The Department of Examiners of Public Accounts found that the Department of Agriculture and Industries had not complied with two state laws and regulations during an audit that began in October 2019 and ended in September 2024.
One of the most significant findings involves the department’s failure to properly verify the lawful presence of non-citizen applicants during certain public records transactions.
Auditors found that the department “had not completed enrollment in the Federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program,” a system required under Alabama law to confirm lawful presence before issuing certain licenses or authorizations. Without enrollment in SAVE, auditors warned the department could “enter into public records transactions with or on behalf of an alien not lawfully present in the United States.”
In 2011, lawmakers passed HB56 to “prohibit an alien unlawfully present in the United States from receiving any state or local public benefits,” amongst other immigration related targets.
State law requires agencies to verify lawful presence through the SAVE program before granting public benefits or entering into qualifying public records transactions, including business and professional licensing.
The requirement was designed to ensure state authorizations are not issued in violation of federal immigration law. In the audit, examiners stated the department “should implement procedures to ensure applicants are lawfully present in the United States before entering into public records transactions.”
The audit makes clear that this was not a new problem. Auditors noted the same issue “was previously reported as Finding 2019-001,” signaling that the department failed to fully correct the deficiency despite it being flagged in the audit cycle spanning 2015 to 2019.
A second finding focused on the department’s practice of charging a bad check fee without proper legal authorization. According to the audit, the department “did not have an administrative rule establishing the amount charged for worthless checks.”
While Alabama law allows agencies to recover fees associated with returned checks, those charges must be authorized by statute or clearly established through administrative rulemaking for consistency.
The audit references Alabama law, which sets limits on bad check fees, and the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act, which requires agencies to adopt formal rules for policies that affect the public, including fees, unless the amount is specifically set in statute.
Since the department lacked a formal rule setting the fee amount, auditors concluded that the practice could lead to inconsistent or unauthorized charges if left unchanged.
Auditors recommended the department “amend its administrative rules to set the amount charged for worthless checks” to bring the practice into compliance with state law. The audit does not allege fraud or intentional misconduct.
The department is expected to respond to the audit and outline corrective actions, and lawmakers may consider whether further oversight is necessary if the issues persist.
