By Bob Katzen

The latest chapter was written last week about the ongoing saga on whether State Auditor Diana DiZoglio has the right to audit the House and the Senate. In the November 2024 election, voters approved Ballot Question 1 asking them if they favor allowing the state auditor to audit the Legislature. The question passed overwhelmingly by 72 percent of the vote. It has now been almost 19 months since the voters approved the audit but an audit has yet to take place.

Senate President Karen Spilka (D-Ashland) and House Speaker Ron Mariano (D-Quincy) have continued to delay the audit – arguing that an audit would violate the separation of powers in the state’s constitution.

Last week, the Senate 33-6, approved resolutions, sponsored by Sens. Cindy Friedman (D-Arlington) and Paul Feeney (D-Foxborough), requiring that the Senate provide some financial information that DiZoglio has long requested. The resolutions laid out the history of its dispute with the auditor and made it clear that senators are limiting the records they will provide to those records discussed in recent litigation.

“Resolved, that the Senate, in providing said records, does so voluntarily but does not concede that it may be audited pursuant to Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the General Laws without violating the Constitution of the commonwealth,” the resolutions say. “And be it further resolved, that the Senate reserves all its rights to object to any such audit, present or future, and on any grounds, including, but not limited to, that Chapter 250 of the Acts of 2024 violates the Senate’s constitutional rulemaking authority, separation of powers, legislative immunity and privilege and the legal presumption that statutes operate prospectively and cannot be applied retroactively in the absence of clear legislative intent.”

All five Senate Republicans, Sens. Kelly Dooner (R-Taunton), Peter Durant (R-Spencer), Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton), Patrick O’Connor (R-Weymouth) and Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) voted against the resolutions while all the Democrats, except for Sen. Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), voted in favor of them.

Dooner said she doesn’t appreciate the implication by supporters of the resolutions that a “No” vote is voting against sharing these documents. She said the Senate doesn’t need a resolution to send the documents. She noted that the resolutions were proposed just a few minutes ago and senators have not had enough time to properly go through them. She said that she supports sharing all of these documents and any other documents that are requested.

Senate Democrats said last week’s action stems from clarity gained at the Supreme Judicial Court earlier this month, as Attorney General Andrea Campbell intervened in a lawsuit DiZoglio filed against top lawmakers.

The four document requests that Campbell has cleared DiZoglio to pursue cover the official budgets for each chamber of the Legislature for fiscal years 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024; copies of official audits of each chamber for the same fiscal years; a listing of all transactions related to each chamber’s balance forward line item for those fiscal years; and a list of all monetary settlement agreements entered into by each chamber with any current or former employees or elected members during the same timeframe.

“Recent guidance from the Supreme Judicial Court has provided much-needed clarity on the materials the auditor has requested,” said Friedman. “We are therefore moving forward in good faith while remaining mindful of the constitutional safeguards that protect the separation of powers. The Senate has consistently supported transparency and accountability with respect to taxpayer dollars. That’s why our finances are publicly reported, and our spending information is available online.”

Friedman continued, “We believe this approach strikes the right balance of responding to the call for enhanced public transparency while upholding the oath we each take to the Massachusetts Constitution—and will allow us to continue our focus on delivering meaningful policy change for the residents of the commonwealth.”

“This resolution is not an act of transparency—it is a political retreat disguised as accountability, complete with a built-in escape hatch the Senate can pull at any time,” said Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton) who voted against the resolutions. “For two whole years, the clear will of the people (72 percent of voters) has been ignored, and only now, with the courts poised to compel an audit, does leadership suddenly attempt to appear aligned with the public. Buried within this resolution is language explicitly reserving the Senate’s right to object to any audit at any time and on any grounds, undermining the very accountability they claim to support. That is not reform. It is the same political game of last resort cooperation and calculated distraction, timed conveniently days ahead of the Democratic State Convention.”

“Today, the Senate took action in the name of transparency and an accountable state government,” said Sen. Jo Comerford (D-Northampton). “Thanks to clarity from the Supreme Judicial Court, our financial documents will soon be on their way to the Office of the State Auditor.”

“The Senate spent a year and a half ignoring the law,” said Aaron Singer, the producer and director of the documentary “Shadows on the Hill.” “They lost in court and are now presenting bare-minimum compliance as reform. Instead of complying with the audit voters approved, their resolution turns over only the four categories of records already in court, while preserving their ability to keep fighting full compliance.”

DiZoglio criticized the Senate action. “It’s really sad that Senate leadership is so detached from reality that they think anyone believes they’ve suddenly agreed to give me these specific records for any reason other than that the court is about to lay down the law, again, and order them to obey the people’s wishes,” she said. “But this is not a public records request, it’s an audit. So, for an audit to actually be conducted, the Legislature needs to comply and cooperate with our audit team. The Senate President has just asked her membership to vote that they do not acknowledge and will not cooperate with the 72 percent voter-mandated law — that’s not leadership, it’s obstruction.”

(A “Yes” vote is for the resolutions. A “No” vote is against the resolutions.)

Sen. Patricia Jehlen Yes