A. No warrant upon the state treasury for the disbursement of funds shall be issued except upon the determination of the division and the state agency that the amount of the expenditure:

(1) does not exceed the appropriation made to the state agency; and

(2) does not exceed the periodic allotment made to the state agency or the unencumbered balance of funds at its disposal unless the warrant includes federal funds that will be receipted based upon established warrant-clearing patterns.

B. The division may implement and perform internal pre-audit and post-audit procedures to monitor and enforce compliance with the provisions of this section. The pre-audit and post-audit procedures may be applied on a stratified or statistical basis.

C. A state agency shall determine that a proposed expenditure is for a public benefit and purpose consistent with the related appropriation and is necessary to carry out the statutory mission of the state agency prior to committing the state to the transaction.

History: 1953 Comp., § 11-2-68, enacted by Laws 1957, ch. 252, § 7; 1977, ch. 247, § 118; 1993, ch. 105, § 3; 2003, ch. 273, § 4.

The 2003 amendment, effective July 1, 2003, added present designation Subsection A and redesignated former Subsections A and B as Paragraphs A(1) and (2); substituted "division and the state agency" for "financial control division" in present Subsection A; inserted "state" preceding "agency" in Paragraphs A(1) and (2); deleted Subsection C which read: "is for a purpose included within the appropriation or otherwise authorized by law"; and added present Subsections B and C.

The 1993 amendment, effective June 18, 1993, added the language beginning "unless the warrant" at the end of Subsection B.

Responsibility for determining propriety of funds to be disbursed. — The responsibility for determining that funds to be disbursed from the state treasurer are paid for a proper and legal purpose falls upon the department of finance and administration and more specifically upon the division of financial control. 1961 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 61-09.

Reimbursement of sheriff for payment of guard's authorized expenses. — If a sheriff has expended his own money in payment for a guard's authorized expenses, those expenses would therefore be legal expenses of the sheriff for which he could properly be reimbursed. As regards the responsibility of the state auditor (secretary of finance and administration) in determining whether this payment was proper, his responsibility would be fulfilled by determining that a guard actually accompanied the sheriff on the subject trip and that expenses submitted by the sheriff were properly substantiated. 1961 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 61-09.

Effect of section on employee's salary. — This section could have a definite bearing upon an employee's salary if the issuance of the salary exceeds the appropriation made to the agency or exceeds the agency's periodic allotment or its unencumbered balance of funds at its disposal. 1958 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 58-52.