| Organization: | Office of the State Auditor |
|---|---|
| Date published: | October 21, 2024 |
Executive Summary
In accordance with Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) has conducted a performance audit of certain activities of the Massachusetts General Court (General Court; Legislature) for the period January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2022. The objectives of this performance audit were to determine the following: (1) whether and to what extent the two chambers of the Massachusetts General Court, the Senate and the House of Representatives (House), are ensuring that their respective chambers’ annual financial audits are completed, filed with required recipients, and made available to the public in accordance with their respective chambers’ own rules; (2) how and to what extent the funds of the Balance Forward line item listed in Senate and House financial audits are determined and tracked for fiscal year–end reporting; (3) how and to what extent the Massachusetts General Court is communicating information regarding pending and enacted legislation to the public; (4) how and to what extent the Massachusetts General Court is ensuring an equitable mode of making laws in accordance with the Preamble of the Massachusetts Constitution;1 (5) how and to what extent bills co-sponsored by a majority of the members of the Senate and/or House (member majority bills)2 are being considered by the Massachusetts General Court; (6) whether and to what extent policies and procedures are being equitably3 applied to all members and staff; (7) whether and to what extent legislative services are being equitably provided to all members and staff by a legislative services bureau or equivalent; and (8) whether and to what extent the Senate and House are complying with their respective chambers’ own rules regarding nondisclosure, non-disparagement, or other similar clauses in agreements or contracts.
Due to the auditee’s refusal to participate in the performance audit, we could not obtain the information necessary to draw conclusions about some of these objectives. (References to the auditee in this report mean both the Senate and House.) Specifically, we could not make determinations regarding the following: objective (2) how and to what extent the funds of the Balance Forward line item listed in Senate and House financial audits are determined and tracked for fiscal year–end reporting; objective (4) how and to what extent the Massachusetts General Court is ensuring an equitable mode of making laws in accordance with the Preamble of the Massachusetts Constitution; objective (5) how and to what extent member majority bills are being considered by the Massachusetts General Court; objective (6) whether and to what extent policies and procedures are being equitably applied to all members and staff; and objective (8) whether and to what extent the Senate and House are complying with their respective chambers’ own rules regarding nondisclosure, non-disparagement, or other similar clauses in agreements or contracts. These objectives and their constraints are discussed in the Audit Objectives, Scope, and Methodology section of this report.
In this performance audit, we made determinations regarding the following: objective (1) whether and to what extent the two chambers of the Massachusetts General Court, the Senate and the House, are ensuring that their respective chambers’ financial audits are completed, filed with required recipients, and made available to the public in accordance with their respective chambers’ own rules; objective (3) how and to what extent the Massachusetts General Court is communicating information regarding pending and enacted legislation to the public; and objective (7) whether and to what extent legislative services are being equitably provided to all members and staff by a legislative services bureau or equivalent. These objectives were more readily accessible to us, given their nature. Our office was unable to complete the more comprehensive audit of the auditee given its refusal to participate in this audit.
We consulted with the Yellow Book technical assistance department to ensure sufficient independence in the conception and conduct of this audit.
Below is a summary of our findings, the effects of those findings, and our recommendations, with links to the corresponding pages of this report.
| Finding 1 | The Senate and House did not ensure that their respective chambers’ annual financial audits were completed, filed with required recipients, including OSA,4 or made available to the public in accordance with their respective chambers’ own rules. |
|---|---|
| Effect | If the Senate and House do not ensure that their respective chambers’ annual financial audits are completed, filed with required recipients, and made available to the public, then they are not in compliance with their respective chambers’ own rules. This contributes to a lack of transparency and limits the public’s ability to hold the Legislature accountable with respect to Senate and House financial transactions and processes. The reports that do exist lack financial information and internal control reports. |
| Recommendations | 1. The Senate and House should ensure that their respective chambers’ annual financial audits are completed in a timely manner, filed with required recipients, and made directly available to the public to increase transparency and the public’s ability to hold the Legislature accountable with respect to Senate and House financial transactions and processes. 2. The Senate and House should ensure that their respective chambers’ annual financial audits contain more detailed financial information, such as itemized appropriations, revenues, and expenditures, supported by written documentation, to increase transparency and the public’s ability to hold the Legislature accountable with respect to Senate and House financial transactions and processes. 3. The Senate and House should include the separate internal control reports referenced in Senate and House financial audits with their respective chambers’ annual financial audits, which should be made directly available to the public to increase transparency and the public’s ability to hold the Legislature accountable with respect to Senate and House financial transactions and processes. |
| Finding 2 | In comparison to the legislative websites of the sample states,5 the Massachusetts General Court website lacks apparent content6 and ease of website navigation regarding pending and enacted legislation. |
| Effect | If the Massachusetts General Court does not improve its website to increase content and ease of website navigation regarding pending and enacted legislation, then it limits the public’s ability to understand and engage in the legislative process and hold the Legislature accountable for ensuring an equitable mode of making laws. |
| Finding 2a | In comparison to the sample state legislative websites, the Massachusetts General Court website provides less apparent information and records regarding committees and committee proceedings, and less intuitive website navigation to the information and records that are available. |
| Finding 2b | In comparison to the sample state legislative websites, the Massachusetts General Court website provides less apparent information and records regarding pending and enacted bills, and less intuitive website navigation to the information and records that are available. |
| Finding 2c | In comparison to the sample state legislative websites, the Massachusetts General Court website provides less apparent information and records regarding legislative sessions, and less intuitive navigation to the information and records that are available. |
| Finding 2d | When compared to the legislative website homepages of the sample states, the Massachusetts General Court website homepage lacks apparent content and ease of website navigation regarding pending and enacted legislation. |
| Recommendations | 1. To increase transparency and the public’s ability to hold the Legislature accountable for ensuring an equitable mode of making laws, the Massachusetts General Court should work to improve its website to include and simplify website navigation to all information and records regarding committees and committee proceedings. 2. To increase transparency and the public’s ability to hold the Legislature accountable for ensuring an equitable mode of making laws, the Massachusetts General Court should work to improve its website to include and simplify website navigation to all information and records regarding pending and enacted bills. 3. To increase transparency and the public’s ability to hold the Legislature accountable for ensuring an equitable mode of making laws, the Massachusetts General Court should work to improve its website to include and simplify website navigation to all information and records regarding legislative sessions. 4. The Massachusetts General Court should work to improve its website homepage to include more information specific to the work of the Legislature and should evaluate its presentation to simplify navigation, prioritizing the inclusion of and access to information and records that will increase transparency and the public’s ability to understand and engage in the legislative process and hold the Legislature accountable for an equitable mode of making laws. 5. To help address the above referenced recommendations, the Massachusetts General Court should review the legislative websites of other states, particularly those of states that have ranked higher in government transparency and accountability, as described in this report. |
| Finding 3 | The Massachusetts General Court does not have a legislative services bureau or equivalent to provide legislative services to all members of the Massachusetts General Court. |
| Effect | In comparison to other states, the absence of a legislative services bureau or equivalent appears to limit the Massachusetts General Court’s ability to provide comprehensive legislative services to all members, potentially adversely impacting individual members’ ability to best represent their constituents. |
| Recommendation | The Massachusetts General Court should consider reestablishing the once-active Legislative Research Bureau7 and review the framework of other states to determine best practices to improve its structure and the delivery of legislative services to all members of the Massachusetts General Court and, by extension, the people of the Commonwealth who are represented by the members. |
In addition to the conclusions above, during the course of our audit, we identified related issues not specifically specifically addressed by the audit objectives but which merit attention. Below is a summary of Other Matters section and recommendations, with links to the corresponding pages of this report.
| Other Matters 1 | The Senate and House Rules lack detail and transparency regarding factors considered in appointing or nominating members to committees, committee chair positions, or chamber leadership positions. |
|---|---|
| Effect | A lack of detail and transparency regarding factors considered in determining committee membership and leadership limits the public’s ability to hold the Legislature accountable for ensuring an equitable mode of making laws and the equitable application of policies and procedures to all members and staff. |
| Recommendation | The Senate and House could more fully document, detail, and publicize their processes regarding appointing or nominating members to committees, committee chair positions, and chamber leadership positions. More active participation by the full chamber in the nomination and selection of members for committee assignments and leadership positions could result in more equitable representation of the members and, by extension, the people of the Commonwealth, helping prevent concentration of power amongst a few. Greater transparency regarding these processes will increase the public’s ability to hold the Legislature accountable for ensuring an equitable mode of making laws in accordance with the Massachusetts Constitution and the equitable application of policies and procedures to all members and staff. |
| Other Matters 2 | The Senate and House processes for the procurement of goods and services, particularly financial auditing services, lack transparency, as detailed procurement information is not made available to the public. |
| Effect | If the Senate and House do not have transparent processes for the procurement of goods and services, then they limit the public’s ability to hold the Legislature accountable. |
| Recommendations | 1. The Senate and House should develop more transparent and accountable processes regarding the procurement of financial auditing services to implement best practices and increase the public’s ability to hold the Legislature accountable. 2. The Senate and House should make its procurement information available to the public, including all procurement contracts and related documents, to increase transparency and the public’s ability to hold the Legislature accountable with respect to Senate and House financial transactions and processes and for compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations. |
Post-Audit Action
During the course of this performance audit, we determined that the Senate and House financial audits for fiscal years 2021 and 2022 (the fiscal years ending during the performance audit period) were not completed. After our performance audit was initiated and our office highlighted the absence of the required Senate financial audit for fiscal year 2021, it was subsequently completed and publicly posted on the Massachusetts General Court website. The Senate refused to file the financial audit with OSA as required by Senate Rule 13C.8
1. The Preamble of the Massachusetts Constitution states in part: “The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.”
2. For the purposes of this audit report, member majority bills refer to bills co-sponsored by a majority of the members of the Senate and/or House of Representatives.
3. According to [generally accepted government auditing standards] Performance Audits: Discussion of Concepts to Consider When Auditing Public Functions and Services, “The administration of a government program or activity is equitable when it consistently serves members of the public, distributes public services, and implements public policy in a manner that promotes fairness, justice, and equality.” https://www.gao.gov/assets/2021-04/Performance-Audit-Discussion.pdf.
4. Senate Rule 13C states, “The Senate Committee on Rules shall provide for an annual fiscal year audit of all Senate financial accounts to be conducted by a certified public accountant experienced in auditing governmental entities. The clerk shall notify the members when the audit is available. A copy of the audit shall be filed with the Senate Clerk and the State Auditor, copies shall be made available upon request by any member of the Senate or the general public and posted on the General Court website. 1985; 2003; 2015; 2017; 2021.”
5. See the “Pending and Enacted Legislation” subsection of this report regarding the choice of sample states.
6. For the purposes of this audit report, apparent content refers to information pertaining to the business of the Massachusetts General Court that is presented in a manner lending itself to intuitive navigation.
7. See the "Legislative Research Bureau” subsection of this report.
8. See footnote 4.
Table of Contents
Appendix
Downloads
-
Open PDF file, 2.05 MB, Audit Report - The Massachusetts General Court (English, PDF 2.05 MB)
Contact
Phone
Online
Fax
Address
Room 230
Boston, MA 02133