Sign up for the Today newsletter
Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.
Where does the push to audit the Mass. Legislature stand right now?
State Auditor Diana DiZoglio said she is prepared for legal action if the Legislature does not cooperate with her efforts to audit it.
Since she ran for the office of State Auditor, Diana DiZoglio has been pushing for an audit of the Massachusetts Legislature. Despite numerous setbacks she won over almost 72% of voters, who gave her office the explicit ability to audit the Legislature by approving Question 1 last month.
But DiZoglio and leaders on Beacon Hill are still at odds, with Attorney General Andrea Campbell potentially caught in the middle. Multiple twists and turns have happened since election day. Here’s where things stand right now.
A date debate
When do the changes to the General Laws of Massachusetts that resulted from Question 1’s passage actually take effect? It depends on who you ask.
Advertisement:
At a press conference last week, DiZoglio asserted that the new law would go into effect on Dec. 5. That date marked 30 days since the election. She cited the state constitution, which states that approved ballot measures “shall take effect in thirty days after such state election or at such time after such election as may be provided in such law.”
DiZoglio also referenced a guide to ballot questions published by Secretary of State Bill Galvin’s office that specifically lists Dec. 5 but gave more context.
“The Constitution states that a law proposed by an initiative petition takes effect thirty days after the state election, or at such time after the election as may be provided in such law,” the guide reads. “The courts have not definitively decided whether this means thirty days after the election, or thirty days after the certification of the election results by the Governor’s Council, which usually occurs in late November or early December.”
Advertisement:
The guide advised petitioners working on ballot measures that they state in the measure’s wording itself specifically when it is to become effective if approved. An explicit effective date was not included in the wording of Question 1.
Galvin’s office disputed DiZoglio’s assertion, telling State House News Service that successful ballot questions do not take effect until 30 days after election results are certified by both the governor and Governor’s Council. This took place last Wednesday, meaning Question 1 would take effect on Jan. 3.
“As Secretary Galvin explained last week, it has long been his interpretation of the law that ballot questions take effect 30 days after certification of the election, because that is when the election officially ends. Given that ballots can arrive for up to 10 days after Election Day, the possibility of recounts, and other canvassing measures, election results are not always even certified or final within 30 days of Election Day,” a spokesperson for Galvin’s office said Monday.
A letter from the House and Senate Counsels to DiZoglio in late November aligned with Galvin’s interpretation. It pointed out that Question 1 contained no provision with an effective date and that the 30-day period does not start until the election is certified by the governor and the Governor’s Council. When reached for comment Monday, a spokesperson for House Speaker Ron Mariano referred back to that letter.
Advertisement:
DiZoglio told Boston.com that she was “surprised and disappointed” by the disagreements over the effective date, and that her office had been operating under the assumption that it would go into effect Dec. 5.
“I was quite taken aback to hear that there’s now a differing opinion being offered,” she said.
Potential legal action
A few days after the election, DiZoglio sent a letter to Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka informing them that her office would soon be conducting a “performance audit” of the Legislature. She sought to arrange an “entrance conference” and said that her office would need access to more records and could make inquiries with State House staffers.
In their late November response, the House and Senate Counsels said that the Legislature would respond to any audit engagement letters only after the 30-day period that begins with the certification of the election results.
Last week, DiZoglio sent another, largely similar “engagement letter” to Mariano and Spilka. So far, Senate Counsel has only directed DiZoglio’s office back to their late November letter asserting that DiZoglio’s request was premature.
DiZoglio said she was hopeful for cooperation, but is ready to pursue legal action if necessary.
Advertisement:
“Should they not respond to our office again, we unfortunately will have to seek assistance from the Attorney General’s office again and have requested that, should they not comply with the new audit law, the Attorney General represent the people in litigation if necessary.” she told Boston.com.
Last year, Campbell declined to back a potential lawsuit that would have forced the Legislature’s compliance.
In a Nov. 27 letter, Campbell said that more time was needed not only for the law to go into effect, but for her to assess how the Legislature responds and if that warrants litigation. When reached for comment Monday, a Campbell spokesperson referred back to the Nov. 27 letter.
“I understand from your letter and associated public comments that you are eager to undertake an audit of the Legislature—and, if necessary, litigate about its scope. But no such litigation is ripe,” Campbell wrote to DiZoglio at the time.
DiZoglio said she is asking residents to contact Campbell’s office to urge her to wade into the fight on behalf of the voters who approved Question 1.
“I am cautiously optimistic that, now that the voters have come out and spoken very loudly and clearly… that the Attorney General will have a change of heart at some point soon and stand with the voters by representing them in court if necessary to ensure compliance by legislative leaders who continue to balk at the idea of an audit,” she told Boston.com.
Advertisement:
Regardless of Campbell’s ultimate decision, outside groups could get involved. DiZoglio appeared last week with leaders from the conservative Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance and the progressive group Act on Mass, which have both supported her efforts.
“We’re always looking to sue the state,” Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance spokesperson Paul Craney said when asked about the possibility of outside groups suing the state to uphold the new law.
A rule change in the House
Last month, House lawmakers approved a rule change that grants DiZoglio the authority to select a private, external auditing firm to conduct an audit. While the lawmakers said that the change was meant to prevent the politicization of an audit, DiZoglio said it was equivalent to “slapping voters in the face.”
The House business manager has contacted DiZoglio’s office to set up a meeting in January about the new rule. DiZoglio said this week that she is happy to meet with leaders, but is telling them that any meeting in the new year would be about the full scope of an audit conducted by her office, not the rule change or the possibility of selecting an outside auditing firm.
DiZoglio insisted that the auditor’s office is not subject to House rules, and that those rules do not supersede the laws of the state. Even if she were to choose an outside auditing firm, it would be limited in what information it could request, as it would not have subpoena authority over the house like the State Auditor’s office.
Advertisement:
“A private auditing firm comes in and looks at only the discrete information regarding financials that the agency that hires them allows them to see. They do nothing else,” she said.
Since an outside auditing firm would be under contract with the House, it could be limited in what information can even be shared with the public, Dizoglio added.
“House leaders were not interested in providing an opportunity to work together in their rules change,” she said. “They were looking for an opportunity to invite me to conspire with them to break the law. And I will do no such thing.”
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com