<p class=ldtitle>A BILL to amend and reenact § 2.2-3010 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding sections numbered 2.2-3009.1, 2.2-3013.1, and 30-134.1, relating to Fraud and Abuse Whistle Blower Protection Act; Auditor of Public Accounts.</p>
HB1507 creates and expands the Virginia Fraud and Abuse Whistle Blower Protection Act. The bill adds legislative findings emphasizing the Commonwealth’s fiduciary duty to protect public funds and states that misuse or waste of state-appropriated or state-administered money at the local level harms taxpayers. It broadens key definitions in the whistleblower chapter, including “abuse,” “appropriate authority,” “governmental agency,” “local government employee,” “whistle blower,” and “wrongdoing,” and expressly includes the Office of the Attorney General, the State Inspector General, the Auditor of Public Accounts, and certain legislative committees as reporting or investigative authorities.
The bill also imposes new notice and posting requirements on local governments. Each locality would have to provide annual written notice to local government employees about whistleblower rights, including the right to report suspected wrongdoing or abuse directly to the State Inspector General or the Auditor of Public Accounts. Local governments would also have to post whistleblower information in standard employee notice locations and on any internal employee website or intranet, using a standardized notice and poster developed by the State Inspector General in consultation with the Auditor of Public Accounts. Finally, the bill authorizes the Auditor of Public Accounts to conduct audits, reviews, or investigations of localities as needed under the Act.
In practical terms, the bill would expand state-level whistleblower protections and reporting channels for both government employees and citizens, while increasing the compliance obligations of local governments. It would also strengthen the role of the Auditor of Public Accounts in investigating local government accounts and records related to alleged fraud, waste, abuse, or misconduct. The measure is aimed at improving detection and reporting of misuse of public funds across state and local government.
The available legislative history suggests generally favorable treatment, but not final enactment in this session. The bill was continued to the next session in the General Laws committee by voice vote, indicating that it advanced enough for further consideration but did not receive final approval. No committee transcript or recorded floor debate is provided, so the record does not show detailed public arguments for or against the measure.
Because there are no transcripts or recorded votes, specific points of contention are not documented in the provided materials. Based on the bill text, likely areas of debate would include the scope of whistleblower protections, the breadth of the definitions of wrongdoing and abuse, the expanded authority of the Auditor of Public Accounts, and the administrative burden placed on local governments to provide notices and postings.
HB1507 would amend Virginia’s whistleblower statute and add new provisions governing local-government notice obligations and investigative authority. It would expand the list of “appropriate authorities” to include the Attorney General, State Inspector General, Auditor of Public Accounts, and certain legislative committees; define additional terms relevant to fraud, abuse, and misconduct; require local governments to notify and post whistleblower rights information for employees; and authorize the Auditor of Public Accounts to audit or investigate localities under the Act. The bill would directly affect local governments, local school divisions, constitutional offices, and state oversight entities, while strengthening reporting pathways for employees and citizens who observe misuse of public funds.
The available record suggests a generally supportive or at least receptive committee posture, since the bill was continued to the next session by voice vote rather than rejected. However, there is no transcript or recorded debate to show detailed support, opposition, or amendments. Overall, the bill appears to have been treated as a serious oversight and accountability measure, but one that was not finalized in the current session.
No specific contention is documented in the provided materials because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes beyond a voice-vote continuation. Based on the bill’s substance, the most likely areas of disagreement would be whether the expanded whistleblower definitions are too broad, whether local governments should bear new notice and posting duties, and whether the Auditor of Public Accounts should have expanded authority to investigate localities. Those concerns would most likely come from local government officials or administrative stakeholders, while transparency and accountability advocates would likely support the bill.