Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey punts on if she supports bills on legislative audit

Tim Dunn, Boston Herald on Jun 9, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

BOSTON — Gov. Maura Healey played hot potato with a question on bills that would limit the scope of a legislative audit, refusing to say whether she supports them or not.

The legislation just passed the House and Senate and it would limit the scope of a legislative audit, ban the courts from adjudicating any future disputes regarding public records access, and would allow the Legislature to object to cooperating with any audit it sees fit, among other measures.

The ongoing legal drama surrounding the audit, approved by 72% of Massachusetts voters in the 2024 election, has become quite the political hot potato for Healey, who has publicly expressed her support for the audit, but has not gone beyond that with any substantive actions.

“I’ve been clear about the audit. I support the audit, I think it should happen. I voted for the audit, and I’m really clear about it,” Healey said Tuesday when asked by the Herald if she supports either of the bills, before abruptly ending the press conference.

“What about the House and Senate bills, specifically?” said the Herald, pressing Healey on the issue as she walked away without delivering an answer.

Last week, following the House passage of its new Transparency bill, state Auditor Diana DiZoglio blasted Speaker Ron Mariano, D-Quincy, and other House members, also calling on Healey to veto the bill.

“They are painting this as some sort of a transparency measure. They are conducting a victory lap right now for themselves, patting themselves on the back for helping to ensure transparency and accountability and using all the buzzwords,” DiZoglio said in a video posted to X slamming the legislation.

“Disempowering the courts, further empowering themselves. I don’t recognize our state legislature right now. I don’t recognize what they are doing right now as being anything even close to what a democratic government looks like. They get together behind closed doors with people calling themselves transparency advocates who are friends of the establishment. They get them to say a couple of nice things about what’s happening, probably having traded something for themselves in it,” she said.

Called An Act Promoting Transparency and Public Access in State Government, it would only allow an audit of the limited records outlined by the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in its recent order, which includes the adoption of the official budget by both chambers, expenditures, joint legislative operations, and monetary settlement agreements all dating back to 2021.

It would also exempt the Legislature from the public records law, which it already is under current state law, but would enforce the Governor’s office to comply with it. Currently, Massachusetts is the only state in the U.S. where the governor, legislature and judiciary are all exempt from the public records law.

Additionally, the House bill would bar the courts from adjudicating any future disputes regarding access to public records, instead establishing a “dispute resolution process” between the Auditor’s office and the Legislature to avoid “endless and costly litigation.”

The House proposal came a week after the Senate voted 33-6 in favor of a resolution that allows the audit to be carried out, but with extensive limitations, something Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Worcester & Hampden) described as “a retreat dressed up as a magnanimous gesture, with an audit escape hatch.”

The “escape hatch” Fattman referred to can be found in Line 61 of the resolution and would allow the Senate to not cooperate with the audit, stating “the senate reserves all its rights to object to any such audit, present or future, and on any grounds.”

----------