Office of the Governor
The Office of the Governor (GOV) was established under Section I of Chapter II of the Constitution of the Commonwealth. It consists of the Offices of the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor, both of whom are elected every 4 years. During the audit period, Governor and Lieutenant Governor oversaw a cabinet consisting of the secretaries of the following offices:
| Executive Office for Administration and Finance | Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development |
| Executive Office of Education | Executive Office of Public Safety and Security |
| Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs | Executive Office of Technology Services and Security |
| Executive Office of Health and Human Services | Massachusetts Department of Transportation |
| Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities | Executive Office of Veterans Services |
| Executive Office of Economic Development |
Each secretary is appointed by the Governor and is responsible for overseeing the activities of the executive departments and other agencies within the secretariat. GOV sets policy for implementation by all cabinet secretariats, agencies, offices, commissions, boards, and other entities within the state executive department to achieve GOV’s mission.
According to GOV’s internal control plan,
The Office of the Governor is committed to making Massachusetts a truly great place for all individuals to live, work, start a business, raise a family, and reach their full potential. It will work toward a growing economy with family-sustaining jobs; ensure that schools across the Commonwealth provide opportunity for every child regardless of zip code; improve the delivery of state services; and make Beacon Hill a true partner with our local governments to create safer and thriving communities across Massachusetts.
Office of the Comptroller of the Commonwealth
According to the Office of the Comptroller of the Commonwealth’s (CTR’s) website,
[CTR’s] mission is to oversee the Commonwealth’s financial systems, promoting integrity, mitigating risk, and providing accurate reporting and promoting transparency to illustrate the financial health of Massachusetts. . . . We promote accountability, integrity, and clarity in Commonwealth business, fiscal, and administrative enterprises.
CTR is an independent agency established by Section 1 of Chapter 7A of the Massachusetts General Laws. The Comptroller is the administrative and executive head of CTR and is appointed by the Governor for a term that runs concurrently with the Governor’s term.
Section 2 of Chapter 7A of the General Laws establishes an advisory board to the Comptroller as follows:1
There shall be an advisory board to the comptroller which shall consist of the attorney general, the treasurer, the secretary of administration and finance who shall be the chairman, the auditor, the court administrator of the trial court, and two persons who have experience in accounting, management, or public finance who shall be appointed by the governor. . . .
Said advisory board shall provide advice and counsel to the comptroller in the performance of his duties. The advisory board shall be responsible for reviewing any rules or regulations promulgated by the comptroller prior to their implementation. The advisory board shall also review prior to publication the annual financial report of the commonwealth published by the comptroller.
CTR oversees more than $131 billion in state spending. Its offices are located at 1 Ashburton Place in Boston.
Employee Complaints
This audit encompasses some, but not all, government and quasi-government agencies in 3 primary categories:
- state universities and colleges;
- community colleges; and
- independent and quasi-state agencies.
As part of our audit, we reviewed agreements and policy documents that outline the complaint and grievance processes used to address employee complaints and reach an agreed-upon resolution. Employees of community colleges and state universities who are represented by unions use collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) to resolve these issues. These CBAs are negotiated on behalf of these colleges and universities by the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education (BHE).2 For non-union professionals (NUPs), BHE developed separate handbooks for community colleges and universities. Independent and quasi-state agencies provided us with documentation to support their unique processes for handling employee complaints to reach an agreed-upon resolution.
General Complaint Process
In general, agencies establish internal complaint procedures to address employment and payroll concerns on the part of an employee. All processes encourage an attempt at resolution through informal discussion with an immediate supervisor. Should the attempt at mutual resolution fail, the employee may escalate their concern to the next level of management. This may include an area manager, human resources office designee, and/or executive office representative.
In each step, the goal is to resolve the matter in a fair and equitable manner within a reasonable timeframe while preserving the confidentiality and privacy of those involved to the extent feasible, thus avoiding lengthy and expensive litigation for both parties.
CBA Grievance Process
The grievance process for unionized employees is initiated with a written complaint setting forth the grievance,3 including the known facts pertaining to an alleged breach of the CBA. A breach generally impacts the terms of employment with respect to wages and/or working conditions.
Should an employee report allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation, they are encouraged to proceed under BHE’s “Policy on Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity & Diversity,” which contains a separate grievance procedure in a forum devoted exclusively to those issues.
For educational agencies, in addition to filing formal complaints of sexual harassment with a Title IX coordinator4 or their designee, complainants may also file a criminal complaint with the campus police/public safety office, the local police department where the incident occurred, and/or other state and federal law enforcement agencies. Complainants can make both a criminal report and a report to the university and do not have to choose one or the other. However, reports to law enforcement and/or criminal complaints do not constitute a formal complaint to the university under BHE’s “Policy on Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity & Diversity,” unless they meet the criteria specified in the Title IX Sexual Harassment Complaint Process.5
The grievance process encourages the use of best efforts to come to an informal and prompt settlement of grievances. In some agencies this is considered the first step of the grievance process.
Grievances that are not resolved informally may be escalated to a 3-step process with the potential for resolution at each step. Each stage has different initiation steps, time limits, and response timeframes; however, the structure is the same. Step 1 is a formal presentation to the college or university president or their designee in an attempt to resolve the issue. Step 2 is informal mediation between the parties. This informal mediation is an off-the-record process for free disclosure and discussion with an agreed-upon mediator in order for the parties to reach an agreement. The third and final internal step is arbitration. An assigned arbitrator conducts the proceedings in accordance with the rules and regulations of the American Arbitration Association.6
NUP Grievance Process
BHE’s NUP handbooks outline a 3-step process initiated by an employee’s written complaint with their immediate supervisor or human resources, who meet and attempt to reach a resolution. The second step involves the employee requesting a hearing. The third step is an appeal for review by the college or university president for a final decision.
State Employee Settlement Agreements
Initial research revealed that state agencies did not have a consistent, comprehensive, established definition of what constitutes a state employee settlement agreement. In our opinion, this creates a risk of unfair, disparate treatment, as well as a lack of transparency for settlement activity across state government. For the sake of consistency in the audit, we defined a state employee settlement as a settlement resulting from a formal claim7 (a union or non-union grievance, complaint, or lawsuit) against a state agency brought by a current or former employee.
State employee settlement agreements can result from claims, including, but not limited to, discipline and termination, discrimination, position classifications, employment conditions, promotion, vacation, and sick leave. Claims also include complaints settled through the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission, Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, Massachusetts Department of Labor Relations, Massachusetts Human Resources Division, and grievance procedures as part of CBAs.
The Office of the Attorney General (AGO) is only involved in another state agency’s settlement process if that process goes to court. For the purposes of this audit, we reviewed state employee settlement agreements that resulted in monetary and non-monetary awards.
During the audit, we requested from all agencies listed in Appendix C all policies and procedures in effect during the audit period regarding the use of state employee settlement agreements. Most agencies did not have their own internal policy on how a state employee settlement agreement is defined, when one would be considered or used, or how one would be developed.
State agencies instead cited guidance from CTR that provided details on how CTR defines a state employee settlement agreement. Agencies informed us that they follow CTR’s policy for processing and reporting on state employee settlement agreements. CTR uses this definition to identify state employee settlement agreements that are able to be paid by the Settlement and Judgment fund administered by CTR. This guidance does not serve as agency policy regarding the development or use of state employee settlement agreements. This policy relates to the payment of settlements and provides only limited instruction on what a state agency should do when it receives claims or other complaints.
The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport), a quasi-state agency, is not directly overseen by the state government but does receive oversight from a board of directors. Because of this, it is not subject to CTR’s regulation and policy regarding employee settlement agreements and payments. Massport’s secretary-treasurer has the authority to execute settlements in consultation with the chief executive officer and executive director or chief of staff. Massport provided us with an internal policy detailing the approvals needed for settlement claims against Massport over certain dollar thresholds and quarterly reporting of litigation to its board before the commencement of any action.
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG), an independent agency, provided June 2024 administrative guidance for handling settlements in accordance with CTR’s policy.
Settlement and Judgment Fund
The Settlement and Judgment fund is a reserve appropriation within the Commonwealth’s annual budget. It was created in 1985 and is administered by CTR to fund certain court judgments, settlements, and legal fees. A state agency entering into an employee settlement may use the Settlement and Judgment fund administered by CTR.
CTR promulgated Section 5 of Title 815 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR), which documents how state employee settlement agreements are to be paid for by state agencies. According to 815 CMR 5.01, this regulation was established for the following purpose:
(1) The purpose of [this regulation] is to clarify the procedures by which agencies may preserve the availability of funds and may obtain access to funds for the payment of judgments and settlements. Such clarification will:
(a) Aid agencies in making the payment of judgments and settlements a part of their current year operation or capital project budgeting; and
(b) Ensure faster payment of judgments and settlements, which will lessen the waiting time for successful claimants and litigants against the Commonwealth and its agencies and minimize the amount of any applicable interest.
(2) [This regulation] shall identify funds legally available for payment and shall minimize the need to use deficiency payments for judgments and settlements of claims against the Commonwealth. 815 CMR 5.00 shall also prevent any use by agencies of the Commonwealth of funds not legally available for payments of such judgments and settlements.
As part of administering the Settlement and Judgment fund, CTR must submit a quarterly Settlement Judgment Transparency Report8 to the Legislature to report on the financial activity of the fund. These reports do not include department-funded settlement payments because those payments fall outside the scope of the statutory reporting requirement.
Payment of State Employee Settlement Agreements
State agencies that are subject to 815 CMR 5.06 are allowed to pay state employee settlements by using either (1) the agency’s current year operating budgets (salary line items) without regard to the year in which the claim(s) arose or (2) by accessing the Settlement and Judgment fund administered by CTR. As CTR processes claims on behalf of departments, all monetary settlements9 must be reviewed by CTR prior to payment, regardless of whether they are paid from the Settlement and Judgment fund. During our audit, we identified approximately $6.8 million in state employee settlement agreements paid by the agencies under review. As part of the $6.8 million, $1,672,797 from Massport—which, as noted above, is a quasi-state agency—was not subject to the CTR reporting requirement. All other agencies in this audit are subject to 815 CMR 5.06. See the chart below for funding sources disclosed by agencies.
Source of Funding for State Employee Settlement Agreements January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024
Note: “Unspecified” represents settlements where the funding source was not specified in the documentation provided by AGO.
Under 815 CMR 5.09, agencies are required to notify CTR within 15 days when a state employee settlement agreement involves a monetary award to be paid to the current or former employee, regardless of whether that settlement is ultimately paid from the Settlement and Judgment fund. In addition to the Settlement Agreement and General Release, agency employees must submit a completed “815 CMR 5.00 Non-Tort Settlement/Judgment Authorization Form” or “S&J Form” to CTR that details information on the claimant, employment status (current or former), department, settlement type, amount of payment, amount of attorney fees, amount of any interest due,10 and payment type (through CTR or the department). CTR checks that the “S&J Form” contains approvals from the agency’s chief fiscal officer and agency counsel. In certain circumstances, approval is required from AGO and the Executive Office for Administration and Finance for state employee settlement agreements greater than $250,000.11 If the required information has been supplied, CTR continues to review the form to determine whether there is a single claimant or multiple claimants and whether the claimant’s name(s) will be withheld from public disclosure.
Claims with sufficient information provided by a department are entered as records into CTR’s Settlements and Judgments Access database. CTR conducts a secondary review of the state employee settlement agreement and payment information. CTR confirms the availability of sufficient funding to pay the claim through the Massachusetts Management Accounting and Reporting System (MMARS) and consults with the department if there are any issues. In addition, CTR ensures that payments are made using the appropriate MMARS codes for correct financial reporting. It also ensures that the department makes proper tax withholdings and tax reporting. Once the review is complete, CTR sends an approval email to the department.
Whether an agency makes a settlement payment using its department appropriations or the Comptroller makes the payment using the Settlement and Judgment fund, there is one main MMARS expenditure object code designated for employment-related settlements and judgments (A11). Within the Settlements and Judgments Access data provided to us for this audit, we found 6 MMARS object codes used by the agencies reviewed for categorizing types of payments associated with state employee settlement agreements (Appendix B). The MMARS settlement and judgment code contains employment-related claims, including any claim for damages arising out of an individual’s employment by the Commonwealth, such as awards of back pay for improper termination, lump sum awards, discrimination claim awards, emotional distress awards, and attorney fees and costs. This MMARS code does not include retroactive salary adjustments, unpaid regular time, periodic CBA increases, or any other payment adjustments that are not the result of a claim or lawsuit filed against the department that results in a court judgment, administrative order, or state employee settlement agreement.
Confidentiality Language in State Employee Settlement Agreements
During the audit period, all of the agencies under audit (with the exception of the OIG) had no documented policies in place over the use of non-disclosure agreements or confidentiality clauses related to state employee settlement agreements.
We found in our review of the CBAs and BHE’s “Policy on Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity & Diversity” that parties must maintain confidentiality during the mediation process. Neither of these describes the use of confidentiality clauses within settlement agreements. We did find that OIG developed administrative guidance in June 2024 (near the end of the audit period) that outlines provisions related to the use of non-disclosure, non-disparagement, and confidentiality in employee settlement agreements.
In response to our inquiries, some agencies informed us that they did not use non-disclosure agreements or confidentiality clauses in their state employee settlement agreements. However, the documentation provided (CBAs, NUP handbooks, employee handbooks, and policy documents) did not substantiate their claims that an internal policy existed that prevented them from using confidentiality clauses.
We noted that AGO provides guidance to all agencies’ counsel, including the special assistant attorneys general serving as agency-retained private counsel representing the Commonwealth in court proceedings. AGO explained that these guidelines prohibit the use of non-disclosure agreements in settlements but would not provide these guidelines to us, citing attorney-client privilege.
Some state employee settlement agreements have been found to be inherently public records. In [Boston] Globe Newspapers Co Inc. vs. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs et al.,a declaratory judgment, dated June 14, 2013, found that records of separations, severance, transition, or settlement agreements entered into by state agencies and public employees, or records of payments made from the Settlement and Judgment fund by the Comptroller, are public records subject to mandatory disclosure. Employee addresses, phone numbers, and other personal information can be redacted in certain cases. The court weighed whether public employees’ privacy rights take precedence over the public’s right to know about government expenditures. The court stated that a public employee’s identity and the information contained within the agreement are wholly unrelated to an individual’s privacy interest and, therefore, are not subject to privacy exemption. Therefore, the disclosure of a state employee settlement agreement with the employee’s identity, current or former work entity, the financial terms of the agreement, and various legal provisions do not imply a right to privacy.
According to A Guide to Massachusetts Public Records Law by the Public Records Division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office,
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.
While certain information could be redacted from settlement documents, the state employee settlement agreement itself is a public document subject to disclosure and public inspection.
State Employee Settlement Agreements by the Numbers
Based on state employee settlement agreement lists provided to us (totaling 250) by the agencies listed in Appendix C, and the remaining 13 state employee settlement agreements identified during our reviews, during the period January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024 agencies included as part of this audit entered into 263 state employee settlement agreements with a total reported cost of $6,762,282. For the purpose of this audit, we looked at settlement agreements, but this list also includes some arbitrations because they were originally self-reported to us as settlement agreements by auditees. At the end of the audit, some auditees sent additional documentation clarifying that these agreements were technically classified as arbitrations. These arbitrations were used to resolve claims, grievances, disagreements, etc. While this audit is focused on settlement agreements, there is also some information pertaining to some of these arbitrations because auditees original self-reported them to our office as settlement agreements.
Two hundred fifty of these 263 settlements (95%) were self-reported to the Office of the State Auditor by agencies. Additionally, we identified 6 settlement payments within CTR’s Settlements and Judgments Access database that were not included in the self-reported lists. Our review of Massport personnel files revealed an additional 7 settlements that Massport itself did not report to us, bringing the total to 263 (250 self-reported, 6 that we identified within CTR’s database, and 7 that we identified in our review of Massport personnel files) that we are aware of during the period. See the “Data Reliability Assessment” section and Finding 4 for more information. On average, across the 21 agencies included in this audit, there were 44 state employee settlement agreements per year, with an average cost of $25,712 per settlement.12 The number of state employee settlement agreements peaked in 2024, with 89 settlement agreements. See the chart below.
Settlement Activity by Year
Note: The high number of employee settlement agreements in 2024 is related to a class action lawsuit filed by 49 employees against Roxbury Community College in that year.
The dollar value of each state employee settlement agreement is determined by negotiations between the state agency and the employee or their representative. Agencies’ employee settlement costs peaked in 2022 at $2,615,543. See the chart below.
Settlement Activity Cost by Year
Note: The high settlement cost in 2022 is related in part to a large settlement with Massport for approximately $1,375,000. See additional details in Appendix A.
| Year | Sum of Dollar Amounts of Settlements |
|---|---|
| 2019 | $ 1,445,578 |
| 2020 | 475,097 |
| 2021 | 373,323 |
| 2022 | 2,615,543 |
| 2023 | 813,251 |
| 2024 | 1,039,490 |
| Grand Total | $ 6,762,282 |
Between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2024, agencies’ self-reported settlement activity ranged from 1 settlement to 63 settlements.13 Over the audit period, the 3 agencies with the highest settlement counts were Roxbury Community College (63), Middlesex Community College (24), and Bunker Hill Community College (20). The offices with the highest settlement costs over the audit period were Massport ($1,672,797), Roxbury Community College ($665,709), and Bunker Hill Community College ($583,325). See the table below.
Number of State Employee Settlement Agreements and Total Cost of Settlements by Agency during the Audit Period
| Agency | Settlements Disclosed During the Audit Period | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Berkshire Community College | 16 | $ 135,220 |
| Bridgewater State University | 18 | 182,770 |
| Bunker Hill Community College | 20 | 583,325 |
| Cape Cod Community College | 8 | 298,159 |
| Fitchburg State University | 15 | 105,932 |
| Greenfield Community College | 10 | 451,741 |
| Massachusetts College of Art and Design | 17 | 711,557 |
| Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts | 10 | 236,414 |
| Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination | 2 | 475,000 |
| Massachusetts Maritime Academy | 6 | 158,573 |
| Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance | 0 | 0 |
| Massachusetts Port Authority | 11 | 1,672,797 |
| Middlesex Community College | 24 | 83,368 |
| Nantucket County Sheriff’s Office | 0 | 0 |
| Office of the Attorney General | 10 | 196,339 |
| Office of the Commissioner of Probation | 5 | 56,825 |
| Office of the Inspector General | 1 | 93,069 |
| Roxbury Community College | 63 | 665,709 |
| Springfield Technical Community College | 10 | 226,136 |
| Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office | 0 | 0 |
| Worcester State University | 17 | 429,347 |
| Total | 263 | $6,762,282* |
* Discrepancy in total due to rounding.
Within the 263 state employee settlements identified during the audit period, we found that at least 80 of these state employee settlement agreements contained some form of confidentiality language. Additionally, 39 of the 263 state employee settlements agreements were not provided for us to review. It is possible that some additional confidentiality clauses exist that were not reported to us. See the chart below.
State Employee Settlement Agreements Containing Confidentiality Language During the Audit Period
Note: Unknown here represents state employee settlement agreements that were not provided to us for review. N/A represents 10 records that were later determined to be arbitration awards instead of state employee settlement agreements and 3 records that could not be confirmed as either an arbitration award or a state employee settlement.
Note: At the tail end of our audit, on January 14, 2026, MassArt provided us with 3 employee settlement agreements that included confidentiality language, totaling over $287,000. While we were not able to include this new information into this chart or the findings of our report due to the late nature of receiving these records, our team feels it is important to provide this additional data as this raises the amount of confidentiality language used in agreements from 80 to 83 and total dollar amount spent on confidentiality clauses from $4,178,021 to roughly $4,465,021.
Our analysis of the 80 state employee settlement agreements with confidentiality language revealed that usage varied by agency. Worcester State University used confidentiality language in 13 (76%) of its 17 state employee settlement agreements, the most during the audit period. Roxbury Community College had the highest count of settlements (28), with only 3 (11%) confirmed to contain confidentiality language, but it also did not provide 35 (56%) of the agreements requested, so these figures could be higher. Middlesex Community College, with 24 settlements, included the language in only 1 settlement. AGO and the Office of the Commissioner of Probation did not include confidentiality language at all. See the table below.
Use of Confidential Language in Employee Settlements
| Agency* | Number of Settlements with Confidentiality Language | Total Number of Settlements Received | Agency Percentage Use | Cost of Settlements with Confidentiality Language |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Berkshire Community College | 7 | 9 | 78% | $ 128,965 |
| Bridgewater State University | 12 | 18 | 67% | 57,770 |
| Bunker Hill Community College | 2 | 17 | 12% | 150,000 |
| Cape Cod Community College | 2 | 6 | 33% | 111,000 |
| Fitchburg State University | 4 | 15 | 27% | 97,352 |
| Greenfield Community College | 4 | 10 | 40% | 345,080 |
| Massachusetts College of Art and Design | 8 | 12 | 67% | 409,389 |
| Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination | 1 | 2 | 50% | 0 |
| Massachusetts Maritime Academy | 4 | 6 | 67% | 155,042 |
| Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts | 8 | 10 | 80% | 221,775 |
| Massport | 6 | 11 | 55% | 1,613,094 |
| Middlesex Community College | 1 | 24 | 4% | 0 |
| Office of the Attorney General | 0 | 10 | 0% | 0 |
| Office of the Commissioner of Probation | 0 | 5 | 0% | 0 |
| Office of the Inspector General | 1 | 1 | 100% | 93,069 |
| Roxbury Community College | 3 | 28 | 11% | 249,000 |
| Springfield Technical Community College | 4 | 10 | 40% | 156,636 |
| Worcester State University | 13 | 17 | 76% | 389,849 |
| Grand Total | 80 | 211 | 38%** | $ 4,178,021 |
* Agencies excluded from this table are the Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance, Nantucket County Sheriff’s Office, and Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office. These agencies reported that they did not have settlement agreements during the audit period.
** Note that this is the percentage of employee settlement agreements received with confidentiality language.
Note: At the tail end of our audit, on January 14, 2026, MassArt provided us with 3 employee settlement agreements that included confidentiality language, totaling over $287,000. While we were not able to include this new information into this table or the findings of our report due to the late nature of receiving these records, our team feels it is important to provide this additional data as this raises the amount of confidentiality language used in agreements from 80 to 83 and total dollar amount spent on confidentiality clauses from $4,178,021 to roughly $4,465,021.
Appendices A, D, and E present further data on a list of employee settlement agreements, confidentiality language used, and the funding sources and claim types, broken down by department.
| Date published: | January 16, 2026 |
|---|