Committee backs review of licensing boards' nonrule actions by Secretary of State

Representative LePak presented Senate Bill 835, telling the committee the measure would require qualifying licensing boards and commissions to submit proposed nonrule actions with anticompetitive implications to the Secretary of State for review. He said the proposal traces to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission (2015) and would move review under the Secretary of State rather than the Attorney General.

Representative Pifer asked whether the bill would apply to professional licensing boards that typically write disciplinary or licensing rules — for example, pharmacy or medical boards — and whether those boards currently submit such actions for executive review. LePak said the proposal is meant to target "professional" licensing situations where practitioner‑majority boards could take actions that raise antitrust concerns; he said if there is no anticompetitive issue, nothing would need to be submitted.

Representative Fugate raised a structural concern: the bill would make the Secretary of State the arbiter of whether an action is anticompetitive and that office is headed by an appointed official rather than an elected one. "Are we putting ourselves in a situation where we have a single individual who's not elected ... now having authority over the expertise of a board?" Fugate asked, saying he worried the secretary could second‑guess technical licensing judgments. LePak replied that the governor appoints many board members and that moving review to the Secretary of State gives the person responsible for appointments more immediate accountability and an opportunity to address antitrust risk before litigation or member removal occurs.

Committee members briefly discussed executive orders and past administrations' differing approaches to supervision; LePak noted the bill is intended to preserve oversight while avoiding expensive litigation. With no extended debate, the committee voted to report the bill out as do pass. The clerks recorded a tally of 8 ayes and 2 nays.