The Massachusetts Senate voted Thursday to “promptly” provide state Auditor Diana DiZoglio with a set of financial documents. The move marks a next step — but not a full breakthrough — in DiZoglio’s long-running bid to conduct a voter-authorized audit of the state Legislature.
In a 33-6 vote, the Senate agreed to send DiZoglio a specific set of information she asked for in January 2025. That include four years of official budgets for the Senate; copies of official audits of the Senate; a listing of financial settlements with former employees or senators; and a listing of certain financial transactions.
“We’re replying with all documents as requested,” Sen. Paul Feeney, a Foxboro Democrat, told reporters Thursday. “We’re not leaving anything out. We’re not being cute. We’re not moving stuff around. She requested certain documents. The scope was clarified. I’m thrilled that now the Senate will be moving forward to reply and respond to that.”
Voters overwhelmingly passed a ballot question in 2024 authorizing DiZoglio to audit the House and Senate. But the two chambers have declined to comply, describing the probe as a violation of the separation of powers outlined in the state’s constitution.
DiZoglio filed a lawsuit against legislative leaders over their resistance. Earlier this month, in proceedings related to that suit, the Supreme Judicial Court outlined those four categories of documents — budgets, audits, settlements and transactions — in an official order.
Sen. Cindy Friedman, an Arlington Democrat who’s been the point person on the Senate’s audit response, said the court’s order gave senators clarity they needed to act. Friedman said the Senate’s constitutional questions are serious, but don’t apply to these particular set of records because they contain information that’s already publicly available.
The resolution the Senate adopted agrees to “provide promptly to the office of the state auditor all records responsive to its letter of Jan. 6, 2025, as clarified by the Supreme Judicial Court’s order of May 7, 2026.”
But senators also reserved their right to object to other audits and said they’re turning over the documents voluntarily, without conceding that the constitution allows an audit.
“It’s really sad that Senate leadership is so detached from reality that they think anyone believes they’ve suddenly agreed to give me these specific records for any reason other than that the court is about to lay down the law, again, and order them to obey the people’s wishes,” DiZoglio, a Methuen Democrat, said in a statement. “But this is not a public records request, it’s an audit. So, for an audit to actually be conducted, the Legislature needs to comply and cooperate with our audit team. The Senate President has just asked her membership to vote that they do not acknowledge and will not cooperate with the 72% voter-mandated law — that’s not leadership, it’s obstruction.”
Senate Republicans have been urging their Democratic colleagues, who have supermajority control over the chamber, to try to resolve the constitutional question by seeking an opinion from the SJC.
Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, a Gloucester Republican, was one of the six votes against the resolution. He said he “reluctantly” voted no because he thinks only an answer from the SJC can bring closure to a dispute on the constitutionality of the audit that’s stretched for over a year.
“Unfortunately, this resolution signals that the response to that will be more process and perhaps more waiting for the court before compliance is secured,” Tarr said.
Meanwhile, the Massachusetts House signaled a different approach.
Speaker Ron Mariano told state representatives in an email that House leaders, after talking with the Senate, decided that passing a resolution of their own would not “allow us to address future inquiries or resolve the endless legal disputes that have come to define the audit ballot question.”
Instead, Mariano said, House leaders are working with experts and advocates to craft “comprehensive” transparency legislation “that will provide long-term solutions to the concerns that we continue to hear from our constituents.”
It’s not clear when a transparency bill would emerge for a House vote, and the Senate would need to also pass the legislation for it to become law.
