Today, the state senate resolved to expeditiously provide to Auditor DiZoglio all the records she has requested. We hope our resolution will help lead to settlement of the ongoing legal controversy.
The Auditor recently clarified what she is asking for in response to questions from the Supreme Judicial Court. We are pleased to voluntarily respond to her clarified request. Previously, the Auditor had sent conflicting signals about the scope of her request, exacerbating a variety of legal concerns.
The full text of our resolution (reformatted for legibility) appears below. You can see the official version here. The resolution was adopted by a rollcall vote.
Resolutions Responding to the Supreme Judicial Court’s Order of May 7, 2026, and Enhancing Government Transparency.
WHEREAS, as elected members of the Massachusetts General Court, senators bear a responsibility to uphold the Constitution and preserve the independence of the General Court as a coequal branch of government; and
WHEREAS, the Senate recognizes the importance of maintaining public confidence in the integrity and accountability of state government; and
WHEREAS, the Senate is committed to informing the public and constituents of the work it does on the people’s behalf; and
WHEREAS, since March 2023 and continuing through January 3, 2025, when Chapter 250 of the Acts of 2024 came into effect after the voters’ approval of Question 1, the Office of the State Auditor issued letters, statements and communications expressing its intention to conduct a “performance audit” of the General Court; and
WHEREAS, on January 6, 2025, the Office of the State Auditor sent the Senate requests for documents related to its proposed performance audit; and
WHEREAS, members of the Senate have sought clarifying information from the Office of the State Auditor concerning the proposed performance audit and document requests and have conveyed the Senate’s concerns regarding the audit’s constitutionality, scope, adherence to generally accepted government auditing standards and the Auditor’s apparent conflict of interest; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2026, the State Auditor brought suit without the Attorney General’s authorization against the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Clerks of both legislative bodies; and
WHEREAS, at oral argument before the Supreme Judicial Court on May 6, 2026, counsel for the State Auditor agreed that the Auditor’s litigation related only to the Legislature’s alleged failure to produce documents responsive to the 4 specific requests in the Office of the State Auditor’s letter of January 6, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2026, the Supreme Judicial Court issued an order concluding the Auditor’s litigation is “now limited” to the 4 requests made on January 6, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Senate, informed by the recent clarification of scope, seeks to respond responsibly and transparently; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Senate is grateful that the May 7, 2026, order by the Supreme Judicial Court brought clarity to the State Auditor’s requests related to the proposed performance audit; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Senate, seeking in good faith to provide additional transparency, will provide promptly to the Office of the State Auditor all records responsive to its letter of January 6, 2025, as clarified by the Supreme Judicial Court’s order of May 7, 2026, which specifies (a) “[T]he official budgets for the Senate for fiscal years 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024”, (b) “[C]opies of official audits of the Senate for fiscal years 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024”, (c) “[A] listing of all transactions related to the Senate’s balance forward line item for fiscal years 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024” and (d) “[A] listing of all monetary settlement agreements entered into by the Senate with any current or former employees or members of the Senate during fiscal years 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024”; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Senate, in providing said records, does so voluntarily but does not concede that it may be audited pursuant to section 12 of chapter 11 of the General Laws without violating the Constitution of the Commonwealth; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Senate reserves all its rights to object to any such audit, present or future, and on any grounds, including, but not limited to, that Chapter 250 of the Acts of 2024 violates the Senate’s constitutional rulemaking authority, separation of powers, legislative immunity and privilege and the legal presumption that statutes operate prospectively and cannot be applied retroactively in the absence of clear legislative intent; and be it further
RESOLVED, that a copy of these resolutions be transmitted forthwith by the Clerk of the Senate to the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, the Attorney General and the State Auditor.
Submitted by:
Senator Feeney
Cosponsors:
Senator Friedman
Senator Eldridge
Sadly, our legislative branch is viewed and analyzed as the leastctransparent in the country and should also be subject to all FOIA laws.
I’m fine with subjecting the legislature to the public records (FOIA) law!
Here’s the thing: Most of our records are already public. The statement that we are “least transparent” is based solely on the lack of a FOIA process, and I favor the change, but we aren’t that different from other places.
And, the private votes?
Nonsense.
The legislature “cooks the books” to begin with.
Without allowing subsequent follow-up and deep investigation, this is worthless.
Who authorized an expenditure and why, for example?
Was it a payoff?
Was there a quid pro quo?
We the People want the audit. This specious ruse of maintaining the Legislature is moot in the face of a 72% vote for an audit. A particle is more accountable exploring is an infinite set of paths as it travels than is the Legislature with our tax dollars between our pockets and the bottom line sums they produce for their private firm “auditors.”
….ruse of maintaining the [independence of the] Legislature is…
Glad to see some movement on the part of the Senate to
fulfill requirements of the electorate’s vote.
Hope this phrase doesn’t gum up the works:
“ the Senate reserves all its rights to object to any such audit, present or future, and on any grounds”
?
My question mark was a thumbs up. Looks like my emoji got lost in translation.
I share your viewpoint Tim.
The MassLeg is not a private firm, a cabal, or a crime syndicate, they represent the people and the people are demanding an audit. There is no prerogative this ostensibly democratic body can hide behind to avoid the people’s audit AND ITS CONSEQUENCES!
I mean, they aren’t are they?
This is the biproduct of a one party system (democrats).
No checks and Balances.
This is a good thing that is hedged by the Senate. We are moving in the correct path .
Well done. Happy to see things moving forward.
Now can we get the housing bill passed!
WHEREAS, I have a better idea: AUDIT THE LEGISLATURE!
RESOLVED, Get out of the way of this falling house of cards!
DON’t be deceived by this seeming cooperation.
Even the Democratic Party PR firms that pass themselves off as local news acknowledge this performative distraction with the words: “but” and “caveats.”
I appreciate the desire for lawmakers to provide for their constituents (maintain their fiefdoms), and maybe keeping themselves and their colleagues out of orange jumpsuits further tarnishing the gold dome and the Commonwealth already in second, or third world status for transparency, but THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.
America needs a healthy Democratic Party…not this.
This is still the distraction that is the lesser evil for the DNC and the Democratic Party.
The Party is openly courting antisemitism. The Party is backing the “my Totenkopf” candidate in Maine.
The Democrats are the “My Totenkopf Party.”
I remember the overly restrained and pro-forma condemnations Hamas and the Islamists on this very forum after 10/7, the subtext of which and the absence of lowering the flags to half staff for the 53 Americans murdered that day begged the interpretation that Israel had it coming,” and more importantly the absence of words of leadership on the evil and nihilism of terror. Instead, what we got was the absence of moral leadership lest they offend voters and activists who cheered that day.
Republicans can do unions. Republicans can do consumer protection. What do we need Democrats for anymore if all they do is traffic in sedition and agitprop? “Tossed salad” non-assimilation that deprives immigrants of the quintessence of being an American?
I think the house version is much less agreeable, specifying that there is no legal remedy when disagreements about which documents are being released arise, only “mediation.” This implicitly neuters judicial oversight over the legislature. The bill “establishes the exclusive remedy as a detailed explanation of a dispute in the final audit report, and bars judicial review of any dispute that may arise during an audit.”
To my mind, the language codifies: 1) No Court Intervention: The bill explicitly blocks the State Auditor from going to court to compel records, enforce interview requests, or resolve compliance disputes. 2) The “Remedy”: If the House or Senate refuses to hand over requested documents, the auditor’s only recourse under the law is to write a formal complaint about the non-compliance directly into the published audit report. 3) Public Records Separation: While the bill does allow a path of appeal directly to the Supreme Judicial Court for a citizen whose personal public records requests are denied by the Legislative Records Access Officer (LRAO), inter-governmental document and audit conflicts are strictly kept outside of the judicial system’s reach.
This seems to neuter the judiciary in matters surrounding legislative “transparency.” Am I wrong, Will?