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.
This performance audit included objectives to determine whether and to what extent the Massachusetts General Court (General Court; Legislature) is ensuring an equitable mode of making laws in accordance with the Preamble of the Massachusetts Constitution and whether and to what extent policies and procedures are being equitably applied to all members and staff. Due to the Legislature’s refusal to participate in the audit, we could not obtain the information necessary to draw conclusions about these objectives. However, we reviewed publicly available information on the Massachusetts General Court website, including the Senate Rules, House Rules, and Joint Rules, and found that 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.125 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.
Senate leadership positions include the President, Majority Leader, President Pro Tempore, Assistant Majority Leader(s), Majority Whip, Assistant Majority Whip, Senate Ways and Means Chair, Senate Ways and Means Vice Chair, Minority Leader, and Assistant Minority Leader(s).126 House leadership positions include the Speaker; Majority Leader; Speaker Pro Tempore; Assistant and Second Assistant Majority Leader(s); First Division, Second Division, Third Division, and Fourth Division Chair(s); House Ways and Means Chair; Minority Leader; and First, Second, and Third Assistant Minority Leader(s).127 Committee leadership positions include the Senate and/or House Chairs and Vice Chairs of the various committees.128
One trend of note is the apparent overrepresentation of leadership in Senate Standing committee chair positions. The chart below shows Senate Standing Committees where a member in a chamber leadership position also holds a committee leadership position(s). This suggests that power is concentrated amongst a limited number of members. A transparent and documented process would increase the public’s ability to hold the Legislature accountable for ensuring an equitable mode of making laws in accordance with the Massachusetts Constitution.
Senate Standing Committee Leadership129
| Senate Standing Committees | Did a Member of Senate Leadership Hold This Chair Position? | Did a Member of Senate Leadership Hold This Vice Chair Position? |
|---|---|---|
| Bills in the Third Reading | Yes | Yes |
| Ethics | No | Yes |
| Global Warming and Climate Change | Yes | Yes |
| Intergovernmental Affairs | No | No |
| Personnel and Administration | Yes | No |
| Post Audit and Oversight | No | No |
| Redistricting | Yes | No |
| Special Committee on Reimagining Massachusetts: Post-Pandemic Resiliency | N/A* | No |
| Rules | Yes | No |
| Steering and Policy | No | Yes |
| Ways and Means | Yes | No |
* For this Senate standing committee, no Chair was listed on the Massachusetts General Court website.
To help increase transparency and accountability, 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. For example, the Rules Governing Senate Committee and Subcommittee Assignment Procedures for the US Senate include a number of specific procedures to: categorize committees; limit membership on committees designated as exclusive until all members are assigned to one; provide term limits for committee chair positions; utilize committees to make recommendations for assignments considering continuity of committee service, seniority of legislative service, and preferences of the members, while also providing first-year legislators the opportunity to serve on at least one high-level committee of their choice to the extent possible, as well as considering geographical distribution and balance.130 The Rules Governing House Committee and Subcommittee Assignment Procedures for the US House of Representatives include a similar breadth of procedures.131 Greater transparency and detail regarding the Massachusetts General Court’s documented processes could increase 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.
Auditee’s Response
The Massachusetts General Court was given the opportunity and refused to participate in this audit.
Auditor’s Reply
We continue to make ourselves available to the Massachusetts General Court and encourage it to comply with Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the Massachusetts General Laws, to help make government work better.
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 t
During the course of the audit, we reviewed Senate and House Rules for high-risk policies and procedures and found that 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.
Senate Rule 62B(e) provides that “files maintained [on each procurement not executed using the statewide procurement contract and in excess of $10,000] shall be available for inspection by members of the Senate during regular business hours.” House Rule 87(e) similarly provides that such files shall be made “available for inspection . . . by members of the House.” Neither rule specifies a method by which procurement information would be made available to the public, and the Legislature exempts itself from the public records laws.133 (See Appendix D.)
We requested meetings with Massachusetts General Court personnel on various dates, and on August 8, 2023, we requested information from the Senate and House regarding their respective internal policies and procedures and data related to procurement. The Massachusetts General Court refused to participate in the audit and did not provide any information or supporting documentation regarding procurement. Accordingly, we were unable to test for compliance with the procurement processes provided in Senate Rule 62B and House Rule 87, including the seeking of proposals or competitive bids if/when required, the standards for awarding contracts, and the method(s) of procurement.
We found, however, that House Rule 85A specifically exempts procurement of an independent auditor for the purposes of auditing House financial accounts from the House’s own procurement requirements in House Rule 87. According to the Government Finance Officers Association’s (GFOA’s) Best Practices: Audit Procurement, “properly performed audits play a vital role in the public sector by helping to preserve the integrity of the public finance functions, and by maintaining citizens’ confidence in their elected leaders.”134 GFOA recommends that “governmental entities should undertake a full-scale competitive process for the selection of independent auditors at the end of the term of each audit contract, consistent with applicable legal requirements.”135 Given the exemption in House Rule 85A and our lack of access to internal policies or procedures, we were unable to determine the procurement process for independent financial audit services. We were able to access limited, publicly available information through CTHRU for payments made to audit firm vendors, totaling $192,660 during the last 11 years. The chart below details the amounts posted in CTHRU.
Payments to the Audit Firm Posted in CTHRU136
| Fiscal Year | Senate | House | Joint | Total* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | $ 3,000 | $ 3,000 | $ 3,000 | $ 9,000 |
| 2015 | $ 3,000 | $ 3,000 | $ 3,000 | $ 9,000 |
| 2016 | $ 9,000 | $ 9,000 | $ 9,000 | $ 27,000 |
| 2017 | $ 7,500 | $ 7,500 | $ 7,500 | $ 22,500 |
| 2018 | $ 6,500 | $ 2,500 | $ 2,500 | $ 11,500 |
| 2019 | $ 2,500 | $ 6,500 | $ 6,500 | $ 15,500 |
| 2020 | $ 7,000 | $ 7,000 | $ 7,000 | $ 21,000 |
| 2021 | $ 7,000 | $ 3,500 | $ 3,500 | $ 14,000 |
| 2022 | $ 4,000 | $ 7,500 | $ 7,500 | $ 19,000 |
| 2023 | $ 3,000 | $ 3,000 | $ 3,000 | $ 9,000 |
| 2024 | $ 13,260 | $ 10,950 | $ 10,950 | $ 35,160 |
| Total* | $ 65,760 | $ 63,450 | $ 63,450 | $ 192,660 |
* Discrepancies in totals are due to rounding.
To help increase transparency and accountability, 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. In addition, 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.
Auditee’s Response
The Massachusetts General Court was given the opportunity and refused to participate in this audit.
Auditor’s Reply
We continue to make ourselves available to the Massachusetts General Court and encourage it to comply with Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the General Laws, to help make government work better.
| Date published: | October 21, 2024 |
|---|