This question is the result of a long-running feud between the Legislature and State Auditor Diana DiZoglio, who was previously a State Representative, a State Senator, and before that, an aide in the State House of Representatives. The origin of the feud is an incident that happened back in April of 2011, when DiZoglio was still working as a staffer in the State House, a State House court officer discovered DiZoglio and Braintree state Rep. Mark Cusack. This occurred after a late-night party when the chambers were closed, and initially looked like some hanky-panky had taken place. While House Speaker Robert DeLeo’s office issued a report saying nothing inappropriate happened and no rules were broken, rumors and gossip ricocheted around the building, creating a toxic workplace for DiZoglio. She later said she was sexually harassed in the aftermath of the episode. Eventually, she was fired by her boss, Representative Paul Adams, and she was additionally pressured to sign a termination and non-disclosure agreement prepared by House lawyers. Needless to say, the whole thing left a decidedly bitter taste in her mouth.
DiZoglio got the best revenge, however, by being elected to the Massachusetts House in 2013, to the Massachusetts Senate in 2019, and now to the position of State Auditor in 2023. But DiZoglio is not satisfied. She feels that neither the House nor the Senate (currently led by the 2nd ever female Senate President) were sufficiently responsive to her concerns, which include not only non-disclosure agreements in particular but also transparency in general. This has led to her ongoing battle with the legislature. The problem with her proposal is that it arguably violates the “separation of powers” doctrine embedded in both the Massachusetts and United States Constitutions.
The proposed law is deceptively simple: it simply amends a section which sets for the powers of the State Auditor (GL c.11, §12) by adding the state legislature (technically known as the “General Court”) as one of the entities that may be audited. The legislature already conducts its own 3rd party audits with respect to its internal financial dealings. As for “core legislative functions” — such as votes, debates, committee assignments, and policy priorities incorporated into bills — the separation of powers principles would not let the Auditor (who is part of the executive branch) interfere with those. In a report from the Center for State Policy Analysis, the Center finds that in other states where the Auditor audits their state legislatures, they do so (1) with the express approval and cooperation of those legislatures, and (2) not against their wishes. That would clearly not be the case here.
If this initiative were to be approved, it would likely set up a court fight where the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts would eventually have to weigh in and decide to what extent audits of the state legislature would, in fact, violate separation of powers principles.
While no one who knows them well would argue that the Massachusetts legislature is particularly transparent or effective — there are many examples we could provide of how it is not — this initiative would not change that in any measurable way. It would be a cosmetic victory for the Auditor, and is unlikely to quench her dispute with the Legislature.
For that reason — and because this is too much the consequence of a personal feud — I would recommend voting “no” on Question #1.