Committee sends bill clarifying that disclosures to state auditor during fraud probes do not automatically waive privilege

Representative Wilford presented Senate Bill 26‑84, which would clarify that when an entity provides information to the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) during a fraud‑hotline investigation, that disclosure alone does not automatically waive attorney‑client privilege, deliberative‑process protections or other confidentiality claims.

The sponsor said the bill is narrowly targeted to the fraud‑hotline context so agencies are not deterred from sharing potentially privileged material needed for an investigation. OSA witnesses (Kate Sharoff, manager of the fraud hotline, and Jenny Page, director of communications) said the office consulted with the Attorney General's Office; Sharoff told the committee the AG’s office was not taking an official position against the bill but cautioned that privilege determinations depend on circumstances and the bill “could help us in some situations.”

Christopher Gregory testified in opposition, citing his experience investigating what he described as longstanding concealment of evidence in prior judicial‑department matters. He warned the measure could be used to legitimize claims that obstruct disclosure and impede law enforcement referrals in serious cases.

Committee members asked OSA staff whether current statute already guarantees confidentiality of OSA work papers; OSA staff said ambiguity remains about attorney‑client privilege in the fraud‑hotline context and the bill clarifies that providing information to the auditor does not automatically waive privilege.

After questions and comments, the committee moved SB 26‑84 to the committee of the whole with a favorable recommendation; the motion passed 6 to 5.