, we were working with a variety of partners there.
Speaker 3
How much money when you were the executive director did you help them raise for the dollar to dollar match?
Speaker 6
We didn't engage in the direct sort of ask. I think the relationship that we were trying to build with the local partners was to bring together folks that we understood had resources.
Speaker 3
You said that you you said you all three said in your testimony at one time into the other that one of your jobs was to make sure that you let local partners do the dollar to dollar match, which was part of the contract in the agreement. How much money did you help raise for that dollar to dollar match and participate?
Speaker 5
I I appreciate that you are, and I I don't have that number for you, but
Speaker 3
can So do I'll go into the next question that you won't have an answer for. As the executive director, you render a contract. Right? Do would you would were you included in the contract with the state librarian that you couldn't lobby? Is that part of your are you included in that group of people that could not lobby, because you were an executive director of the Smart Reader program.
Correct?
Speaker 3
Okay. So working for the Smart Reader program, which is a nonprofit that the state librarian set up, were you under that same contract or part of that same contract that you were not allowed to lobby?
Speaker 3
The grant itself, which you were a part of, does it prohibit you from lobbying, yes or no, as the executive director? Does it prohibit you?
Speaker 3
Is it your understanding that under the grant that you are prohibited from lobbying as the executive director? Yes. Thank you. In August 2024, did you participate in a hearing? And did you make an appearance in a hearing?
Speaker 3
board. For SB or AB one fifty seven when you lot when you offered public testimony?
Speaker 6
We understood that the funds would be leaving California, and so we voiced concern with that particular issue.
Speaker 3
Well, the that's that's not exactly true. The funds were not leaving California. The funds were to support California, but
Speaker 3
were gonna be managed by the Dally Park and Imagination Library and not just this situation that we have here where there's no accountability, no invoices, no end results, no goals measured. That so this the funds leaving California was not true. They were available. Maybe the Dolly Parton Imagination Library directed those funds in California and was successful at it, but they didn't leave. So when you gave your testimony, did you support or oppose a, a b one fifty seven?
Speaker 3
You opposed it. Did you meet with any other legislators or talk to anybody in the committee regarding your opposition?
Speaker 6
Thank you, senator. I would need to go back to check, but I believe I we, did drop off documentation in a couple offices.
Speaker 3
Okay. And you are classifying that not as lobbying against a bill as the executive director. You are classifying that as outreach to us?
Speaker 3
And what do you consider that in your own mind as an executive director? Obviously, highly educated. What what what does that mean to you? If you drop off a letter to me to as a legislator and you want me to unoppose a bill and you bring it to me, are you lobbying me? What are you doing?
What in your mind are you doing?
Speaker 6
Thank you, senator, for that. I think I can speak to dropping off the letters and, you know, in the course of, the work that I do, you know, kind of, again, ensuring that the board's communication is facilitated in the day to day administration of the nonprofit.
Speaker 3
Okay. Is administering the day to day operations of the nonprofit are you required, or do you have someone that takes minutes at board's meetings? You've all testified that you've had extensive, lengthy, board meetings. Where are the minutes for those meetings that are required by law in the state of California for nonprofits to per keep? Do you have those?
Speaker 3
Madam chair, can we request those as well? That was discussions in the board meeting. Is that possible?
Speaker 1
Absolutely. We've we've not received them, So I'm I'm not sure where you all have those and where you've all posted them, but we've not received or seen them.
Speaker 3
So just to refresh your memory, under California law, you're required to provide that to us. Are you required to have it and have those detailed minutes? Or is that in your job profile, or is it someone else's?
Speaker 6
The we were responsible for day to day management. So, yes, developing the minutes and presenting them to the board for review and adoption accordingly.
Speaker 3
And so you have those available, those minutes that you're required to keep for, I think, fifteen years, k, roughly, and within that fifteen year time frame. Another request that I have for you on some questions. Who authorized the checks to be issued? Is that the executive director that would take the board and say, these are the bills we have under the APs or excuse me. Accounts payable.
These are the bills that were given to us. These are the I've authorized these bills, and then the board approves them, or is that just in your purview?
Speaker 3
Okay. So any invoices that you approve that you sent to the board, they approved and signed?
Speaker 3
Okay. Who who submitted to the board the invoices on Sage Strategies? Sage Strategies sent this organization, the reader program, a bill. We have the madam chair has the invoices. Tell me the process and how that goes.
Speaker 3
Our team, meaning somebody that you're over? Who who's what is do you submit that invoice to the to the board?
Speaker 3
Formerly. Formerly. Yes. And formally. Absolutely.
But when all this was going on. Yeah. Are you also a principal at Sage Strategies?
Speaker 3
Are you also a member of Sage Strategies as a member of the collaborative?
Speaker 3
A member of the collaborative. This is just a briefing I was just curious about. So there is a collaborative of of organizations and lobbying firms and organizations here in Sacramento that are a member of the collaborative. It was a KCRA interview that listed you as a member of the collaborative, and you're on a website. And that was recently, some issues that happened within a group of people that are being investigated.
I'm just asking if you're still a member of the collaborative as SAGE.
Speaker 3
Even though you're listed? You should probably get that fixed. It doesn't look good.
Speaker 3
Yeah. You should probably get that fixed. It doesn't look good. So, Sage Strategies, which you are a principal of and the executive dress exec executive director of a nonprofit that was sending invoices to the board for approval, you at Sage Strategies or your organization that you're a principal have got $326,250.99 to provide what kind of services to the Strong Reader program.
Speaker 6
Thank you, senator, for that. I was retained by the board to serve as the executive director and the staff for the entity. This is as outlined in sort of the initial engagement. The idea or direction from the board was to help them sort of build the program and eventually hand it off to a full time staff.
Speaker 3
And so you you as the executive director of the Strong Reader program and being a principal at Sage Strategies, the nonprofit that you were executive director for using state taxpayer resources, you, build your own company where where you're a principal $326,250, roughly. I can give you the billable breakdown hours. $216 an hour at roughly 1,524 hours.
Speaker 5
Yes. Senator, may I may I speak to that? As a member of the board, we hired Sage to be our executive director and her staff to serve as support staff to in service of the Strong Reader partnership. And so the bills were reviewed in detail by the board on a regular cadence, and we oversaw them and also had signing authority over the payments made.
Speaker 3
And I appreciate that. I don't have a lot of confidence in that because you guys also authorized checks that bounced, and you can provide us invoices and no detail. So I I am aligning myself with the chair's comments that, I'm very disturbed or alarmed by the way the whole system worked, at the Strong Reader program. Just in comparison, and I'll ask you each separately, madam chair, and then, I'll be done because I don't think we're getting the answers that we've been trying to get for, I don't know, several hours and several months now that you've been digging into this. For 1,100,000 that your non this nonprofit that you all represent received, for $1,100,000, you can't identify, one book that was delivered to an at risk kid or a kid that is under five years old in the state of California.
You piggyback on the the success of the Dolly Part Imagination Library, but you as a nonprofit, you can't identify one book. You can't identify one enrollment. After countless meetings that you've personally testified for, the same that you had collaboration meetings, countless meetings, all these meetings with nonprofits and local entities to make this a statewide program, you specifically mentioned San Diego, you can't provide all but one that you gave $5,000 to who created a web page that has three two buttons. That's it. Two buttons.
You could ask AI to do that in, like, thirty seconds. It wouldn't cost a lot, and you'd get a lot more than two buttons, and you'd probably get the photographs that you paid the photographer for to put them up online. There's no records. You I can't say no records. The records you provided are severely lacking in detail.
You have a invoice with someone you've built such as Sage Strategies or Shipyard, and you have a total dollar figure at the bottom of taxpayer dollars that's owed to that organization. That's not sufficient records for any nonprofit. And if you weren't working within the state parameters and you were actually out there being a real nonprofit and you performed that type of work, you would probably have some type of charges against you. I'm being serious because you you have provided nothing and you spent $1,100,000 of taxpayer money. In comparison to California's Dolly Parton Imagination Library, you got 1,100,000.0.
They got 1,500,000.0. That's it. What the difference is $400,000. They have over 1,000,000 books distributed, 85,400 children enrolled. And while you say it's not a competition, I'm telling you that you severely lacked in performing what this legislation wanted you to do as a nonprofit to be able to deliver books and develop a foster or a love for reading for our zero to five year olds.
I do have other questions just out of curiosity. I'm going back to the the comments that you made at the hearing. You spoke intently about your exact comments and transcript permission to read. Madam chair, do you mind? Good morning, mister chair and members of the committee.
My name is Sonia Harris. I'm the executive director of the Imagination Library here in California, respectfully, in opposition to section 84, specifically one fifty a b one fifty seven. It takes $68,000,000 of taxpayer money and sends it to synesthesia based on organization with limited oversight. You think the Dolly Parton Imagination Library has limited oversight? These are your words, not mine.
Yes or no?
Speaker 6
I would need to revisit the reference or passage you're you're speaking from, senator.
Speaker 3
It's the transcribed testimony that you made on August, excuse me, on, on regarding a b one fifty seven at 04:38PM on 08/26/2024. I'm reading directly from a transcribed statement that you made. Your statement was that you oppose a b one fifty seven because it takes $68,000,000 of taxpayer money and sends it to a Tennessee based organization, a Tennessee based organization called the Dolly Parton Imagination Library, the Dolly Parton Foundation, Dollywood, K, which has been successful in so many other states. But you're questioning that. You're questioning the fact that we're taking that money that was authorized for the Dolly Parton.
It's called the Dolly Parton Imagination Library, And we're giving them $68,000,000 of taxpayer money to establish a program here in California, and you opposed it based on your language. It takes $68,000,000 of taxpayer money and send it to Tennessee based organization with limited oversight and no accountability. Do you think the Dolly Parton Imagination Library has limited oversight and no accountability when they have been successful since 1995? Is that still your opinion today? You stated it in the transcript.
I can let you read it.
Speaker 3
Do you wanna read it? I can give you my phone. I have the transcript right here.
Speaker 3
Oh, at another time. Okay. It says since the board was established last year, we've had great success in terms of appointing board members, selecting an executive director, and really beginning the work with boots on the ground. Who were your boots on the ground, and how many people have you connected with to deliver these books and provide services and raise money?
Speaker 6
Yeah. Thank you for that. I'm trying to recall that particular time period. We had, as I mentioned, started to engage with local program partners, think in that instance.
Speaker 5
I want to interrupt and just say because I do remember that time period, if I'm not mistaken, we were ready to hire regional program coordinators in conjunction and partnership with the Dolly Parton Imagination Library at the time that the funding was revoked.
Speaker 3
Why not just let the library, the Imagination Library, do what they've done in every other state to be successful?
Speaker 5
We we were actually working with their best practices and engaging with them, and collaborating with them on all of those hires, and they they were intimately involved in the selection of those individuals.
Speaker 3
I'm going back to your statement, miss Harris, in the next paragraph. It says, we've, meaning you guys, have got 35 out of 58 counties online, online with full or partial coverage. What 38 counties were you referencing? Because we can't find that anywhere.
Speaker 6
I think at that particular time, I was relying upon information, in conjunction with
Speaker 3
With a Dolly Part. Imagine so they got them on board, you guys are taking credit for it.
Speaker 3
Okay. That's evident based on the information that they provided, madam chair, that says they didn't want you to go to the counties and disrupt what they were doing.
Speaker 5
If I may clarify, I think what I heard was that they didn't want us communicating directly with partners solo, that they wanted to do it in conjunction with us, and we were very respectful and in alignment with that request and and rule.
Speaker 3
Okay. Continuing with your, statement that you made at the committee hearing where you weren't lobbying and you weren't advocating against a bill, you, it says, partial or full or partial coverage, working to get those ones on with partial coverage all the way to the cover of those ZIP codes and and really working with the last 23 great, greatest rate limiting factors for local organizations is the one to match the one to one match program, which the which it requires. It's your exact and I know I don't speak you know, it's it's just an exact translation. So not a lot of conversations have that you've been having on these partners has really been around, period, how do we help you with some of what's fund, fundraising and really make sure that you've got California children in mind? So, again, please, section 84 will only further delay the implementation again and eliminate California's oversight.
Do you really think that California need to have that huge of oversight over an Imagination Library that has been successful in so many states? And I don't think Dolly Parton would tarnish her recommend her reputation, and it's been very successful. And I I just don't understand. You say you didn't compete, but you did. You tried to set up something different.
Based on your converse your testimony that was read, and I can let you read it as well. I actually have it on a video that was just sent to me since so we can listen to your own words if you'd like. But did you not think that you were lobbying or active? What were you doing in the executive director position in violation of the contract that you're under to not lobby or or, you know, for the legislation? As You got up and publicly opposed it.
You dropped off letters to senators or other assembly members. So in your mind, was that not in violation of the contract?
Speaker 6
I I did appear at the committee, as I mentioned, you know, at the request and in coordination with the board to express yeah.
Speaker 3
Okay. So I'm gonna I think madam chair did a great job of pointing out all the lack of information and trying to get to the bottom of this. We spent a lot of time on this. I know she has spent a tremendous amount more time than I did. But the bottom line is is that the Dolly Parton National Union Library already was successful in working since 1995, and, we didn't need the strong reader partnership, to try to reinvent the wheel.
That was not a smart move in any way, shape, or form to use that $1,100,000 of taxpayer money, specifically providing a half $1,000,000, rough you know, just over a half $1,000,000 to an organization to provide you social media. And you have, you know, social media media accounts, and you have 14 followers. That's I mean, if you take that $14 divided by $567,000, that is not a good use of taxpayer dollars. If you, take the $5,000 that was given to the United Way and you they used it for a website that's nonexistent that the chair found in fifteen seconds, it's not a good use of taxpayer dollars. If you take the $367,000 that your firm as a as a principal at that firm and you are the executive director of the library and your firm was charged of doing basically the same thing, and then use a substantial amount of money that the chair outlined in exact detail down to the penny for creating a website for a $120,000 that doesn't exist and for invoices that don't have information, you have no success, none, that you can point out that you spent $1,100,000 in taxpayer funds on in contrast to Dolly Parton's Imagination Library who spent $1,500,000 and enrolled, you know, tens of thousands of kids and and raised money and matched in counties, engaged counties, all 58 counties, and participated in local nonprofits.
I've gone to several of them throughout the state, and they've been very successful. And I just it's just a shame that we wasted $1,100,000, and there's no record of accountability for it. So I thank the chair for allowing me to participate even though I'm not on the budget subcommittee. And I really appreciate you doing a deep I'm looking at all your documents and your sticky notes, and you must have been up for hours and hours and hours going through that trying to figure out what's going on here. And I appreciate you for doing that, madam chair, because I don't think we got any answers, but I appreciate the the hardcore effort.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
And thank you, senator Grove, for joining us. I recognize that this is a very important program both to senator Grove as well as to our former pro tem Tony Atkins. Then it was something that, you know, they are very passionate about and I think we can all agree on delivering books to children to improve literacy is, I think, a shared goal amongst most folks in the state and was really, you know, a bipartisan effort that was meaningful. And I think a large part of the reason why it has been so frustrating you know to continue to struggle to find answers to many of the questions that we've had. You know I want to take a moment just to kind of briefly overview I think a number of things outlined here that you know I'm troubled by.
You know as was mentioned before the payments that were made over $500,000 to shipyard, money that was spent for website, other advertising fees, things that we still don't have evidence for, and items frankly that never went live and that you all expended state taxpayer dollars for. We still don't have evidence of what that money was utilized for. You're telling me that there's some sort of plans and other things behind the scenes that we have yet to see. But why is the why is that not reflected already? Why was that not reflected in a website?
Why was that not reflected?
Speaker 5
Oh, I mean, I I share your dismay and our inability to launch the program because of the timing and the rescission of funds. In order to launch the program, we we have to it has to be funded. The timing was really difficult, and we're happy to provide all of the assets. Because those weren't requested and as chair Wong mentioned earlier, we're more than happy to disclose all of that. And in fact, would love it in a less adversarial capacity given all of our commitment and our many, many volunteer hours of everyone here sitting at this table to try to look back at best practices, to take learnings, and to have an honest conversation about some of the obstacles we weren't able to cover today because I think those learnings are important and I think it's the work that was done here has has value and we would like to see that value carried forward in whatever capacity the legislature deems appropriate.
So we're happy to disclose those documents and hopefully they can be carried forward because the strategy for enrollment was a good one.
Speaker 1
Ms. Fink, I'll be honest with you I have to completely disagree with you that you all had a good strategy in place when you do not even realize whether or not the dollars that you allocated towards a specific nonprofit or agency, whether that's been put into implementation and we're almost over a year out from that money being expended when you could find out with a simple Google search that does not show good oversight on your part and making sure that this program is being delivered. Know when we have a website that completely lacks information that only has two buttons available on it that does not have any sort of translations listed on it you know that that is an issue. In addition to that over $300,000 that were allocated to Sage Strategies affirm that you are the head of Ms. Harris and in addition to that, there are very strong inconsistencies.
You communicated via documents that work was paused during several periods but you continued to charge for work, it doesn't line up your documents that you've provided what you all have stated is happening versus what you're invoicing for. Your invoices also completely lack details and information so that our committee can justify that what you are doing is actually one meeting the parameters of a nonprofit and its requirement and also following the state law. There's also on several occasions questions about whether or not you were lobbying and whether or not another firm that you all were engaged with, the name of which I have here Changecraft was also engaged in lobbying and while you all have communicated that that's not been the case you were very clearly trying to influence legislation and trying to stop and oppose a budget bill that was going to be removing funding from you all because funds were not expended towards the purpose of this program which was to provide books to children. And then we have Lotus Financial Solutions and the three other financial agencies that were intended to help you all with managing your funds. Yet there were checks that had been bounced, your financials are all over the place, There was a $110,000 that was unaccounted for when you first provided documents to the committee.
And when we asked you all for invoices six times through the state library, It we did not receive it until they sent you a demand letter. And at one point, you had an attorney from Delfino Madden submit a letter to the state library questioning their authority to receive these documents from you all when the state library had direct oversight and accountability over your nonprofit. And I don't understand why any of you would think that you do not have to provide and answer their questions when they're asking for documents from you all and why it had to get to the point of us having a budget sub hearing to discover all of these documents. Finally, and I think, you know, what is most troubling about all of this is that the intended purpose of this program which was to provide books to children was not executed upon. And I think over time that's become much more clear.
That was mentioned in a report that you provided to us that there were two pending obligations that were in process, one for the Sacramento program partner, another to read to me Stockton, both totaling $120,000 Yet we never actually see that those payments are made to either one of these partners. We thought at first that the United Way program was potentially a book program that ended up not being a book program either and so none of these programs were actually executed upon. When we speak to the Dollywood Foundation, they indicate that they do not rely on you all for partnerships, that they actually directly requested that you all not engage with their local partners without them being a part of it, that they are unfamiliar with all of the vendors that are listed here, and that they had no idea how you all were dispersing funds. And so all of these issues raise very serious concerns for us and, you know, I've recognized comments have been made about the amount of money that this is and that it might be small relative to the budget but for me as a public servant I take this very seriously what's occurred here That we need to ensure that when we're making a commitment to provide something as simple as books to children that we're actually delivering on that commitment.
And each of you all had a responsibility. The State Library was supposed to be providing oversight and guidance to you all to make sure that you were executing on a program and delivering on the goals of the bill that both senator Grove as well as pro tem Atkins enacted. But you all were supposed to provide oversight and accountability to the vendors that you all were hiring, ensuring that they were delivering on all of the items that they were invoicing you for, and that did not happen. So I appreciate you all being here today trying to answer some of the questions that we've raised. I know there's still a number of outstanding questions and documents that you are still going to be provided to us.
As I mentioned before, I have shared both with you all as well as with our state librarian Greg Lucas that I want you to retain all documents related to this matter as we continue to explore what's happened here and just appreciate you taking the time to be present today. I want to go ahead and turn it over to anybody that we might have in the audience that's here, members of the public that may want to provide public comment. We do have a mic here at the side. I'm not sure if we have any attendees, but I'll go ahead and and take a pause. Alrighty.
Okay. Yes. Senator Grove.
Speaker 3
I'd be willing to just participate and work with you if there's further actions that you would like to, bring forward as the, the chair. And, if there's anything that you would like to suggest that we move forward on in in addition to gathering other documents, you know, what's next? You know, do we need a forensic auditor to go through these books? I'm sure we could find one to volunteer if the state would allow that. I know lots of friends of Godfrey's, or if there's, referrals of anything that need to take place to other agencies or jurisdictions.
Speaker 1
No. Certainly, senator Grove. And I was about to get to that point as well. And I wanna let you know, senator Grove, that, you know, I I recognize that this bill was enacted in 2022 before I was elected to the legislature. And I recognize what a priority it is to you as well as our our former pro tem.
And so, you know, making sure that I'm continuing to communicate to you all and provide you with an update in terms of the directions of utmost importance to me. Absolutely. The oversight hearings to date regarding the distribution of funds for a state literacy initiative administered by the State Library have raised legitimate questions about their use. These public dollars came with a clear obligation to be spent transparently, responsibly, and in a way that delivers results particularly for children at a critical stage of learning to read. I want to underscore I appreciate the State Library and the Strong Readership Partnership Foundation for their participation in these public hearings and for providing some explanations.
However, it should not have taken this process to obtain answers the budget sub one committee has been seeking since last year. Important gaps still remain. Our role does not end with this hearing and we will continue to follow the facts as the Office of State Audits and Evaluations within the Department of Finance conducts an independent audit review and request additional information where necessary. Until those findings are complete, this remains an open oversight issue for this committee and just for purposes of the public I want to note that at our request the Department of Finance will be performing an independent audit, draft, and final reports detailing the audit results and findings will be provided to the State Library and the subcommittee. The audit is anticipated to be completed by 12/31/2026 however the completion timeline will be dependent on the audit scope and its objectives which we will work on as well as the availability and complexity of the information subject to audit.
The subcommittee is going to be issuing a summary a summary of preliminary concerns based on the information that we have to date and so we will be providing a summary based off of today's hearing and as I mentioned before this will remain an open oversight issue. I don't expect any additional hearings until we receive the audit findings and so that will be dependent on when the audit is finished. I want to thank everyone today for their patience and their cooperation. We have concluded the agenda for today's hearing and the Senate Budget Subcommittee number one on education is adjourned. Thank you all.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.