Senate JLAC — 2026-06-01

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to call the joint legislative audit committee to order. Good afternoon and welcome to all of our members. This is the committee's second hearing in 2026, where we're hearing and considering new audit requests. I want to quickly note that conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes today's proceedings will not be permitted. I also want to note that Senator Jones has been appointed by the Rules Committee to replace Senator Dolly for today's hearing only. Welcome to Senator Jones when he arrives. Seeing that we are one short of a quorum at this moment, I would encourage all members of the Joint Committee to report to Room 447 so we can establish a quorum and take care of today's business. So unless there are questions, let's proceed to the state auditor's status reports. Ah, we now have a quorum.

Here.

All right our quorum is present so now we proceed to the State of Order for the status report Thank you very much Vice Chair Cabaldon and members of the committee A quick overview on the status of my office work before we consider audit requests at today hearing Currently, for JLAC audits, we have 10 audits in progress for awaiting staff. All JLAC audits approved in 2025 are in progress, and we've recently started our first 2026 audit, focusing on the DMV's license revocation process. I expect to publish five of these audits this summer, with three more in the fall and two in the winter. Of the four remaining audits approved three months ago in March, I expect to have all four started by August or within the next eight to ten weeks. Litigation continues with Huntington Beach regarding our audit of the air show, and so that audit is on hold pending the outcome of that litigation. As far as statutory audits in progress, we have eight. In addition to our audit work for JLAC, we also are required to handle various statutory audit work. We have our audit of the state bar's rollout of the February 2025 bar exam, as well as our audit of CSU and UC's implementation of Title IX and their efforts to prevent and investigate claims of sexual harassment. We have three other statutory audits on the tobacco tax, the state's financial statements, and the federal compliance audit that we are required to do every year. And we also have three audits underway under our state high-risk program examining the state's late financial reporting, as well as issues surrounding Medi-Cal eligibility and the safety of the state's water infrastructure. In terms of staff resources, if all audits on today's agenda are approved, I anticipate having all audits started by December 2026. And with that, those are my initial comments, Mr. Vice Chair.

Motion is to approve the proposed consent calendar. 2026-109, University of California Library Resources by Assemblymember Marisucci. 2026-111, Law Enforcement Agencies. Information sharing by Senator Archuleta. 2026-117, Employment Development Department. Unemployment Insurance Claims by Assemblymember Addis. 2026 119, Housing and Community Development, Housing Development Monitoring by Assemblymember Avila Farias. Assemblymember Harbidian? DeMaio?

DeMaio, aye. Fong?

Fong aye Hart Aye Hart aye Hoover Park Silva Ransom Aye Ransom ransom I senator Cabaldon Cabaldon I Ashby Ashby I Becker senator Cervantes want this I Cortese Jones Jones I Valadares I Valadares I

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, for the opportunity to present this audit. I'm requesting this audit of the San Diego Association of Governments, which is our regional transportation agency, because taxpayers in San Diego County and across the state of California deserve accountability, transparency, and confidence that their transportation funds are being spent as promised and in compliance with state law and approved voter initiatives. This audit obviously focuses on San Diego County, but I believe that it is of importance statewide because the concerns raised in this audit that can be addressed and put to rest are concerns raised by constituents across the state of California. Where are our gas tax monies going? If there are voter-approved initiatives, are those initiatives actually funding projects that were promised? I believe that this audit can serve as a template for how we can look at other regional transportation agencies. Let me also state that there is new management at SandEgg, and the new executive director, I believe, is bringing in some very good practices. All the more reason to audit past problems so that new management can work with the auditor, identifying some remediations and entering into agreements. SANDAG oversees billions of dollars, including SB1 road maintenance and rehabilitation account funds. In addition, they receive a number of state and local grants, federal grants, and they also have dedicated tax revenues from voter-approved initiatives. As I mentioned, recent events under the prior administration have raised serious concerns about SandEgg's financial oversight and management practices. Last year, an independent audit revealed that SandEgg executives knew for more than a year and a half about major problems involving State Route 125 before even mentioning it to their governing board. It took the media and a whistleblower to expose the problem. The audit found that faulty software systems and complete disregard by management resulted in improper customer charges, an estimated $2 million lost to taxpayers. A second review found additional failures involving vendor management and financial reporting systems. Those findings alone justify asking the broader questions that my audit requested. raises. There's also concerns about whether transportation funds are being spent on highway maintenance, rehabilitation, and operations as promised, or are they being diverted towards other projects that fall outside the intended or legally required purpose of funding sources. Again, I do not want to get into whether a project is good or bad. That is a management decision. that's a policy decision, but there are certain funding streams that are encumbered that can only go to certain programs. And of course, San Diego residents have seen projects where vehicle lanes have been removed or narrowed while resources were redirected to other purposes. And again, many of the grants and contracts as well as special tax funds do not allow for diversion of these funds. Again, the audit does not presume wrongdoing, and I believe that the transition in management offers us a great opportunity to utilize this audit in a constructive manner to show that there were past practices that were weak, that a new team came in with new commitments and have been making improvements. Part of the audit will be looking at the following questions, whether funding sources paid for the appropriate projects, whether restricted highway funds were used appropriately, whether voters were given accurate information, whether all expenditures are properly documented and reported with appropriate internal controls, whether promise projects for voter-approved funding streams were actually completed, or whether they were reduced in any way in scope or delayed, and looking at administrative costs and overhead costs to ensure that they are appropriately documented and consistent with voter-approved initiatives. I ask that we approve this audit, and again, I do believe that with the change in management, there's a great opportunity for us to turn the page and get specific commitments on new practices and internal controls, and that these internal controls or practices could also be of benefit to regional transportation agencies statewide. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Chairman Harabedian. As Assemblymember DeMaio mentioned, the audit request really directs my office to evaluate SANDAG's use of transportation funding and determine whether spending has been for allowable purposes. The audit has five primary objectives, shown in your materials as Objectives 2 through 6. Objective 2 asks us to determine if SANDAG fulfilled its project commitments from the Transnet Ordinance Tax Increase, which would include determining how many projects were canceled or curtailed in the amount of overhead costs charged tax revenues. Objective 3 has us focus on whether or not SANDAG has used state highway and transportation funds for allowable purposes, determining whether the use of these funds were for the construction of bikeways and walking trails under its Regional Transportation Active Plan. and then determine whether or not such uses were for allowable purposes. Objective four has us test the allowability of a selection of non-road improvement projects that use federal, state, and local funds. Objective five has us focus on whether or to determine the extent to which the BuildNCC project funded non related projects such as wetland restoration And as Mr DiMaio mentioned objective six has its focus on evaluating the extent to which sand ag accurately submitted required reports justifying expenditures from these funds This is a medium sized audit that will require roughly 2700 hours to complete

First of all, thank you. Thank you for having me. Sorry for giving my back to some of you. Thank you, Assemblymember De Mayo for the kind words. Again, my name is Mario Orso. I'm the CEO at Sandac. Don Batiste, the Chief Financial Officer. As it was mentioned, this month, it will be my second anniversary with Sandac after 33 years with Caltrans in different roles. I really want to share on behalf of the chairman of my board, the staff, as well as myself and Don, the seriously that we take our responsibilities in managing taxpayer funds and working at a taxpayer-funded agency. We really take that really, really serious. Since I came in my position, I've been very focused on enhancing transparency and trust at the agency. And I think that applies to all of us working in public government. I fully respect and embrace the work that this committee does to fully vet out the concerns that are being brought up. Today's conversation seems to focus on two main questions. Is the agency's handbag delivering on its commitments? And are we following the rules of the funding? I think we are. I appreciate what Assemblymember DeMaio brought up, and we are putting a lot of elements in place. But I want to focus part of my conversation to tell you what are the elements that have been put in place, some of them in statute by the Assembly. So again, I do feel that we're delivering our commitments, and we are following the rules of the colors of funding. Many times people bring in frustrations, concerns about why projects are not being built so fast. And as a lot of you may know, major infrastructure projects take years, if not decades, to get to fruition. Required mitigation sometimes becomes part of law. like North Coast Corridor that's being mentioned, was included in statute on the mitigation through a public works plan, and it required the approvals or the consensus even of the California Coastal Commission. And then we have funding. Like any other agency that works in transportation, the difference on the sources of funds can vary widely on each project. I know several of you have worked in local governments and MPO boards and in the past you must be very familiar with the concept of bringing in different colors of money to be able to fund a mega project Each type of funding comes with its own packages of eligible uses and oversight requirements. This is very important because no single source of funding is going to pay for a mega project or a major endeavor. And therefore, each time we add new types of colors of money, let it be local, state, or federal, the funding comes with its own conditions. What are those conditions? Those conditions are the eligible uses for the funding, the reporting, and the monitoring requirements. Currently, at Sandak and Don can correct me, we're managing probably more than a hundred colors of money in the agency. That's a daunting amount of different funding sources. In fact, in the average, Sandak is subject to 14 audits each year. Since 2008, we have had close to 300 audits, reviews or assessments. The Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration conducts reviews. We go through the triennial audit from FDA. Caltrans, the California Transportation Commission, signs off on every state dollar we spend and report out on a quarterly basis. In fact, most part of, if not all major highway projects that we do at SANDAQ are actually developed and implemented by the state. The environmental document lead, the design, the implementation are determined by the state. It's a partnership that works well and we've been able to leverage our human resources. When I came into SAMDAC, I think this is very important. Because what, Assembly DeMaio.

We have several audit committees. We have a director of internal controls that I created. We have an independent performance auditor that was created by statute that's doing three to four audits. And to summarize, we do feel that we have submitted the appropriate reports. Transnet has gotten a lot of the commitments done. And the North Coast projects were, in fact, you know, were not improperly put in projects there. And like I said, in fact, this multimodal corridor scope was outlined in state statute. So we're open to any questions. I appreciate the openness and the value. I think we all want to make government better. But I think sometimes audits are a great thing, but they're also a daunting amount of work. And we need to focus audits where we can get the best out of them. And I think we would like to work with you all to find those specific elements. Thank you.

Yes, thank you. So I want to thank the Assembly Member for bringing the audit request and I want to thank the representatives from Sandbag for your testimony In reviewing the questions for the audit a lot of these seem like questions that we should have been able to go to a county or go somewhere to get these answers And given that the audit is half a million bucks or so, I'm curious to the requester, have you tried to get answers to these questions? And we do have some members from San Diego here. The environment in San Diego County has been such that with the number of scandals and problems that SANDAG has had, that the way we can restore public trust and confidence is to go to the state level and to conduct this audit. We also know that there will likely be federal reviews of not only SANDAG, but some of our other state agencies. And having audits that show that, yes, federal funds were appropriately spent, state and local funds were appropriately spent, I think shows that we're being proactive in ensuring that we are complying with federal, state, and local law or voter-approved initiatives. But it has been, SANTAG has really had a loss of public trust and confidence in San Diego County. And I do know that they are likely to go back out to the public and request support. And having this audit is, I think, an important step to evaluating whether that's appropriate. Okay. And have you gone to them for answers or gone to the county already to get answers to some of the questions? We've discussed a variety of concerns with the with SANDAG. I've also spoken to their auditor and a lot of the ideas that are in the letter are formed from those discussions. Thank you. My question would be to Mr. Patisse. Are you the executive director or CEO?

Okay. So in just kind of preparing for this, it does look like there's kind of been some grand jury concerns about kind of the internal audits that you mentioned. I just, when you gave your report, you did not really touch on some of the questions in the audit. Do you feel that you've provided answers to those questions already? And if so, is there a public place where we can get those questions answered?

Thank you.

I'll second.

for your closing and to respond to any of the comments that you just heard. Thank you. In response to the Senator, I don't agree with your characterization of the various issues that you brought up. First and foremost, the toll road issue was the result of a whistleblower and involved federal investigation. We should not have whistleblowers or federal investigators having to go and raise a red flag on things like this. As it relates to the NCC project, sure, there are some examples. You can say that if it was mitigation, that would be an appropriate use of funds. But we are not talking about just mitigation. We are talking about bike lanes. We're talking about art projects. And some of those are policies of Sandag. A policy of Sandag cannot override a funding restriction, as you well know. And so these are the questions that continue to linger in San Diego County. Voters in San Diego County have rejected now three times Sandag's request for a tax increase, in large part because of the loss of public trust and confidence. And so I am here really wanting to strike the right approach. And I believe that the state audit is going outside the sandbox because it's so bad locally that I think that is the only way that we're going to have a credible set of eyes to the public's point of view to put some of these issues at rest. And I actually am optimistic with the new regime. I've seen some good reforms. I don't think we're there yet. But I think this helps management, the new management, come in and say, yes, we want to look at the past practices because we weren't associated with those. The auditor can look at what can be improved, and then management can respond and stipulate that they will remediate, they will agree with audit recommendations. And then the public can look at that and decide whether those internal controls and commitments are sufficient. This is a thoughtful way to deal with this. Or we can continue to have low levels of public trust and confidence. I think that this is an absolutely necessary audit. That's why I felt a state approach was the best way to deal with this. But if not, I think the public in San Diego will continue to harbor doubts. Projects will then continue to be rejected at the ballot box, I would presume. And I do believe that we are going to be seeing some federal queries on these matters as it relates to federal funds. So I think we need to be proactive. I ask for support for this audit. and let's restore public trust and confidence with an outside set of eyes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, another thank you to both the committee and the chair and the vice chair for the consideration of this audit and for giving me the opportunity to present. In 2014, California voters approved Proposition 47 with the goal of reducing certain nonviolent drug and property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors while reinvesting state savings into programs intended to improve public safety outcomes. State savings are deposited annually into the Safe Neighborhoods and School Fund, with 65% allocated to the Board of State and Community Corrections to administer grants supporting mental health treatment, substance abuse disorder services, diversion programs, and other rehabilitative services. The legislature later expanded allowable use of these funds through AB 1056 to include housing-related assistance, job training, case management, civil legal services, and other community-based supportive programs intended to help individuals successfully reenter society and reduce recidivism. These are significant taxpayer investments made with the promise that they would improve outcomes for these individuals while enhancing public safety. However, more than a decade after Proposition 47 was enacted, there remains insufficient publicly available data to determine whether these grants programs are effectively achieving their intended goals. Current reporting requirements rely heavily on self-reported data from community-based service providers, many of whom receive pass-through funding under BSEC grant requirements. While the BSEC requires that at least 50% of grant funding to be distributed to community-based organizations, there appears to be limited independent oversight or standardized evaluation of program performance, recidivism outcomes, or long-term effectiveness. This audit request seeks to provide the legislature and the public with greater transparency and accountability regarding how Proposition 47 funds are being spent whether performance metrics are reliable and whether these programs are delivering measurable results for taxpayers and the communities that they are intended to serve. Ultimately, this is about ensuring accountability, evaluating outcomes, and determining whether these investments are truly reducing recidivism, addressing mental health and substance abuse challenges, and improving public safety across California. Testifying here in support of this audit request is San Bernardino County Sheriff Shannon Dekas.

Thank you, Sheriff. Mr. Perks.

Thank you, Mr. Parks. We will now have Aaron McGuire, Executive Director of the Board of State and Community Corrections. And three minutes to you, Mr. McGuire, whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Appreciate all the testimony. Any questions from the dais before I open it up for public comment? And see it none. We will open this up for any public comment. And again, seeing none, Senator, would you like to close?

Beautiful. That's exactly how we like it. Okay. We'll bring it back here. Do I have a motion? Okay. We have a motion by Senator Jones. Second. And a second by Senator Hoover. Madam Secretary, let's call the roll. I am an eye record on this. And thank you very much for bringing the audit, Senator. 2026-120, Board of State and Community Corrections, Proposition 47, Grant Administration via Senator Valadez. Assemblymember Harbidian? Aye. Harbidian, aye. DeMaio? Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. Hart? Aye. Hart, aye. Hoover? Aye. Hoover, aye. Park Silva? Ransom? Aye. Ransom, aye. Senator Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Jones? Aye. Jones, aye. Valadares? Aye. Valadares, aye. And that audit is approved. Congratulations. Thank you very much. And we will now move on to our last, but not least, presentation by Senator Cortese. audit request 2026-107, Department of Human Resources, dental benefits procurement. And, Senator, you can start whenever you're ready. And we are moving quite along. So, yes, again, brevity is the best medicine here. So whenever you're ready, go ahead. Very interested in brevity.

Thank you, Senator. And gentlemen, three minutes to be split however you'd like. Oh, great.

state employee dental benefits system is delivering meaningful access to care for workers, retirees, and their families. For years, dentists across California have been reporting growing challenges participating in the state's dental plan. At the same time, state employees and retirees increasingly tell us that they cannot find a dentist accepting their coverage, their dentist has left Delta's provider network or they are forced to go out of network. Delta Dental, as the senator has mentioned, has had this contract since 1984. During that same period, annual maximum benefits have remained largely unchanged while the cost of providing dental care has increased dramatically. Senator Cortese's request asked the appropriate question, is the procurement and oversight process used by CalHR producing sufficient competition, accountability, transparency, and value for state employees and taxpayers? The SADA is about ensuring the California dental benefit system works for California. For the people who rely on it the most, the state is exercising its proper oversight for the decades-long contract affecting hundreds of thousands of Californians. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. Mr. Toppin?

Thank you both. Mr. Parks.

Thank you, Mr. Parks. Mr. Dowdy and Mr. Toppin, if you can return to the bleachers, And then we will bring up the Department of Human Resources. We have Monica Erickson, director, and Nicole Griffith, chief of the benefits division. Whenever you're ready, please proceed. And three minutes between the two of you, if you need a little bit more time, let me know. But go ahead.

Thank you, Nicole Griffith, Chief of CalHR Benefits. Again, thank you so much for having us here today. The CalHR Benefits Division administers benefits for state employees and retirees. Today I will discuss our dental benefits program, which covers over 600,000 employees, retirees, and dependents. Our dental program delivers comprehensive coverage through preferred provider organizations, also known as PPO, and prepaid dental health maintenance organization, also known as the DHMO. The PPO network through Delta Dental is strong and accessible. 99% of our members have access to Delta Dental provider within 10 miles, and 89% of our members use contracted Delta Dental providers and receive negotiated rates, resulting in lower out-of-pocket costs. 11% of our members may be using providers outside of the network. Our dental program offers out-of-state coverage, just like our health plans. We have approximately 450 individuals enrolled and using out-of-state coverage. We are aware that Delta Dental has experienced provider turnover. However, overall, their provider network remains strong. In 2025, Delta Dental experienced a 2.5% loss of dentists that our members use, which equates to 454 providers. However, Delta added 1,603 new providers. Delta Dental has added more providers than they lost. We've also focused on expanding access to rural areas. while eight providers left rural areas, 34 providers were added, ensuring continued coverage in these areas. I'd like to address concerns about the calendar year maximum limits, which is the total dollar amount our PPO dental plan will pay for covered services. in a calendar year. Member value is very important to us, and we consistently monitor data on how members are using their dental benefits. The most common plan design government is a $2,000 calendar year maximum. 25% of Delta Dental's government and municipality clients offer a $2,000 maximum. 40.2% of our 600,000 members reached or exceeded their maximum in 2024. 6.8% of retirees reached or exceeded the maximum in 2025. I will skip over some of this, and if I have time, I'd like to go back. But we conducted an RFP in 2025 to address the network challenges and ensure the state received the most comprehensive pricing available based on the feedback and concerns raised by our members. Delta Dental was one of the handful of vendors to respond to the RFP, demonstrating its continued strength in the market. We are excited to share that effective January 1, 2027, we will offer two dental carriers, Delta Dental and MetLife, who will each offer three PPO plan options and one DHMO prepaid plan. There will be a total of eight different plan options for employees and retirees to choose from. This transparent and cost-effective process helps ensure the state continues to provide its members with affordable, comprehensive, and accessible dental benefits and a more robust provider network, which is important to us and our members. MetLife will offer two plans moving forward that will have out-of-state coverage as well. We stand by a transparent, competitive procurement process to ensure high-quality, competitive cost-effective benefits for our workforce and their dependents. Our contracts include performance guarantees with financial penalties, which are contractual provisions that require the contractor to meet specified performance standards and impose monetary penalties.

Thank you. The timing of this is actually fairly interesting for me that I just subbing in today on the committee But you know I been in the legislature this is my 14th year and last year And every time I gone to the dentist my dentist has always said wow you have really good coverage. Until this year, when my dentist dropped Delta Dental. So I'm in that, if it is a small number, as you're saying, I am in that small number. But my dentist is a very good dentist. He's Highly respected in the community, and I'm sorry to see him leave the program, and now I'm stuck in that fun effort of finding a new dentist just for the last six months that I'm in office. So I'm going to support the audit. Obviously, it won't affect my situation as I'll be gone once the audit even starts and comes back. But I think it is good information for the state's employees to have, so I'll be supporting the audit today.

Okay, now, I'll be very brief. I appreciate the passion and the pride that the opposition, I guess we'll call it opposition, or the agency has in regards to the work that they're doing. I also want to say it's really important that the user experience matches what you are hoping. And having kids, my kids are on Delta Dental, and one of them lives not, she's in California but not at home. Just some of the difficulties and then also hearing from others, some of the difficulties they have. I think that it's really important for us to get to the bottom of this because we do represent a lot of folks with this, including retirees. So I'm going to support the audit today, but I do appreciate the pride you have in trying to do a good job. Appreciate that. Thank you.

I'm also really very pleased that this is here. I mean, this is a common problem being sort of captured by your contractor because it's just so hard to change at this point, and there's no one else in the market, and we see the outcomes. And obviously, dental insurance isn't even really that. I mean, it's a discount plan, which is unfortunate, given what we know today about the relationship between dental health and dementia and all sorts of other diseases. And if we treated dental care just like every other health care piece, you'd get more than $2,000, depending on what you actually needed, which we don't do in these systems. So you're on to a really important topic. I'm glad to see the MetLife edition. However because they both going to be in the market we not it seems unlikely that we going to see MetLife putting exerting a lot of competitive pressure on Delta Dental and instead both of them sort of taking collective advantage of a quasi situation So I think it's a very opportune moment. I'll also be looking at an audit in this moment to see as we shift to this two-provider system that we're starting to get benefits, and the members and our employees are starting to get the benefits from competition and not simply having two parties matching each other's benefit packages and prices. So I also intend to support the audit and thank Senator Cortese for bringing this forward.

Yes, thank you very much. My name is Keith Omomoto, and our lobbyist did present part of the position, California State Retirees, and I'm Executive Vice President. And this has got to be one of our primary issues with California State Retirees. I go to our 26 chapters, and what do I hear from them? How much they're spending out of pocket. People are spending hundreds, thousands, and actually have spoken to people that spent over $10,000 out of pocket because of the cap hasn't changed, accessibility, and then making sure that the provider directory is correct. and you may be voting on one of those bills that addresses that. But we do wholeheartedly support this. This is important in our ability to provide services to the California state retirees and actually the active members. And we would love to work with CalHR more to see what kind of alternatives there may be and also what the members of the legislature. But first and foremost, we do support this audit. Thank you very much.

First of all, thank you, Mr. Chair, for your assistance. Thank you for the very interesting discussion. Thank you, CalHR. I think, you know, happens to be, you happen to be where this is housed, so I hope you don't feel, you know, under siege here, but we have a vendor I think people want to take a look at, and we're very grateful for the opportunity. I think folks are going to Get some real value out of the auditors work here for basically for the first time in a long long time we'll get some information that Will be very helpful to the legislature in terms of transparency with that a respectfully ask for an aye vote Thank you very much Mr Vice chair just mr Chair it not in the scope of the audit but I do hope the auditor will take a look at the effect of this amazing mug that Kalasia has with murder clowns and other horror villains on perhaps getting an even better deal from our dental provider. It is absolutely the most interesting part of the hearing. So, yes. It was a little intimidating. It was intimidating for all of us. Don't worry,

So with that, thank you.

I am an aye recommendation on this audit. 2026-107 Department of Human Resources, dental benefits procurement by Senator Cortese. Assemblymember Harbidian?

2026-109, University of California Library Resources, Member Marisucci. 2026-111, Law Enforcement Agency Information Sharing by Senator Archuleta. 2026-117, Employment Development Department Unemployment Insurance of Claims by Assemblymember Addis. What are the statistic odds of Biden and I will?

2026-119, Housing and Community Development, Housing Development Monitoring by Assemblymember Avila Farias.

I think he got all of them.