By Bob Katzen

The House 135-10, approved a new House rule that amends the current process by which the House appoints a private, independent auditing firm to audit the books of the House. Under the current rule 85A, the House business manager hires the company that will do the audit. Under the new rule 85A, the state auditor, currently Diana DiZoglio, would recommend a firm to conduct the audit and the business manager would hire that firm.

Among the House’s 132 Democrats, 123 voted in favor of the new rule and nine did not vote. No Democrat voted against the rule. Among the 24 House Republicans, 11 voted for the new rule, three did not vote and ten voted against it. The one unenrolled member of the House voted for the rule.

In November, voters approved Question 1 which created a new state law that would allow the state auditor to audit the Legislature. The vote was 71.6 percent in favor to 28.4 percent opposed. The new House rule 85A does not change that law.

Rep. Danielle Gregoire (D-Marlborough), part of House Speaker Ron Mariano’s leadership team, said the change would ensure “any audit pursuant to the passage of Question 1 will be a professional audit, not a political one.” This remark is an apparent reference to DiZoglio’s many clashes with legislative leaders during and after she served in the House and the Senate.

“We haven’t touched the [new] law,” said Mariano. “Let’s make that clear: we have not touched the law. I have no intent to do anything right now, except maybe take a few days off. This has got nothing to do with repealing anything. This is a rules change.”

Mariano pitched the change as “an opportunity to acknowledge the 70 percent to 30 percent vote of the electorate.” He continued, “Obviously, [the voters] weren’t happy with the way we were doing things, and we took a look at the way we were doing things. We found we could make a few changes that we think maintains a strong financial audit while still backboning our argument about the separation of powers.”

“As a longtime supporter of legislative transparency, I joined with all House Democrats and many Republicans to strengthen the existing auditing provisions found in House Rule 85A,” said Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge). “This has no bearing on the provisions of Question 1, because a House rule and a state law are two different things. It seems clear that separation of powers questions may emerge regarding the new law created by Question 1, and while those questions are being addressed by the judicial process, this vote to strengthen our internal rules will help add to transparency.”

Criticism of the new rule was quick. “The House’s actions to ignore the will of the people, who voted overwhelmingly for greater transparency and accountability through Question 1, are profoundly disheartening and absolutely unacceptable,” responded DiZoglio who led the campaign for passage of Question 1. “Should the Senate also seek to similarly stymie our efforts, legislators will possess sole authority to block taxpayers’ access to what any audit examines and show us only what they want us to see – just as they do now. The public would not have the opportunity to see how much taxpayer money is being spent on non-disclosure agreements, nor on state contracts potentially handed out to elected officials’ friends.”

She continued, “I am pushing the governor and attorney general to support the people in pushing back against the Legislature’s attempt to dismantle Question 1’s power. The law needs to be followed and enforced and we need their help to ensure that occurs. Our recent audit of the Legislature, which they refused to participate in, found they did not follow their own rules, nor submit any financial audits to our office, as required by their rules. Yet another rule, with no teeth, is what the Legislature is telling taxpayers they deserve instead of their compliance with the law. It’s unacceptable. Please call your legislators, the attorney general and the governor to register your support for the audit law you just voted for.”

“I believe that that this rule change would go against what 70 percent plus of the commonwealth voted for on November 5th,” said Rep. John Marsi (R-Dudley). “While I understand it allowed the auditor to select an auditor to perform a financial audit, the scope and control over the process doesn’t seem to be in line with the referendum question and may work against the intended outcome the public desires.”

“This role change amounts to a step in opposition to the widespread referendum that was just voted on by the public a week ago,” said Rep. Joe McKenna (R-Sutton). “While on its surface ceding some existing audit control to the auditor would appear to be in the spirit of the referendum, the reality is that the Legislature would maintain control over the scope and depth of any contracted work, thereby circumventing the intent of the referendum. A number of representatives had direct conversations with the auditor herself which highlighted her own opposition to the measure as a misguided attempt to undermine the outcome of ballot Question 1.”

(A “Yes” vote is for the rule change. A “No” vote is against it.)

Rep. Christine Barber Yes Rep. Mike Connolly Yes Rep. Paul Donato Didn’t Vote Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven Yes