Overview
During the course of this audit, we sought to conduct a Data Reliability Assessment (DRA) of settlement agreements provided to us by the auditees. As part of this DRA, we attempted to verify that the settlement agreements provided to us represented all settlement agreements that existed. We utilized audit software to take a random sample of all state employees employed during the audit period and requested access to the personnel records for the employees identified in this random sample. The purpose of this aspect of the DRA was to determine if settlement agreements or other indicators of settlement agreements existed in these records and if we were provided a complete listing of settlement agreements.
As noted in our audit, auditees refused to permit our office to conduct this aspect of the DRA at the direction of the Office of the Governor. Specifically, the Office of the Governor claimed that Chapter 66A of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Fair Information Practices Act (FIPA), required notification to employees and the opportunity to object to allowing access to these records - records that we have express authority to access under Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the Massachusetts General Laws and which we required access to in order to complete the DRA under Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS).
We rejected this, as FIPA does not apply when there is statutory authorization. Our enabling statute is such statutory authorization, and we have an extensive track record of maintaining strict confidentiality for these and many other records. Indeed, it would make oversight meaningless, and practically impossible, if our office needed to obtain permission every time we needed to view sensitive information to conduct audits; combat waste, fraud, and abuse; review processes and procedures; or ensure the law was being followed. We note that we have not previously been required to obtain such permission in prior instances regarding such records, including to review settlement agreements, cybersecurity and ethics training records, and for other purposes.
We repeatedly, and in writing, rejected the Office of the Governor’s claim and engaged with the Office of the Attorney General to adjudicate this matter in Superior Court. Nonetheless, the Governor’s Office unilaterally decided to send letters to employees and retirees in our sample offering an opportunity to “quash” and “object” to our office’s review.
Attached in Appendix F is a letter sent to the Office of the Governor on this matter on 12-16-2024.
Our office does not discuss details of ongoing audits for the purpose of maintaining integrity in the audit process. By inappropriately disclosing sensitive information to non-auditees, the Administration compromised the integrity of our audit, which is required to be conducted in accordance with GAGAS. Additionally, the Administration’s actions resulted in unnecessary interference with our ongoing audit, which is authorized by statute. This could be perceived as an unintentional consequence of a disagreement regarding the law or as an intentional attempt to coerce or pressure our office to back off from reviewing certain records. The Office of the Governor has wrongfully assumed that it would be able to moot this very serious issue by utilizing tactics which, regardless of intent, are coercive. The Office of State Auditor reiterates that we are still pursuing court action to resolve our access to the documents that GOV and executive offices and agencies has denied to our audit team so that we may continue to conduct audits in accordance with our governing statute.
We encourage the Administration to consider the impact of these decisions on transparency, accountability, the public’s trust and our office’s ability to simply do its job and conduct independent audits that help make government work better.
| Date published: | January 28, 2025 |
|---|