On Election Day, almost 72% of Massachusetts voters backed a ballot question confirming that the state auditor has the power to audit the state legislature. It was a resounding victory for State Auditor Diana DiZoglio, who has fought a long battle with her fellow Democrats on Beacon Hill over the issue. The legislature has stonewalled her attempts to crack open its books since she took office in 2023, claiming the former state lawmaker is trying to overstep her power. Attorney General Andrea Campbell went as far as to say that the auditor lacks the legal authority for a legislature audit. DiZoglio has maintained that Massachusetts lawmakers have operated without transparency and oversight for too long, and that taxpayers deserve to know how Beacon Hill is spending their money. With the successful passage of Question 1 in her back pocket, the auditor spoke with WAMC about what comes next.
DIZOGLIO: People want change. They want transparency and they want accountability from their elected leaders up on Beacon Hill. I would be remiss not to thank every person who collected a signature, wrote a letter to the editor, expressed support to their friends and family, and came out and voted for this important initiative. We could not have had such a successful night on election night with that 72%, which is huge, without folks at the grassroots level working so hard and diligently to make sure that our vision of a more transparent and accessible state government became reality.
WAMC: Looking at the actual text of the question. it says somewhat simply that it authorizes you to audit the state legislature- Break that down for us. As you interpret it, what exactly is the mandate you've been given with something like 2.3 million votes behind this effort?
Our mandate, according to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 11, Section 12, is very clear, that all state entities receive the same type of audit that's done in accordance with government auditing standards set by the Government Accountability Office at the federal level. This language simply added into the list that already says “all departments of government are to be audited by the State Auditor's Office,” it simply adds the state legislature into that language, so that there is parity, so that there is fairness, and so that the state legislature receives the same type of audit that any other state entity receives.
Now in the past, you've quarreled with other Democrats in Boston about your ability to do this- Obviously, the state legislature itself pushed back, we had the Attorney General Andrea Campbell say you lacked the legal authority. Do you feel like at this point, is this debate put to bed?
Certainly. The voters came out and stated in a crystal-clear fashion what their expectation is of Beacon Hill, particularly as it has to do with legislative leaders and the state legislature’s compliance with the law. Now, yes, the Attorney General and I did have a very strong disagreement about the interpretation of the law previous to this point. I did seek access to the justice system for the impartial hearing that is my constitutional right, and the Attorney General's Office did deny our office access to the justice system during that time period to adjudicate this matter. That is why we had to take this issue to the ballot, so that voters could make crystal-clear to Beacon Hill that they expect transparency, accountability, and accessibility from their state government, yes, even from powerful politicians in our Massachusetts state legislature.
So, what happens next?
So, currently, legislative leaders are very much looking for a way out of having to comply with the will of the people, and are, to my understanding, looking at potential amendments to the law that would create exemptions for themselves, and also considering an outright overturning of the law. This is unacceptable. As we know, the people spoke very clearly on election night that they expect them to be held to the same standards as everybody else, without creating exemptions for themselves. So, what we need to do now is call our legislators and ask them to stand up for the people that they represent, rather than standing up for Beacon Hill’s most powerful politicians. And that is the work that remains before us, even after Election Day.
With Question 1 passed and behind us, is there, at this point, any sort of material, concrete road map for what goes forward from here?
So, this is now going to be the law of the land. It is as though the Governor signed off on a bill, and any efforts to overturn this need to be fought against by we, the people who already spoke loudly and clearly. I've heard from folks that they're concerned that there could be a potential court battle regarding this matter. I hope it doesn't come to that, and I hope that the legislators simply respect the will of the people. If there is nothing to hide, then open up the doors, let the sun shine in. Let us take a look at those books and let us get information, frankly, that should be a matter of public record anyways, out to the general public, out to the taxpayers, who deserves access to information about how their tax dollars are being spent.
In the past, over the course of this process, you've talked about how this audit could reveal things that the legislature could be hiding, like NDAs over potentially situations where misconduct was performed. You've talked about issues with, possibly, with procurement. Can you sort of spell out for us what exactly are you looking for, and what do you think might be in those books you've been trying to look at for so long?
Yeah, well, Josh, we did put out a 77-page audit report that can be found on my website. And if you go to that website, you can actually take a look at exactly what a legislative audit is and what we tried to look at but got denied access to in our attempts to complete the audit that we tried to complete. A lot of the missing information in that audit report was, like you said, issues pertaining to those taxpayer-funded nondisclosure agreements, which they still refuse to tell us about. Why are they allowing themselves to use taxpayer dollars to fund the silencing of potential victims of harassment, discrimination, or abuse to protect powerful perpetrators? Why has the legislature refused to release information pertaining to basic financial information and documents such as receipts to clarify their expenditures that they've made? Why have they refused to allow the general public insight into how they engage in their procurement processes and procedures by showing us the documents for original bids for state contracts, for example? These are issues that we very much look into in other state entities. You might remember the audit report that we just conducted of the Convention Center Authority, where we looked at the abuse of nondisclosure agreements, where we looked at state contracting, and we found that hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars had gone out unlawfully from the state's Convention Center Authority via nondisclosure agreements, via state contracts that were not approved in the appropriate fashion and in accordance with the law. Those are things that the legislature is refusing to let us see and get insights into, and that is very concerning on many different levels. What are they hiding? We continue to ask this question, and that question will continue to be asked until we're able to get access to those documents. And again, Josh, I just want to add that these documents, this information that we are currently seeking, should be a matter of public record anyways. If the legislature did not exempt themselves, as one of only a handful of states in the entire country, from the public records laws, this information would be, as it is in every other state entity, available for public consumption and for you, the taxpayer, to get access to. But unfortunately, here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the governor's office, the judiciary, and the legislature all exempt themselves from the same public records law that they require every city and town government to follow and every other state entity to follow. So that's incredibly unfortunate in and of itself. But again, our office is simply, at this point, seeking to get access to what should already be a matter of public record, and it's deeply concerning that they continue to push back.
Lastly, I wanted to hear your final thoughts on the Question 1 experience. What do you think we learned here from this journey, the resounding acceptance of Question 1 by voters? When you look back on this effort. what stands out to you?
Yes, this was an incredibly challenging debate to have publicly with all of the bogus arguments being made about a supposed constitutional challenge, where we had folks calling themselves constitutional scholars essentially preaching to the everyday voters of Massachusetts, trying to act as though they have more intelligence surrounding this issue than the taxpayers do. But it doesn't take a constitutional scholar to see that the legislature audits and investigates the executive branch agencies of this commonwealth through their post audit and oversight committee with subpoena authority, and that that would not be able to occur if any separation of powers argument actually held water. So, what they are essentially saying is, an audit for thee but not for me, and that's not the way the system of checks and balances works. They have a post audit and oversight committee to provide oversight to executive branch agencies, and the executive branch has the Office of State Auditor to provide that necessary oversight back in return. So, it was incredibly challenging to get into the nitty gritty of some of these constitutional arguments, but I am glad that common sense prevailed here in Massachusetts and that voters came out and expressed themselves so strongly calling for change, calling for transparency, and calling for Beacon Hill to start paying attention to the will of the voters.
