In its Sept. 30 editorial, “Yes on Question 1,” the Globe endorsed state Auditor Diana DiZoglio’s ballot initiative to allow her office to audit the Legislature and its accounts. The following is a sampling of online comments on the endorsement from BostonGlobe.com readers. Some posts were edited for grammar, style, or content:
We don’t need the Globe to tell us the obvious. Vote yes on Question 1 for real transparency. Even if the yes vote is overwhelming, the inhabitants of our State House will do everything in their world to fight actual transparency. We must not let them. It is our State House, our government, not theirs. (user_4528976)
It’s high time for this audit to happen, and I happily signed a petition outside a supermarket this summer to make it happen. Opaque decisions from lawmakers who don’t have to account for their deeds behind closed doors is no way to run government, and when you have a one-party state like Massachusetts, the problem is magnified times 100. (newsyoucanuse)
The chief argument against the ballot question is that it violates the separation of powers in the state constitution and jeopardizes “legislative supremacy” (as stated in the ballot question information booklet). Opponents are concerned it would violate the “preeminence of the Legislature.” This is false. Audits don’t have punitive power. They may expose problems, but they can’t compel solutions. (Pomegranate2)
Advertisement
Pomegranate2: The issue is the separation of powers and equal branches of government. It doesn’t matter if audits have punitive powers. The executive branch, which DiZoglio is part of, has no authority over the legislative branch. Remember, all of you who want to give her the power to audit the legislative branch: That is the essence of Project 2025 — it seeks to give Donald Trump, if elected again, more power as the head of the executive branch over the legislative and judicial branches. Vote no on Question 1. (p1352)
We need more transparency, but this question will not get us there. As written, it will not be constitutionally enforceable in the way the auditor and her supporters believe. It should have just required transparency (public meeting rules for all, all votes on the record, etc.). This question achieves none of those things. DiZoglio, a former state lawmaker who was outspoken against leadership, has a personal vendetta, in my opinion, and she is going to end up looking like a fool when she can’t deliver on her promises of accountability, even after her question passes. (OccamsRazor)
Advertisement
It’s only personal to legislative leaders because they do not like being challenged. And it is a different process to change the constitution. She is trying to get at the process of nondisclosure agreements, a practice that is abusive of taxpayers and employees. Any light disinfects, and that’s an improvement over the blight of arrogance on Beacon Hill. (Foucault93)
I sought signatures to put this question on the ballot. Not one person refused to sign on principle. A couple wanted to think about it some more. This question taps into the deep desire of the electorate for transparency which, in turn, would lead to accountability. That is a fundamental fact, and all this “personal vendetta” stuff is an empty argument. I remember a lobbyist telling me once, “You’d be surprised what can happen, off to the side, at 2 a.m., as the final draft is created at the State House.” Change a word here, change a word there, and the impact can be dramatic — and profitable in questionable ways. DiZoglio will only enhance her reputation by working on this problem as others just shrug and look the other way. ”That’s the way it is,” the insiders will say. ”That’s not the way it has to be,” is a reasonable response and will be underlined when this passes overwhelmingly. (nahantjim)
The Legislature will not comply or they’ll simply write themselves a law that skirts the audit requirement, but it would be great to put some pressure on them anyway. If this passes, it will probably be 10 to 15 years before the roadblocks have been cleared for a useful, realistic audit, but this at least lays the groundwork. (Martin-VanNostrand)
Advertisement
The state auditor’s office has to be transparent and have uniform processes before anyone should vote to expand its powers. The auditor should clean up and clarify what its mission is and where it places its resources. Targeting the state’s executive departments, social programs, and agencies whenever a headline hits is not a good strategy, but methodical review of the bureaucracy could be. The elected auditor position should be reviewed by the Legislature to determine whether it should be changed to a nonelected position with a long-term tenure. It should be based on credentials, not politics. It should be like the inspector general or, better yet, be under the inspector general’s aegis. There would be no need for both offices to conduct audits and investigations. If there is to be reform of state government, let it start by reforming the state auditor’s office. (mcdwho)
Not useful. Bunch of “shoulds.” While we write comments, DiZoglio is actually trying to do something about the Legislature’s failures. And unlike electoral challenges to leadership, she has a chance. This is a rare opportunity and we should all support it. (houper)
