Overview
There is no documented policy on the use of confidentiality language for GOV and other executive offices and agencies. Many officials of executive offices and agencies informed us that GOV officials instructed them to stop using nondisclosure agreements in their state employee settlement agreements. However, this directive (if written in email as one agency speculated) could not be located and provided to us to review during the audit. Some officials estimate that this communication took place around 2018. Below is a table detailing self-reported settlement agreements with confidentiality language (which we were not able to verify), prior to and after December 31, 2018.
Self-Reported Settlement Agreements with Confidentiality Language
before and after December 31, 2018
| State employee settlement agreements dated January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2018 | 107 |
| State employee settlement agreements dated January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2022 | 52 |
| Total | 159 |
We note that 52 settlement agreements were self-reported to us as including confidentiality language after 2018, the year several agencies reported to us that a policy was put into place forbidding their use. We have been unable to verify the number of settlement agreements or the date of this policy, if it was implemented.
During the audit, we were made aware of or were able to identify 159 state employee settlement agreements that included some form of confidentiality language, limiting the discussion or disclosure of the purpose for or terms of the settlement agreement. When asked for rationale or an explanation behind the confidentiality language, agencies did not provide us any support justifying the inclusion of this language in individual settlements. See below for examples of common types of confidentiality language used in state employee settlement agreements that we found during our audit:
- Confidentiality: “Agrees to keep terms and discussions of settlement and release confidential.”
- Nondisclosure: “The Complainant agrees to keep confidential, and not disclose or communicate, the contents and/or nature of this Agreement to any other parties.”
- Non-disparagement: “Claimant shall refrain from making disparaging remarks about the Department and its leadership team.”
- Not for publication: “This Settlement Agreement is not for publication and it is without precedent or prejudice to any other current or future matter between the parties. This Settlement Agreement cannot be introduced in any other forum except to enforce its terms.”
The table below lists the types of confidentiality language reported in state employee settlement agreements.
| Type of Language Used | Number of Settlements (Unverified, Self-reported) |
|---|---|
| Not for publication | 85 |
| Confidential | 29 |
| Confidential, not for publication | 14 |
| Unknown* | 13 |
| None** | 8 |
| Non-disparagement, not for publication | 7 |
| Non-disparagement | 3 |
| Grand Total | 159 |
* These were settlement records self-reported by agencies as containing confidentiality requests but that could not be verified because of a lack of provided state employee settlement agreements.
** These were settlement records self-reported as containing confidentiality language. Upon review of the agreements, the language used was related to “non-precedential” language.
While some agencies explained their general use of confidentiality language, they did not produce any evidence that we could review and instead gave the following rationale without supporting documentation:
- language is included on a case-by-case basis;
- language was included prior to the 2013 Globe Case;
- language is included as part of union practices/bargaining agreement;
- language is mutually agreed upon or included as a mutual benefit;
- language is included based on guidance from GOV and the Executive Office for Administration and Finance; and
- document was not provided due to attorney-client privilege.
The policies that GOV and its agencies claimed existed regarding the use of confidentiality language were not documented or made available to our office for inspection, citing in one instance attorney-client privilege. We are, therefore, asked to believe that formal policies exist, but that those policies are secret and cannot be disclosed. As a result, we cannot determine whether these instances of confidentiality language complied with GOV or agency policies. Some departments cited to us that the prior practice barring the use of confidentiality language in state employee settlement agreements was still in force from approximately 2018.
Additionally, in discussions with the Office of the Attorney General,16 we were told that the office also has an undocumented practice to not use nondisclosure agreements or similar clauses in state employee settlement agreements when the Office of the Attorney General represents a state agency. Officials in the office were also uncertain on when this practice was started and could not demonstrate that this policy existed.
As an example, we reviewed one MassDOT state employee settlement agreement that involved a claim of sexual harassment. The complainant received payment and the other party was required to attend training. However, the agreement contained language that required the complainant to keep the content and nature of the settlement confidential. Without access to the documentation of the discussions that led to the agreement, we are unable to determine whether the confidentiality language was included at the request of the employee or added at MassDOT’s request. It is also unclear whether the agency included the language because it was in the best interest of the Commonwealth or simply to ensure the incident was never discussed by the complainant.
By not having a documented policy on the use of confidentiality language in state employee settlement agreements, there is a risk that confidentially language may be used to cover up harassment, discrimination, or other unlawful behaviors, potentially allowing perpetrators to continue to remain in their position and engage in further unlawful behavior. This would be an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars. Impacted employees may also not know that nondisclosure terms may be unenforceable under Public Records Law. If GOV does not have a transparent and accountable process to guide the use of nondisclosure, non-disparagement, or similarly restrictive clauses in state employee settlement agreements, it cannot ensure that state employee settlements are handled in an ethical, legal, or consistent manner.
Further, a lack of a documented policy on the use of confidentiality language creates the risk that confidentiality language could be used to protect or obscure from public view repeated instances of poor management or inappropriate or unlawful behavior at agencies of government. This perpetuates the risk that public employees may continue to face abusive or harassing treatment from perpetrators, and that the taxpayers be required to pay for the costs of settlements or litigation in connection with this continued behavior.
Authoritative Guidance
The US Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, known as the Green Book, sets internal control standards for federal entities. The Green Book defines internal controls in the following way:
Internal control comprises the plans, methods, policies, and procedures used to fulfill the mission, strategic plan, goals, and objectives of the entity. Internal control serves as the first line of defense in safeguarding assets. In short, internal control helps managers achieve desired results through effective stewardship of public resources. . . . Management should design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks. . . . Management should implement control activities through policies.
While GOV is not required to follow this policy, we believe it to be a best practice.
The 2013 Superior Court decision in [Boston] Globe Newspaper Co. v. Exec. Office of Admin. and Finance, Suffolk Sup. No. 11-01184-A (June 14; 2013) affirmed the presumption that separation, severance, transition or settlement agreements are public records and held that public records law does not allow the withholding of such agreements as a whole.
CTR’s Settlements and Judgments Policy states,
Confidentiality Provisions May be Unenforceable. Departments are put on notice that confidentiality language mandating that a settlement or settlement terms be kept confidential may not be enforceable unless the claim or certain provisions in the claim are exempted from disclosure under statutory, personnel file or privacy exemptions under the Public Records Law. The Public Records Law, G.L. c. 4, §. 7, 26 (a) and (c) exempt records from disclosure that are statutorily prohibited from disclosure, are part of a personnel file or are of a highly personal nature.
According to the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s A Guide to Massachusetts Public Records Law,
The public interest in the financial information of a public employee outweighs the privacy interest where the financial compensation in question is drawn on an account held by a government entity and comprised of taxpayer funds. Additionally, the disclosure of the settlement amount would assist the public in monitoring government operations. Therefore, exemptions to the Public Records Law will not operate to allow for the withholding of settlement agreements as a whole. However, portions of the agreements, and related responsive records, may be redacted pursuant to the Public Records Law.
In June 2020, the state of Montana issued a performance audit titled “State Employee Settlements: Trends, Transparency, and Administration.” In this audit, a recommendation is made that a balancing test be implemented to determine whether confidentiality clauses should be used if an individual’s privacy interest outweighs the public’s right to know details of the agreement.
While GOV is not required to follow these policies, we believe them to be best practices.
The use of confidentiality language in state employee settlement agreements has also been the subject of recent legislation in federal and state governments. Regarding the use of nondisclosure language, the federal government approved the Speak Out Act on December 7, 2022. This act describes the limitation on judicial enforceability of nondisclosure and non-disparagement contract clauses relating to sexual assault disputes and sexual harassment disputes in settlement agreements. The Silenced No More Act legislative model has been used in both California (enacted on January 1, 2022) and Washington (enacted on June 9, 2022). This law bans confidentiality provisions in state employee settlement agreements relating to the disclosure of underlying information concerning to any type of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation at work including age, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, pregnancy, or race. Although not required, these pieces of legislation can be considered a best practice.
Additionally, Massachusetts Senate rule 11G, first put in place in 2019, states the following regarding the use of confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements:
The Senate shall not include or permit a nondisclosure, non-disparagement or other similar clause in an agreement or contract between the Senate and a member, officer or employee. The Senate shall not seek to enforce a nondisclosure, non-disparagement or other similar clause in an existing agreement or contract between the Senate and a member, officer or employee. This rule shall not be suspended.
While GOV is not required to follow these policies, we believe them to be best practices.
Reasons for Issue
GOV did not provide a reason why policies regarding the use of confidentiality language in state employee settlement agreements were not created by GOV and communicated across executive offices and agencies. Although multiple agencies referenced guidance provided by the prior gubernatorial administration, none were able to produce evidence of its existence over the course of the audit.
Regarding the use of non-disparagement clauses, it was explained to us that they can be mutually beneficial to the parties. We could not confirm that these clauses were mutually beneficial, however, without documented evidence of the discussion or request for its inclusion in the settlement documents.
Recommendations
- GOV should establish and implement policies and procedures regarding the use of confidentiality language in state employee settlement agreements and the required supporting documentation justifying its inclusion. These policies and procedures should be communicated to all executive offices and agencies.
- GOV’s policy on the use of confidentiality language in an employee settlement agreement should weigh the employee’s right to privacy versus the public’s right to know how state funds are spent. In accordance with the 2013 Superior Court case with Globe Newspapers (Civil Docket# SUCV2011-01184), information determined not to be public record should be redacted when a state employee settlement agreement is requested for public inspection.
- GOV’s policy on the use of confidentiality language in a settlement agreement should not protect an employee with detrimental behavior (e.g., harassment or abuse) in the workplace.
- The Governor should consider implementing an executive order to limit the use of confidentiality language in employee settlement agreements. This order should implement a balancing test to ensure that the privacy rights of the individual(s) involved in a settlement agreement are measured against the public’s right to know how state funds are spent and whether there is mismanagement or mistreatment of employees occurring in state agencies.
Auditee Response
The executive department cannot concur with Audit Finding 2 to the extent that it appears to overlook the Comptroller’s Settlement and Judgments Policy which explains that “[c]onfidentiality provisions will not create protections that do not already exist under the Public Records Law or other statutory bar to disclosure”; and that “the name of a recipient payee of a settlement or judgment payment made from the settlement and judgment account is considered a public record."
Since 2018, the policy of the executive department has generally precluded the use of nondisclosure agreements. As recognized in the report, the Attorney General’s Office and the Office of the Governor have advised since 2018 that executive branch offices and agencies should not include nondisclosure agreements as a part of employee settlement agreements.
Since taking office in 2023, Governor Healey and Lieutenant Governor Driscoll have been outspoken in their direction to executive branch offices and agencies: nondisclosure agreements are not to be used. Government benefits from transparency, and anyone who has suffered mistreatment should have the right to tell their story and advocate for change.
As the audit report documents, the use of non-disclosure agreements in employee settlements was rare during the audit period, particularly in recent years. Based on our review of [Appendix A] to the audit report, we believe that fewer than 60 settlements during the audit period included language indicating that a settlement or settlement terms should be kept confidential, including just twelve settlements with documented confidentiality language between 2018 and 2022. These twelve settlements comprise about 1% of settlements between 2018 and 2022. And of these twelve settlements, seven appear to arise from one agency repeating an identical clause in its agreements without regard to the circumstances of each case. The audit’s findings indicate that such clauses continue to appear in sporadic cases largely due to the use of dated “boilerplate” agreement templates in some agencies. To the extent non-disclosure language remains in any form agreements, we agree it should be eliminated.
Finally, we note that the report appears to conflate non-disclosure agreements, which are forbidden by policy, with several other contract provisions, which serve legitimate purposes in appropriate circumstances. Within its definition of “confidentiality language,” the report includes “not for publication” clauses (appearing in about 100 of the 159 agreements identified as including confidentiality language) and “non-disparagement” clauses (appearing in about 10 of the 159 agreements identified as including confidentiality language). Contrary to [the Office of the State Auditor’s (OSA’s)] interpretation, neither type of clause seeks to limit a settling employee from discussing the purpose or terms of a settlement agreement.
A “not for publication” clause is a standard clause in labor grievance settlements reciting that the agreement will not be treated as precedent, whether by the settling employee, their employer, or their union. “Non-disparagement clauses” similarly do not limit employees from discussing the purpose or terms of their settlement agreements. These clauses typically involve limits on defamatory or derogatory statements, but do not limit discussion of a settlement or the reasons for a settlement. In our experience, such clauses are most commonly requested by employees themselves who seek a sense of finality and assurances against reputational harm. . . .
These points of dispute should not overshadow our fundamental agreement with OSA that non-disclosure agreements erode public trust and are largely unenforceable as a matter of law in Massachusetts.
. . . The report notes a “risk [of] confidentiality language [being] used to protect or obscure from public view repeated instances of poor management or inappropriate or unlawful behavior at agencies of government” or “public employees . . . continu[ing] to face abusive or harassing treatment from perpetrators.” While it is appropriate for the report to note this risk, we observe that the report identifies no examples of such things occurring during the audit period. . . .
To further our shared goal, the Executive Department Settlement Policy will include clear guidelines prohibiting the use of non-disclosure language except in highly limited circumstances where unusual privacy interests may be at stake, such as a demonstrated safety need to protect a complainant’s identity from public disclosure.
Auditor’s Reply
In its response, GOV cited a statement within the CTR Settlements and Judgments Policy explaining to departments that “confidentiality language mandating that a settlement or settlement terms be kept confidential may not be enforceable”; that “[c]onfidentiality provisions will not create protections that do not already exist under the Public Records Law or other statutory bar to disclosure”; and that “the name of a recipient payee of a settlement or judgment payment made from the settlement and judgment account is considered a public record.” We again note here that CTR’s policy and regulations are not enforceable policy by the employer—they do not bind an agency in an executive office to any particular course of action related to settlement agreements. In the instances cited, these statements appear to provide information and advise state agencies. They do not prohibit state agencies from using clauses that restrict either party’s ability to speak out about the settlement agreement.
These statements do communicate to agencies that confidentiality clauses “may not be enforceable”. This language simply means that a settlement agreement that contains a confidentiality clause or agreement may not be able to be enforced by either party. There is no policy, however, prohibiting or permitting them or regulating their use. Additionally, we are concerned that an employee who enters into a settlement agreement with a confidentiality clause is unlikely to be familiar with CTR Settlements and Judgments Policy and may not understand that this clause may be unenforceable. Including such a clause in a settlement agreement, while unenforceable, may result in an employee’s right to disclose or discuss the terms and circumstances of their settlement agreement being unlawfully restricted.
As we were told and as GOV stated in its reply, there was supposed communication around 2018 to allegedly, generally preclude the use of non-disclosure agreements. As noted in our audit there was no documented evidence to confirm this claim. We were therefore unable to review any documentation of what this supposed communication said, what confidentiality clauses were supposedly prohibited from use, and what exceptions could supposedly be made in their use.
Despite these allegedly promulgated policies to prevent the use of settlement agreements including non-disclosure language or other similar clauses, it is important the Governor’s Office recognize and accept that settlement agreements which included confidentiality language continued to be executed well after 2018. We remain concerned that GOV appears to still not recognize the significance of this issue as it claims these policies exist while simultaneously failing to produce any supporting documentation to support its claims—also recognizing that these agreements were nonetheless executed between 2018 and 2022, despite supposed verbal policies being conveyed and implemented.
Our audit teams place a higher bar on policies that we cannot even review and which purport to “generally” perform certain tasks. In other high-profile instances, without strong controls, “generally following” a policy, law or standard has been used to justify non-compliance and occasional outright abuse. In our recent audit of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority, we found significant challenges with supposed, general compliance with Chapter 30B of the Massachusetts General Laws (public purchasing law).
“General” compliance seemed to have been used as an excuse for non-compliance. GOV’s response states that “Governor Healey and Lieutenant Governor Driscoll have been outspoken in their direction to executive branch offices and agencies” that “nondisclosure agreements are not to be used.” However, we were not provided with any documentation to support this statement.
We note that this claim is regarding a time period which our team did not include in the audit report. However, since GOV chose to raise this in its response, we will comment that what we do know, as GOV is aware, is that the Auditor did draft an executive order for the Governor’s and Lieutenant Governor’s review regarding the use of non-disclosure agreements across executive branch offices and met with them to discuss the matter. Neither the Auditor, nor this office, received any conclusory communication in return—verbal or otherwise—that demonstrated that the Lieutenant Governor or Governor had even reviewed any of the matters raised by the Auditor in her draft executive order. Should GOV wish to provide documented examples of the Governor and Lieutenant Governor being “outspoken in their direction to executive branch offices and agencies” that “nondisclosure agreements are not to be used”, we would welcome the opportunity to examine such examples so as to include them in our Post Audit Review.
Our team does appreciate and recognize that in GOV’s written response to our audit finding, it states, “Government benefits from transparency, and anyone who has suffered mistreatment should have the right to tell their story and advocate for change.”
We agree. We caution, however, that all agencies are not required to follow the Administration’s statement of opinion on these matters, true and heartfelt as it may be. We commend the administration on making this statement in response to our audit findings yet emphasize that the previous Administration was also said to have made similar statements regarding the use of these agreements, and yet these agreements continued to be executed. And a gubernatorial successor could have a different opinion regarding these matters. Therefore, while these words are very important and meaningful, this administration has the power and, therefore the responsibility, to implement regulations and to propose laws, that are appropriately monitored and overseen, to help ensure the increased accountability and transparency that is sorely needed around the use of confidentiality provisions that leverage taxpayer dollars across executive offices and agencies. We urge GOV to act with a sense of urgency.
GOV states in its response that it agrees to include in its proposed Executive Department Settlement Policy “clear guidelines prohibiting the use of non-disclosure language except in highly limited circumstances where unusual privacy interests may be at stake, such as a demonstrated safety need to protect a complainant’s identity from public disclosure.” This demonstrates that GOV agrees that the lack of a documented policy over the use of non-disclosure language exists and should be clarified in a written policy. We wish to note that these “highly limited circumstances where unusual privacy interests may be at stake” should be clearly articulated, subject to a rigorous documented request and review process, and subject to a fully documented oversight process to ensure that carve outs and exemptions are not abused to conceal illegal, unlawful or unethical actions. We strongly recommend GOV revisit recommendation 4 and commit to taking stronger steps to help ensure accountability.
GOV’s response claims that our report “conflates” non-disclosure agreements with those containing other contract provisions such as “not for publication” and “non-disparagement” clauses. It certainly does not. The information and tables in this finding clearly break down and differentiate the different types of confidentiality language reviewed by our audit team. We hope GOV will reexamine what is clearly apparent in this finding that gives insight into the breakdown of its agencies’ self-reported settlement claims regarding the use of different types of confidentiality provisions.
Conversely, GOV appears to be conflating “non-disclosure agreements” with those containing other contract provisions such as “not for publication” and “non-disparagement” clauses—potentially for the purposes of minimizing the overarching issue, that our office found no effective system in place for tracking, monitoring and preventing the abuse of confidentiality provisions in taxpayer-funded settlement agreements that could result in protecting bad actors and silencing victims. We don’t know, what we don’t know—and we don’t know nearly as much as we should regarding the use, and potential abuse, of these confidentiality provisions and our taxpayer dollars due to the significant scope limitations repeatedly referenced in this report. We urge the Governor’s Office to fully recognize our valid and appropriate concerns without attempting to minimize the findings highlighted in this report—as that does not serve the taxpayer or our shared desire to protect victims rather than perpetrators of abuse in our own state government.
We reviewed employee settlement agreements for not only confidential/non-disclosure language but also for other language restricting an employee’s ability to discuss the terms, conditions, circumstances, etc. surrounding their employee settlement agreement or the issues related to their employment. As one example, “non-disparagement” clauses can prevent a former employee from discussing their prior employment, their employer or the circumstances around their departure because those circumstances would be viewed as disparaging of an agency. While we accept that “not for publication” may be standard language in labor grievance settlements with a particular meaning, this limited meaning may not be clear to an employee unfamiliar with labor law, especially when other terminology, such as “this agreement shall not establish a precedent” is not used. It is reasonable to foresee the risk that an employee may construe that phrase literally and conclude that they are unable to talk openly or otherwise publish the terms, conditions, circumstances, etc. surrounding their employee settlement agreement.
Non-disparagement clauses, particularly those imposed on employees entering into settlement agreements, are clearly restrictive and do limit an employee’s ability to freely discuss the terms, conditions, circumstances, etc. surrounding their employee settlement agreement. The abuse of “non-disparagement clauses” to limit an employee’s ability to discuss their experiences pertaining to unlawful or unethical behaviors and conduct, is not only inconsistent with best practices and public policy but may be unenforceable. Employees entering into these types of settlement agreements may not be aware of these facts since these alleged policies have not been communicated clearly or in writing, as we were informed, even to the state agencies that would be entering into these agreements.
There is an unclear picture on the true number of settlement agreements and non-disclosure agreements entered into by agencies across Massachusetts because many agencies could not produce records we requested and because we were denied the opportunity to review documents needed to conduct our Data Reliability Assessment. We believe GOV’s conclusions regarding the number of non-disclosure agreements entered into are self-serving, as GOV has refused to allow us to access documents needed to complete our review. Because we had to rely on self-reported and unverified data, the total number of agreements could indeed be much larger than what agencies willingly reported, contrary to GOV’s statements regarding the alleged rarity of their use as stated in GOV’s response below:
GOV asserts in its response that “the use of non-disclosure agreements in employee settlements was rare during the audit period, particularly in recent years . . . 2018 and 2022.”
Quite the contrary, our report calls out the unfortunate reality that we were disappointingly unable to draw these types of broader-based conclusions, in one way or another, because GOV and executive offices and agencies only provided us access to documents that they could allegedly find while preventing our office from verifying its claims. Our audit report simply reflects the number of self-reported non-disclosure agreements we were provided access to, rather than a complete population, verified for accuracy. So while GOV may indeed actually believe that fewer than, “60 settlements during the audit period included language indicating that a settlement or settlement terms should be kept confidential” these claims were not able to be verified because of the scope limitations cited in this report. We do not believe that GOV or its executive agencies know the full scope of the use of confidentiality provisions used in settlement agreements. We find this to be problematic.
Our office has strong concerns that, based on its response, GOV appears to still not fully recognize the glaring issue that we were not able to verify claims regarding the use of settlement agreements containing non-disclosure language or other similar clauses due to significant scope limitations. As a result, none of us can really know how large this issue is or whether or not the Office of the Governor or executive agencies may be hiding certain, unflattering or unlawful non-disclosure or other types of confidentiality agreements.
Especially concerning is that, in its footnoted response, GOV claims:
The report notes a “risk [of] confidentiality language [being] used to protect or obscure from public view repeated instances of poor management or inappropriate or unlawful behavior at agencies of government” or “public employees . . . continu[ing] to face abusive or harassing treatment from perpetrators.” While it is appropriate for the report to note this risk, we observe that the report identifies no examples of such things occurring during the audit period.
We note that our audit identifies multiple instances, highlighted in Appendix A, regarding the use of confidentiality provisions in cases of alleged harassment or discrimination. GOV should revisit its opinion stated in its footnoted comment above and ensure that its new policies, reflect a deep understanding of the rationale used for its executed confidentiality agreements. Executive office and agencies themselves gave us the list of settlement agreements that we examined and therefore should know, clearly, what agreements they gave to our team for inclusion in this report.
It is concerning that this footnoted statement, appears not to fully contemplate that, where there are potential, repeated instances of “poor management or inappropriate or unlawful behavior”, there are concerns that these documents/records may have indeed been inappropriately destroyed or inappropriately withheld from our audit team. The obscurity only further demonstrates the real and urgent need for significantly increased accountability, oversight and management, by GOV, of these agreements across state government.
We cannot know if there are many, many more confidentiality agreements floating around state agencies, and our Governor’s office, that this report was not able to identify. Because of scope limitations, we cannot say for certain how many more settlement agreements that include confidentiality language actually exist. This should concern the Office of the Governor.
We appreciate the acknowledgment that, while the use of confidentiality provisions may be related to an agency’s use of a boilerplate template, this is yet another reason to provide much stronger oversight and ensure that such templates are regularly reviewed and updated to ensure they no longer include such restrictive language. This also emphasizes the critical importance of clearly written policies, procedures, executive orders and laws, including ongoing monitoring, by GOV and appropriate other agencies to ensure instances of noncompliance are identified and addressed to increase transparency and accountability and to protect employees and taxpayer dollars.
With respect to non-disparagement and not for publication clauses, there was no documented policy provided to us by any agency on the use of these types of confidentiality clauses in employee settlement agreements. Additionally, there was no database used by state agencies denoting which settlement agreements contained confidentiality clauses. Therefore, when executive offices and agencies were compiling listings of employee settlement agreements for us to use in our audit, we were only able to draw conclusions regarding self-reported settlement agreements containing these clauses. Based on its response, GOV may take some measures to address our recommendations. However, also based on its response, we remain concerned and encourage GOV to ensure its proposed solutions are sufficient so executive offices and agencies do not suffer from same lack of oversight and enforcement noted throughout our audit.
Any policies, regulations, executive orders or laws implemented to address these issues should include a balancing test to ensure the privacy rights of the individual(s) involved in a settlement agreement are measured against the public’s right to know how state funds are spent, if there is mismanagement or mistreatment of employees occurring, and if there is unlawful or unethical behavior within executive offices and agencies.
| Date published: | January 28, 2025 |
|---|