House Bill 900 would revise North Carolina law governing the confidentiality of legislators’ records. Under current law, each legislator is the custodian of documents, supporting documents, drafting requests, and information requests made or received while serving in office, and is generally not required to disclose them. HB900 keeps that basic rule but adds a list of specific exceptions where disclosure would still be required.
The bill would require disclosure in response to federal grand jury subpoenas and requests from investigative authorities, and it would also carve out several categories of legislative correspondence and records. Those exceptions include correspondence about bills appropriating state funds to businesses and nonprofits, communications with lobbyists and lobbyist principals about legislation, staff compensation records, and correspondence with state agencies concerning a legislator’s business interests. The bill takes effect immediately upon becoming law.
HB900 would amend G.S. 120-135, narrowing the confidentiality protections for legislators’ documents by creating explicit disclosure exceptions. It would affect current and former legislators, their office records, and the handling of legislative communications, while also implicating investigative authorities, lobbyists, state agencies, and records tied to appropriations, staff pay, and potential conflicts involving business interests.
There is little recorded public or committee sentiment in the available materials because the bill was only referred to the House Rules, Calendar, and Operations Committee and no votes or transcript discussions are provided. Based on the text alone, the bill appears aimed at increasing transparency and access to certain legislative records while preserving the general confidentiality rule for most documents.
The main points of contention likely concern the balance between legislative confidentiality and transparency. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s targeted exceptions for subpoenas, investigations, lobbying communications, appropriations-related correspondence, staff compensation, and agency communications involving business interests, viewing them as accountability measures. Opponents may argue that the bill could expose sensitive legislative deliberations, chill communications with lobbyists or agencies, or create uncertainty about what records remain protected versus disclosable.