A growing number of Massachusetts towns are signaling their support for a state-wide audit of the Legislature, a move spurred by a November 2024 ballot initiative and increasingly fraught with legal challenges. The push for greater transparency comes as State Auditor Diana DiZoglio faces resistance from legislative leaders and Attorney General Andrea Campbell, who argue the audit’s scope is unconstitutional and that DiZoglio has not adequately addressed their concerns.
The initial spark came from Reading, where the Select Board recently voted to formally request that House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka comply with the audit mandate. This action has prompted similar considerations in other municipalities, including Somerset and Wilmington, while Revere’s Town Council voted against sending a letter of support, citing jurisdictional concerns and ongoing legal battles. The core question driving the debate: what, if anything, are state lawmakers attempting to conceal?
The roots of this conflict trace back to Ballot Question 1 in November 2024, which passed with the support of 72% of Massachusetts voters. The measure aimed to provide greater oversight of the state’s legislative spending, and operations. However, implementation has been stalled by opposition from the Legislature and the Attorney General’s office.
Towns Weigh In on Audit Demand
In Somerset, Board of Selectmen Chairman Allan Smith expressed strong support for the audit, stating he would “happily” add the issue to an upcoming agenda. “I am a huge fan of State Auditor DiZoglio,” Smith said at a March 19 meeting. “I indicate, the work that she has done so far, and the groups and the departments that have been audited, the findings have been significant.” He questioned the resistance to the audit, asking, “What are they hiding? If you’re so resistant to this, what is she going to find?” According to town records, 6,791 Somerset residents – 61% of those who voted – approved the ballot measure.
Wilmington’s Select Board is also poised to follow Reading’s lead, with plans to vote on a letter of support in an upcoming meeting. 9,731 residents of Wilmington, a town neighboring Reading, voted in favor of the audit. Board member Lilia Maselli emphasized the importance of upholding the voters’ will, stating, “It is unfortunate that there’s no one holding them accountable, and every time that they try to do so, they just basically say no.”
However, not all municipalities are on board. In Revere, despite 11,542 residents – roughly 62% of the city’s total vote – supporting the audit, the City Council rejected a motion to send a letter to Mariano and Spilka. Councilor Angela Guarino Sawaya argued that such a move would be outside the council’s jurisdiction, stating, “We should be mindful of setting a precedent where this council begins weighing in on broader state-level political issues that fall outside our municipal responsibilities.” Councilor JoAnne McKenna added that the vote on the ballot question may have occurred before the Attorney General raised concerns about the audit’s scope.
Legal Battle Intensifies
The dispute has escalated into a legal battle, with DiZoglio filing a lawsuit against Mariano and Spilka in February after they refused to comply with the audit. The lawsuit seeks to compel the legislative leaders to cooperate and allow the audit to proceed. Campbell is representing Mariano and Spilka in the case, arguing that the audit may violate the state Constitution and that DiZoglio has not adequately defined its scope.
Adding another layer to the conflict, DiZoglio recently brought to light a claim that Campbell contacted her via personal cell phone shortly after a state Supreme Judicial Court justice moved the case to the full court. DiZoglio alleges this communication may violate state professional conduct rules.
DiZoglio’s Track Record
While the legislative audit remains stalled, DiZoglio’s office has been active in uncovering financial fraud. In the first two quarters of the current fiscal year, her Bureau of Special Investigations identified $4.4 million in public benefits fraud, including $2.4 million in SNAP fraud and $1.7 million in MassHealth and Medicaid fraud. Last fiscal year, the bureau uncovered nearly $12 million in fraudulent claims.
The legal case is currently before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which will ultimately decide whether the audit can proceed. The court is expected to hear arguments in the coming months, and a decision could have significant implications for government transparency and accountability in the state.
The next step in the legal process is a full hearing before the SJC, where arguments will be presented regarding the constitutionality of the audit and the scope of the auditor’s authority. Residents and municipalities interested in following the case can find updates on the Massachusetts court system’s website.
What began as a clear mandate from voters is now a complex legal and political battle. The outcome will likely shape the future of government oversight in Massachusetts and determine whether the state Legislature will be held to the same level of scrutiny as other public entities. Share your thoughts on this developing story in the comments below.
Related reading
