Guest Op-Ed: Audit of the State Legislature Should be Allowed to Proceed

By Diana Viens

I urge all Massachusetts residents to write to their state representatives to enforce the law — An Audit of the Legislature by the Massachusetts State Auditor (OSA) — which we the People overwhelmingly voted to approve last November. The pushback from the Legislature to date says three things: 1) They feel that they are above the law, 2) Beacon Hill feels that the power belongs to them, not the People who elected them as representatives (i.e., as proxy voters who speak on the People’s behalf), and 3) The Legislature has something to hide.

In my view, the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) has turned into a henchman for the Legislature — an enforcer of political agendas, as opposed to fighting crime, enforcing the laws, and protecting the People. Here, we are seeing yet another example of just that — The AGO’s refusal to enforce the Legislative Audit via exacerbating stall tactics and excuse-making. This harms us all.

Last week, the OSA released the 165 pages of correspondence between the OSA and the AGO.  The correspondence shows that the OSA has provided substantial evidence to demonstrate that it has fulfilled its obligation to provide the AGO with the necessary information to enforce the legislative audit and represent the OSA in court against the resisting Legislature. Here’s a summary of what we learned from this correspondence.

1. Clear Statutory Authority and Mandate:

The OSA is explicitly authorized under G.L. c. 11, § 12, as amended by the passage of Ballot Question 1 in November 2024, to audit the Legislature. This amendment was approved by 72% of voters, granting the OSA express authority to audit the General Court.

The statute mandates that the Legislature provide access to records and includes an enforcement mechanism through the Superior Court to compel the production of records.

2. Specific and Repeated Requests for Records:

The OSA has made multiple specific requests for records from the Legislature, including budgets, audits, balance forward transactions, and monetary settlement agreements for fiscal years 2021–2024. These requests were detailed in letters dated January 3, 2025, and January 6, 2025, and reiterated in subsequent communications.

The OSA has emphasized that these records are necessary to conduct the audit and are within the scope of its statutory authority.

3. Efforts to Engage the AGO:

The OSA has consistently sought the AGO’s assistance to enforce compliance with its audit requests. This includes formal memoranda and letters dated December 17, 2024; January 9, 2025; February 5, 2025; February 27, 2025; and March 28, 2025.

The OSA has provided detailed explanations of the audit’s scope, the legal basis for its authority, and the specific relief sought, including mandamus relief to compel the Legislature to produce the requested records.

4. Responses to AGO’s Questions:

The OSA has addressed the AGO’s repeated inquiries regarding the scope of the audit, the legal claims to be brought, and the relief sought. For example:

The OSA clarified that the audit focuses on state contracting and procurement procedures, taxpayer-funded nondisclosure agreements, and the balance forward line item.

The OSA proposed bringing a mandamus claim against specific defendants, including the House Clerk, Senate Clerk, House Speaker, and Senate President, to compel the production of records.

The OSA has also addressed constitutional concerns raised by the AGO, arguing that the requested records pertain to administrative, not legislative, functions and do not violate the separation of powers doctrine.

5. Attempts to Resolve the Dispute Without Litigation:

The OSA has engaged in discussions with the Legislature, including a meeting with the Senate Subcommittee on February 11, 2025, to explain the audit process and address concerns. Despite these efforts, the Legislature has refused to comply with the OSA’s requests.

The OSA has repeatedly sought the AGO’s assistance to avoid litigation but has been met with delays and additional requests for information.

6. Public and Legal Justification:

The OSA has emphasized the public mandate for transparency and accountability, as reflected in the overwhelming voter approval of Ballot Question 1. The OSA has argued that failing to enforce the audit would undermine public trust in government.

The OSA has cited legal precedent and statutory authority to support its position, including the enforcement mechanism provided in G.L. c. 11, § 12, and the principle that the judiciary can compel administrative actions without infringing on legislative functions.

7. Good Faith Efforts to Address AGO’s Concerns:

The OSA has expressed frustration with the AGO’s repeated requests for information but has continued to provide detailed responses and engage in discussions to address the AGO’s concerns.

The OSA has also sought clarity on whether the AGO intends to represent the OSA or the Legislature, highlighting potential conflicts of interest and the need for a clear commitment from the AGO.

Conclusion:

The OSA has fulfilled its obligation to provide the AGO with all necessary information to enforce the legislative audit. The AGO now has sufficient grounds to initiate litigation to compel the Legislature’s compliance with the audit under G.L. c. 11, § 12. The OSA’s repeated efforts to engage the AGO, provide detailed information, and address concerns demonstrate its commitment to transparency and accountability. The AGO’s continued delays and additional requests for information risk undermining the enforcement of the law and the will of the voters.

Please write to your state reps. We the People demand accountability and transparency in our State government, which includes compliance with our legislative audit.

(Diana Viens is a Winthrop resident.)