By Bob Katzen
House 125-28, approved and sent to the Senate a bill that would narrow the scope of a voter-approved legislative audit and create a formal process to govern public access to legislative records. Democratic leaders argued the bill preserves the constitutional separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches, where the auditor’s office is positioned. Democratic State Auditor Diana DiZoglio and the Republicans disagreed and argued the bill goes against the will of the voters who, in the November 2024 election, approved Ballot Question 1 asking them if they favor allowing the state auditor to audit the Legislature. The question passed overwhelmingly by 72% of the vote. It has now been 19 months since the voters approved the audit but an audit has yet to take place.
According to the State House News Service, the bill would limit the auditor’s power to investigate the branch to four categories of administrative functions, rather than the more expansive language outlined in the 2024 ballot law. And the legislation would also create a new statute establishing a legislative records request process and codifying which records would be public — most of which are already publicly available — and subject the governor’s office to the public records law from which they currently claim an exemption. The bill also stops Secretary of State Bill Galvin’s office (who usually oversees public records inquiries) from interfering in requests to the Legislature, but allows a path of judicial review, while simultaneously barring the courts from resolving disputes between the auditor and lawmakers.
“For you all know, the House does not oppose an audit,” said Speaker Ron Mariano. “The House is already audited every year by an independent auditing firm, the results of which are posted on the Legislature’s website upon completion. What we oppose is a politically motivated audit conducted in violation of the Constitution, which is why we didn’t see a path forward until recently, when the auditor finally specified the scope of the audit before the Supreme Judicial Court.”
Rep. Todd Smola (R-Warren), the ranking minority member of the House Ways and Means Committee, questioned the process. He said, “Nobody saw this legislation 24 hours ago,” adding that the committee had 34 minutes between when the poll landed in their inbox and they had to vote on it. “Yet, we had to respond to that poll and ultimately weigh in as members of the committee.” said Smola. “We had members on both sides of the political aisle that were calling each other back and forth to say, ‘Can you explain this portion?’ That’s how confusing some components of this legislation were when we saw it for the first time yesterday.”
All 25 Republicans voted against the bill. All Democrats but three voted for it. Five Democrats did not vote. The three Democrats who voted against it were Reps. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge), Jim Hawkins (D-Attleboro) and Alan Silvia (D-Fall River). Rep. Susannah Whipps (U-Athol), the one non-party affiliated member in the Legislature, voted for the legislation.
“This legislation was drafted in partnership with good government experts to increase access to public records from the executive and legislative branches, and to establish a clear framework for legislative audits conducted by the state auditor,” said House Speaker Ron Mariano (D-Quincy), the chief proponent of the measure. “These measures will build on the rules reforms that the Legislature adopted earlier this session, and will ensure greater transparency while respecting legislative privilege and the separation-of-powers principles outlined in the state Constitution. We hope this legislation will put an end to protracted litigation, address an issue that may otherwise come before voters on the ballot and allow the Legislature to refocus on the many issues facing Massachusetts residents.”
DiZoglio disagreed. “The people have a co-equal right with the Legislature to create laws, and the courts have a constitutional right to adjudicate laws,” she responded. “With this proposed bill, and under the guise of transparency, your state representatives are not only throwing the 72% voter-mandated law in the dumpster – they’re taking a match and lighting that dumpster on fire, violating the people’s constitutional rights and undermining democracy.” She said House leaders were “painting this as some sort of a transparency measure” while “essentially negating everything that you voted for in the November 2024 ballot question.” “They are conducting a victory lap right now for themselves, patting themselves on the back for helping to ensure transparency and accountability, and using all the buzz words.”
“The speaker is acting like an authoritarian, and I am calling on him to resign,” DiZoglio said on Boston Public Radio. She also urged Gov. Healey to veto the bill if it ever reaches her desk. She continued, “The speaker needs to retire, resign, move on. We need new leadership in our state government, in our state Legislature.” She said lawmakers “need to move on” if they “don’t think they need to answer to anybody.”
A spokesperson for Mariano responded, “The speaker is calling on the auditor to tone down the rhetoric. Personal attacks will not solve the fundamental flaws with the audit ballot question — the legislation that the House passed this week does exactly that.”
“This legislation represents a significant step forward in strengthening legislative transparency in the commonwealth,” said Rep. Alice Peisch (D-Wellesley), House Chair of the Special Committee on Initiative Petitions, who supported the bill. “It establishes a formal public records framework for the Legislature and allows the state auditor to review legislative administrative functions. This measure is designed to balance two fundamental principles of democratic governance, the public’s right to understand how government operates and the Legislature’s independence in carrying out its lawmaking responsibilities. Transparency and constitutional integrity are not competing values; they are complementary ones. When thoughtfully balanced, they strengthen public trust, reinforce accountability and increase confidence in our democratic institutions And I believe this bill strikes that balance.”
“The voters of Massachusetts made their voices clear when they overwhelmingly supported giving the state auditor the authority to audit the Legislature,” said Rep. John Gaskey (R-Carver) who opposed the bill. “This bill does not honor that mandate. Instead, it creates a system where legislative leaders maintain control over what information can be reviewed, who can be interviewed and whether disputes can ever be challenged in court. An audit without enforcement is not accountability,” Gaskey said. “If the Legislature can decide what information to provide, deny requests without meaningful review and prevent the courts from stepping in, then the people of Massachusetts are not getting the independent audit they voted for.”
“What the Massachusetts House of Representatives is doing today is choosing solutions over constitutional stalemates,” said Rep. Andres Vargas (D-Haverhill) who supported the measure. “Building on best practices and working with good-government experts, this bill ensures that the governor’s office will be subject to the existing public records law — a longstanding goal of public records advocates. And the House is taking the historic step of subjecting the Legislature to a new public records requirement and process — one that is consistent with leading constitutional scholars, and that, for the first time, creates a clear process and a statutory right for the public to access legislative records. This is the constitutional path to transparency.”
“This is exactly the kind of Beacon Hill insider maneuver voters thought they were rejecting,” said bill opponent Paul Craney, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. “You have politicians taking a law passed by 72% of voters, watering it down behind closed doors and then getting applause from organizations that claim to stand for transparency and accountability. Calling this a transparency bill doesn’t make it one. It is a rebranding effort designed to give cover to an attempt to weaken accountability, and it is disappointing to see organizations that present themselves as watchdogs lending credibility to it. These outside groups like to describe themselves as watchdog organizations, but they prove to be nothing but lapdogs for the Legislature.”
“Transparency in government is a cornerstone of a strong democracy, but to achieve it requires good policy,” said Geoff Foster, Executive Director of Common Cause Massachusetts who supported the measure. “That’s why we’re thrilled to have worked on legislation that is being advanced by the House that would take the historic step of finally subjecting both the governor’s office and the Legislature to a public records law which has been a top legislative priority for Common Cause Massachusetts and our members for decades.”
(A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it.)
Rep. Christine Barber Yes Rep. Mike Connolly No Rep. Paul Donato Yes Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven Yes