As a condition of receiving a grant from an appropriation of state funds, the recipient of the grant must agree to minimize administrative costs. The granting agency is responsible for negotiating appropriate limits to these costs so that the state derives the optimum benefit for grant funding.
An employee of the executive branch involved directly or indirectly in grants processes, at any level, is subject to the code of ethics in section 43A.38.
(a) The commissioner must develop policies regarding code of ethics and conflict of interest designed to prevent conflicts of interest for employees, committee members, or others involved in the recommendation, awarding, and administration of grants. The policies must apply to employees who are directly or indirectly in the grants process, which may include the following:
(1) developing request for proposals or evaluation criteria;
(2) drafting, recommending, awarding, amending, revising, or entering into grant agreements;
(3) evaluating or monitoring performance; or
(4) authorizing payments.
(b) The policies must include:
(1) a process to make all parties to the grant aware of policies and laws relating to conflict of interest, and training on how to avoid and address potential conflicts; and
(2) a process under which those who have a conflict of interest or a potential conflict of interest must disclose the matter.
(c) If the employee, appointing authority, or commissioner determines that a conflict of interest exists, the matter shall be assigned to another employee who does not have a conflict of interest. If it is not possible to assign the matter to an employee who does not have a conflict of interest, interested personnel shall be notified of the conflict and the employee may proceed with the assignment.
A state employee who discovers evidence of violation of laws or rules governing grants is encouraged to report the violation or suspected violation to the employee's supervisor, the commissioner or the commissioner's designee, or the legislative auditor. The legislative auditor shall report to the Legislative Audit Commission if there are multiple complaints about the same agency. The auditor's report to the Legislative Audit Commission under this section must disclose only the number and type of violations alleged. An employee making a good faith report under this section has the protections provided for under section 181.932, prohibiting the employer from discriminating against the employee.
(a) A grant agreement is not valid and the state is not bound by the grant unless:
(1) the grant has been executed by the head of the agency or a delegate who is party to the grant;
(2) the accounting system shows an encumbrance for the amount of the grant in accordance with policy approved by the commissioner; and
(b) The combined grant agreement and amendments must not exceed five years without specific, written approval by the commissioner according to established policy, procedures, and standards, or unless the commissioner determines that a longer duration is in the best interest of the state.
(c) A fully executed copy of the grant agreement with all amendments and other required records relating to the grant must be kept on file at the granting agency for a time equal to that required of grantees in subdivision 8.
(d) Grant agreements must comply with policies established by the commissioner for minimum grant agreement standards and practices.
(e) The attorney general may periodically review and evaluate a sample of state agency grants to ensure compliance with applicable laws.
A granting agency shall diligently administer and monitor any grant it has entered into.
Payments to the grantee may not be issued until the grant agreement is fully executed. Encumbrances for grants issued by June 30 may be certified for a period of one year beyond the year in which the funds were originally appropriated as provided by section 16A.28, subdivision 6.
(a) A grant agreement made by an executive agency must include an audit clause that provides that the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the grantee or other party that are relevant to the grant or transaction are subject to examination by the granting agency and either the legislative auditor or the state auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the grant agreement end date, receipt and approval of all final reports, or the required period of time to satisfy all state and program retention requirements, whichever is later. If a grant agreement does not include an express audit clause, the audit authority under this subdivision is implied.
(b) If the granting agency is a local unit of government, and the governing body of the local unit of government requests that the state auditor examine the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the grantee or other party according to this subdivision, the granting agency shall be liable for the cost of the examination. If the granting agency is a local unit of government, and the grantee or other party requests that the state auditor examine all books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices related to the grant, the grantee or other party that requested the examination shall be liable for the cost of the examination.
The attorney general may pursue remedies available by law to avoid the obligation of an agency to pay under a grant or to recover payments made if activities under the grant are so unsatisfactory, incomplete, or inconsistent that payment would involve unjust enrichment. The contrary opinion of the granting agency does not affect the power of the attorney general under this subdivision.
Notwithstanding any other law, an agency may not require an Indian tribe or band to deny its sovereignty as a requirement or condition of a grant with an agency.