Property; Title Change; Government Employees; Vacancies; Artificial Intelligence
North Carolina bill would scrutinize long-open state jobs
Agency leaders would have to list vacancy dates, repostings and the reason a job stayed open. The State Auditor’s office would then weigh duplication, spending and whether the work still justifies the slot.
North Carolina lawmakers want a closer look at open state positions and the money behind them. Under the DAVE Act, agencies would have to explain vacancies older than six months and show how their budgets actually support their work.
- A new unit would sit inside the State Auditor’s office.
- Agencies would have to explain long-open jobs by Oct. 1, 2025.
- The review could look at spending, duplicate work and agency size.
- The bill would let the state question whether some offices are still needed.
- In North Carolina, long-vacant state jobs would no longer just sit in the background
In North Carolina, long-vacant state jobs would no longer just sit in the background. The DAVE Act, short for the Division of Accountability, Value and Efficiency, would create a new unit inside the Department of the State Auditor and require agencies to explain how they use public money and which positions have gone unfilled for at least six months.
That first report would be due by Oct. 1, 2025. Agencies would have to list the original vacancy date, any reposting dates and why the job stayed open, so the new division can start comparing what the state is paying for with what it is actually getting.
A closer look at the empty desks
The bill does not stop at counting vacancies. It gives the Division of Accountability, Value and Efficiency room to examine whether each agency, division or office still needs to exist in its current form, and whether specific vacant positions are still worth keeping on the books.
The division could use people, artificial intelligence and other tools to look at spending, what each dollar paid for, whether the money worked and whether the state is duplicating effort. The point is less about a paper audit than about forcing a harder question: which parts of the government still earn their keep, and which are just lingering on payroll lists and organizational charts.