Massachusetts State Auditor Diana DiZoglio is embroiled in a dispute with her fellow Democrats in Boston. After a decade in the state legislature in both the House and Senate, DiZoglio won the State Auditor seat in 2022. She now faces opposition from lawmakers over her effort to audit the body. While the auditor argues the effort is about expanding transparency, legislators claim it’s a power grab by her office. Attorney General Andrea Campbell has sided with the legislature, saying DiZoglio lacks the legal authority to carry out the audit. The auditor is now backing a ballot question in this year’s election that would require the legislature to participate in the audit. DiZoglio explained her side of the legal battle to WAMC.
DIZOGLIO: I think that folks are fed up with not being able to get access to what's happening up on Beacon Hill, oftentimes finding out about legislation only after its passed, and not having the opportunity to weigh in regarding their opinion. It's been quite frustrating for a lot of advocates and everyday families across our communities. We are frequently ranked as one of the least transparent state legislatures in the entire nation, not subject to public records laws, not subject to open meeting laws. Bills are able to be passed in the middle of the night, sometimes with no recorded roll calls. Committee votes are not recorded. So, you know, look, our audit is simply one way that we can help to increase transparency and accountability regarding some of the processes and the procedures and the finances in the legislature. Taxpayers deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent, and the legislature should be transparent about that. But unfortunately, we have a handful of legislative leaders at the helm who are refusing to cooperate with our legislative audit that is ongoing. And because of that, the audit that we are conducting, it's going to be lacking some of the information that we very much need to be able to provide the fullest transparency and accountability that we deserve here in Massachusetts. So, we are simultaneously – Or I should say, I personally am simultaneously outside of my official role – pushing for a ballot question that would allow voters the opportunity to weigh in on this decision and to voice their opinion to make sure that the legislature is held accountable, and that they cooperate with our audit.
WAMC: Outside of opposition in the legislature, we've also heard from figures like Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell that she feels like you lack the legal authority to conduct the audit. Can you speak to those claims?
We are incredibly disappointed with where the Attorney General has landed on this particular issue. She has decided to stand with legislative leaders in opposition to the transparency and accountability that these audits provide. The law is very clear that all departments of state government are subject to audits of the audit by the office of the state auditor. But it's not just the plain language of the law that makes that crystal clear, Josh- It's actually also the 117 other audits that we have produced throughout the history of the auditor's office, since the inception of the auditor's office back in 1849, that demonstrate the clear precedent that these audits have been done before, again, to the tune of at least 117 other times. So, we have demonstrated clear precedent that the legislature was always audited, and it was always audited up until just recent years, when some speakers decided to push back and decided that they were above the law and above being audited and that the auditor shouldn't have the authority to hold the legislature accountable like every other state entity. And they stopped complying. And unfortunately, due to a lack of political will, the state auditor's office stopped pursuing auditing the state legislature and let it go instead of fighting for the continued accountability that these audits produce.
In a perfect world where you got the dream audit that you want from the legislature, what would that actually look like materially? And how would that translate into greater transparency that you that you say you're fighting for?
We are conducting an audit right now, and we have questions about how the processes and procedures are being conducted. We want to make sure that the legislature is operating as efficiently and as effectively as possible. It is unfortunate that we can't get access to information surrounding procurement and state contracting, those RFP processes that other state entities need to disclose that are using taxpayer dollars. Those are not transparent, and taxpayers across our state regarding how the legislature interacts with their procurement processes and procedures. Settlement agreements made with employees of the state house- If there's an issue with an employee, if there's harassment, discrimination, abuse, maybe even assault, maybe somebody witnessed even potentially corrupt actions or behaviors, taxpayer dollars are able to be used in our house of representatives in order to silence those who may have witnessed or experienced abusive behaviors through the use of those non-disclosure agreements. We don't have access to how our tax dollars are being used in that way. We don't have access to information about whether or not the state legislature is in compliance with their training protocols that they are required to provide to employees and their staff, such as sexual harassment training, cybersecurity training, things of that nature. Those are the types of things that we're able to look into in other departments. But the legislature is refusing to cooperate with our audit, so we wouldn't be able to see that through an audit of the state legislature. And there are issues that go beyond that, of course, having to do with finances, making sure that we understand how the taxpayer dollars that are being expended in the state legislature are actually being expended, but then being able to reconcile any potential differences and challenges in what is said is being spent and what may actually be the occurrence. Sometimes in state entities, it is said that money is being spent on one thing, but when we go in and conduct an audit, we actually find some issues with what was claimed and what the reality actually is. So, we want to make sure that we're able to provide that resource to the taxpayers, but it's also a resource to the state legislature itself. Our audits exist to help make government work better, and it's our office's intention to help the legislature to work better to identify gaps so that we can fill them.
Turning to this ballot question, can you explain to us why you're backing this ballot question, and how that will address this issue given all the pushback that you've been getting from the legislature?
Look, we sought to go to court to settle this matter. However, the Attorney General has thrown up some roadblocks to our accessing the court system currently. We are currently conversing about that and our continued intention to be able to access the justice system. However, in the meantime, while we are simultaneously working on that front to still be able to access the justice system to take the legislature to court, we want to make sure we're covering all of our bases, and we want to make sure that we are able to produce the transparency and accountability that taxpayers deserve. So simultaneously, this ballot question is something that I alongside of a group of transparency advocates and workers from across our communities have been working on to make more explicit in current law that our general court is subject to the same types of audits that every other state entity is subject to. And it basically just inserts the word “the general court” into the language of our governing statute, chapter 11, section 12, to make sure that it is made super, ultra-crystal clear that the legislature is subject to the same audits as everybody else.
Now, in a hearing about this on Beacon Hill, some members of the legislature brought in academic experts who framed this as a power grab from your office and offered their concerns that this would possibly shift control of some state functions away from this democratic process and the legislature to your office. Can you can you explain us sort of your response to those claims?
Certainly. The so-called hearing recently was a lot of political theater with cherry picked speakers who came in selected and handpicked by those on the committee who were against this current audit proposal and ballot question that we are currently working on. I was very disappointed that the speakers were cherry picked, I did not believe it was a democratic process, and the public testimony portion was incredibly limited. They had put time constraints to limit public input, unfortunately. I was disappointed with that as well. What I will say is, they can call folks that they invited to buoy their argument all they want and to it fight for their continued refusal to participate in an audit from our office, but the people they invited in to testify are not the experts. The people who are the experts on this issue are the people in our communities who have been disenfranchised by a system and government that has isolated them from being able to participate in what is supposed to be the democratic process, but has been anything but here in the state of Massachusetts, unfortunately. So, we did go to that hearing prepared to advocate for transparency, accountability, and equity. Unfortunately, we were met with resistance from some of the legislators there. I found it incredibly unfortunate. And regarding power, this is absolutely about power. It's about making sure that the power that has been consolidated into the hands of a few powerful people on Beacon Hill, that that power is taken and given back to the people of Massachusetts. Knowledge is power, and power belongs to the people. And if we have a handful of legislators who happen to be in prominent positions on Beacon Hill hoarding information about what is going on in state government and preventing the people of Massachusetts from having access by hoarding that knowledge and information, they are also hoarding power. So yes, we are seeking to take that power that has been hoarded by a few people on Beacon Hill and give it back to the people of Massachusetts where it belongs.
Alongside this effort that's gotten so much attention, what other audits you currently conducting that maybe might be getting out shined a little bit by all the kerfuffle around the legislative audit?
Certainly. We are working on a host of audits. We have currently roughly 64 audits happening in our office. We are working in 2024 to finish our audit of the MBTA. As folks know, we have trains literally catching on fire, derailments, constant issue after issue, challenge after challenge. Public transportation in Massachusetts has never really properly served the residents of our great state, and we are working hard to make sure that we are promoting a more accountable transportation system with a special focus on the MBTA through that audit. We are also looking at the state supplier diversity office to make sure that we are working hard to diversify our state contracting. Unfortunately for all of the talk on Beacon Hill about diversity, equity, and inclusion, our state contracts actually go out to only less than 1% of our minorities here in Massachusetts. Less than 1% are minority owned businesses that get those contracts. That is unacceptable in a state like Massachusetts, so we are auditing our state's supplier diversity office, which is responsible for assisting in making sure that we are expanding opportunities for all families in the commonwealth to get access in an effort to make sure that that is actually occurring. And then specific to Western Mass, of course, we are working on PILOT reform. We are conducting another PILOT study and PILOT report in our office. A lot of people think about PILOT and they think about the pilot of a plane, for example. But in this case, PILOT means “payment in lieu of taxes.” And we know that we have many great state parks and reservations, especially in Western Mass. They maintain open space, they sequester carbon. We have a lot of forests, a lot of trees. They provide recreational opportunities that serve the mental and physical wellbeing of people across our communities. I am a hiker. I will say when I travel to these places, I recognize the additional costs when I see other people traveling into communities that host these great open spaces. There is an additional cost to the communities for hosting folks in their communities who are visiting these state parks and reservations with increased traffic, potential litter, a burden on infrastructure. So, we want to make sure that our communities are getting reimbursed fairly and equitably in Western Mass for their recreational opportunities that they're providing amongst the other things that I just mentioned in these open spaces. But right now, what's happening is the payments that are made in lieu of taxes, PILOT, to our communities, they have not actually been coming into Western Mass communities in an equitable fashion, and Western Mass communities are receiving far less than other communities across the state, they are not being treated the way that they should be financially speaking. So, we are drafting a report that will highlight some of these issues and challenges, and also present some potential solutions to make sure that we can work alongside of and fight for our communities in Western Mass, our rural communities, our rural remote communities, our hill towns, and make sure that we were standing alongside of you to fight for adequate resources to come back to your communities to make sure that you can fund your public safety departments, your infrastructure, your educational institutions, so on and so forth.
Lastly, do you anticipate publicly campaigning for this ballot question?
Absolutely. I went into the hearing, like I said it was not- I was not in I met with welcome arms when we came into the hearing. Unfortunately, there was significant pushback from a few of the legislators suggesting that this should not be something that went to the ballot or that there were issues with posing this question to the voters. So, I am actually already preparing to go back to the voters of Massachusetts in May with another opportunity to participate in helping us to collect signatures. If the legislature does not adopt this measure and does not agree to adopt the verbiage that was sent to them of including the general court in the language of the law – because we did get 75,000 signatures already to get this issue on the ballot – if they don't accept what the voters want and what the voters have already proven that they wanted via those signatures, and what happens is, we will need to go back to the voters in May and collect another over 12,000 signatures in order to gain ballot access. So obviously, I am hoping for the legislature to work with us and to all of a sudden desire to desire to be audited. But if history repeats itself, that's very unlikely to occur, unfortunately, and it is looking like we're going to need to go back to voters in May and get those extra signatures to get on the ballot.
