BOSTON — Massachusetts State Auditor Diana DiZoglio recently accused lawmakers in the House of Representatives and Senate of undermining a voter-approved audit of the Legislature, arguing that a House bill passed in June improperly gives the House Speaker authority over an audit that should remain independent.
Since taking office in 2023, DiZoglio has engaged in a dispute with the Legislature, after she announced her plan to audit them, a move both the House and Senate rejected.
DiZoglio argues that the Legislature should be subject to independent oversight just like any other state entity, to expose non-disclosure agreements, spending practices and committee operations.
Conversely, lawmakers argue the executive oversight of the Legislature violates the separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branch of the state government, laid out in the Massachusetts Constitution.
Last June, the House passed Bill H.5469, which would expand public records laws to include the Governor’s Office, but not the Legislature itself. Under the bill, the state auditor could examine legislative administrative functions, but not constitutional ones, while courts would be barred from settling audit disagreements.
Rep. Jim Arciero of Westford was one of the representatives who voted in favor of the bill.
DiZoglio said the legislation, which she described as having been rushed through the Legislature within 24 hours, would take oversight authority away from the state auditor’s office and give it to the House speaker. She also argued that the bill improperly removes the courts’ authority to interpret the law.
“The (House) bill is wholly unconstitutional,” DiZoglio said in an interview with The Westford Villager. “The power to decide what the law says and to interpret the law rests solely with the judiciary and the courts, not with the Speaker of the House.”
Arguing in favor of the constitutionality of the audit, DiZoglio points to Question 1 on the ballot in the 2024 state election, where 72% of Massachusetts voters approved the audit. She said the measure was allowed onto the ballot after Attorney General Andrea Campbell certified it as constitutional.
“We couldn’t take an issue to the ballot unless the Attorney General approved it for the ballot,” DiZoglio said. “So the Attorney General certified this and allowed it to go to the ballot.”
DiZoglio said the Legislature is now violating the separation of powers by attempting to determine how the law should be interpreted, rather than allowing the courts to resolve the dispute.
“The power to adjudicate matters of law rests solely with the judiciary, not with the Legislature,” DiZoglio said, pointing to the Legislature’s own Post Audit and Oversight Committee as evidence that legislative oversight of Executive Branch agencies is already taking place. She also noted that the committee is currently reviewing contracts involving the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, an Executive Branch agency.
“How are they auditing, investigating and providing oversight to, with subpoena authority, Executive Branch agencies if it’s unconstitutional for one branch of government to provide any oversight or auditing of another?” DiZoglio said.
DiZoglio said her office is now waiting for a court date in its lawsuit over the audit law and will follow whatever ruling the courts issue.
“We fully understand that the courts do have the say, the final say, on the interpretation of the law,” DiZoglio said.
DiZoglio said she is now urging Gov. Maura Healey to commit to vetoing any legislation that would weaken or alter the 2024 voter-approved audit law, arguing that the House bill would not result in a legitimate independent audit because it would give the House Speaker control over what her office could examine.
“No legitimate audit will be conducted under the House’s bill,” DiZoglio said. “It puts the speaker in the driver’s seat and it completely strips away our authority to conduct an independent audit of any kind.”
Public records
According to DiZoglio, the audit dispute is one of many concerns she has about transparency in the Massachusetts state government.
She said rank-and-file legislators often do not have access to House and Senate budget records or documentation concerning contracts awarded by legislative leadership.
“Most legislators don’t themselves even have access to that information,” DiZoglio said, citing her own experience requesting such records while she served as a Representative and Senator for the 14th and 1st Essex Districts.
DiZoglio said the issue extends beyond the auditor’s office because Massachusetts allows the Governor’s office, judiciary and legislative branch to claim broad exemptions from the state’s public records laws. She said taxpayers can generally request documentation supporting expenditures made by state agencies and municipalities, but the Legislature does not provide the same level of access to its underlying financial records.
However, DiZoglio argues that privacy and public safety concerns should not justify keeping all legislative records from public view, because Massachusetts public records laws already contain exemptions for sensitive information.
She points to Question 1 that will appear on the ballot in the upcoming Nov. 3 state election and would expand access to public records by subjecting the Legislature and Governor’s office to the state’s public records laws. She said the proposal would still protect private communications and other information covered by existing exemptions, while making administrative records such as state contracts and financial receipts available to the public.
“It’s their (the taxpayer’s) money,” DiZoglio said. “They should be able to get access to information about how their money is being spent by our top elected officials.”
Dispute with attorney general
DiZoglio also criticized Campbell for declining to represent her office in her legal dispute with the Legislature. She alleged that Campbell sided with House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka in the dispute because the attorney general’s budget is controlled by the Legislature. DiZoglio further alleged that Campbell’s office received a significant budget increase and characterized the situation as a potential “quid pro quo.”
“I fully believe that there was a quid pro quo between her, the (House) Speaker and the Senate President,” DiZoglio said. “And I believe that there is public corruption that has been going on between those three, with respect to their blatant violation of the law and the attorney general’s willingness to help them and conspire with them to break the law. It is her job to defend the people and the law and she instead has been defending the legislature against following the law.”
As a result, DiZoglio said her office sought permission to hire its own attorney after Campbell’s office declined to pursue the case, with Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan — who lost to Campbell in the 2022 Attorney General Democratic primary — now representing DiZoglio in the case.
“We do have our own attorney now and we are headed to court,” DiZoglio said. “We have filed a lawsuit.”
DiZoglio said her office is now waiting for the court to schedule a hearing. She said she remains confident that the courts will ultimately uphold the voter-approved audit law.
She again called on Healey to commit to vetoing any legislation that would undermine the audit law and reiterated that the dispute should be resolved by the courts rather than through new legislation.
“We need her to commit to letting the courts decide,” DiZoglio said.
