Clik here to view.
The North Carolina Legislative Building in Raleigh. (Photo: Clayton Henkel/NC Newsline)
A North Carolina House panel advanced a bill expanding the investigative powers of the state auditor’s office Tuesday, though some raised concerns over the scope of agencies and individuals who could be subject to inquiries.
Clik here to view.
The Judiciary 1 Committee voted in favor of House Bill 549 after presentations from sponsor Rep. Brenden Jones (R-Columbus), the second-ranked Republican in the House, and Kirk O’Steen, the director of government affairs for the state auditor’s office. It will now head to the Committee on State and Local Government for further debate.
The bill expands the auditor’s investigative powers to encompass any entity receiving state or federal funds, requiring the office to pursue any reports of “improper governmental activities” among those agencies, their employees, and any individuals who receive public funds — including fraud, misappropriation and waste of public resources, and violation of state or federal laws.
If enacted, the auditor’s office would also receive “continuous and unrestricted access” to any databases, datasets, and digital records deemed necessary for investigations, allowing the auditor to seek a court order if access is not provided. The bill also exempts the state auditor’s office from a number of statutory requirements, including legislation around the use of information technology and the North Carolina State Human Resources Act — a level of independence Jones said is similar to that of the General Assembly and the state courts.
Jones said in introducing the bill that it was largely directed by State Auditor Dave Boliek’s staff, telling lawmakers, “it’s not my dog, I’m just walking it.” He said the additional powers were crucial for improving government accountability and transparency.
“It strengthens the auditor’s independence, ensuring the office can do its job without red tape or delays or interference from other branches of government,” Jones said. “It allows the auditor to better follow the money by clarifying the ability to investigate individuals and organizations that receive state or federal funds.”
Clik here to view.
The bill comes amid a substantial increase in the state auditor’s authority after the office flipped from Democratic to Republican in the 2024 election, the only Council of State office to do so. The House committee action came on the same day the state Senate approved a measure to establish a new team in the same office to scrutinize state spending and job openings. Lawmakers also gave Boliek’s office administrative authority over the State Board of Elections and the ability to make appointments to it just weeks after the election, though the law is currently being challenged in state court.
Rep. Brandon Lofton (D-Mecklenburg) raised concerns about the breadth of the new definition for “state agencies,” calling the bill’s proposal to open up any entity that receives state funds to the auditor’s full scrutiny “broad and onerous.”
“Any church that receives any grants, any factory that receives state incentives, any hospital or farm that receives subsidies, any private school that receives voucher money — all these entities, no matter how much money they receive, are now subject to these requirements,” Lofton said. “That means that any of these entities would have to subject themselves to the auditor having continuous and unrestricted view of databases, data sets and digital records.”
O’Steen, the auditor’s office staffer, said the bill’s intention is to be able to track any public funds that are issued and “follow the money.” He said the bill’s primary purpose is to “clarify” the auditor’s power rather than expand it, as the office already has “ample authority” for conducting investigations and audits.
Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford) said she found the bill’s provision around investigating any individuals who receive state funds to be excessive, noting that it opens up anyone receiving money for Hurricane Helene relief for auditing. O’Steen said those are the sorts of funds that the auditor’s office should be following.
“As far as going after individuals, it’s not the intention of the auditor’s office. Even if it was, there’s no capacity to go that deep into individuals. That’s not the intention or the vision of the Auditor,” O’Steen said.