Press Room

The Massachusetts House of Representatives today passed a bill establishing a framework to authorize the State Auditor to audit the Legislature, subjects the Governor’s Office to the existing public records law, and applies a formal public records request process to the Legislature for the first time. Together, these provisions add to previous transparency reforms pursued by the House, while affirming and preserving the constitutional privileges of the Legislature.

“This legislation was drafted in partnership with good government experts to increase access to public records from the executive and legislative branches, and to establish a clear framework for legislative audits conducted by the State Auditor. These measures will build on the rules reforms that the Legislature adopted earlier this session, and will ensure greater transparency while respecting legislative privilege and the separation-of-powers principles outlined in the state Constitution,” said House Speaker Ronald J. Mariano (D-Quincy). “We hope this legislation will put an end to protracted litigation, address an issue that may otherwise come before voters on the ballot, and allow the Legislature to refocus on the many issues facing Massachusetts residents. I want to thank Leader Peisch and the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions for their working tirelessly to gather vital feedback from transparency experts, as well as all my colleagues in the House for recognizing that these reforms are necessary to ensure that increased access to the Legislature can occur in a constitutionally viable manner.”

"This legislation represents a significant step forward in strengthening legislative transparency in the Commonwealth,” said Representative Alice H. Peisch (D-Wellesley), Assistant Majority Leader and House Chair of the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions. “It establishes a formal public records framework for the Legislature and allows the State Auditor to review legislative administrative functions. This measure is designed to balance two fundamental principles of democratic governance, the public's right to understand how government operates and the Legislature's independence in carrying out its lawmaking responsibilities. Transparency and constitutional integrity are not competing values; they are complementary ones. When thoughtfully balanced, they strengthen public trust, reinforce accountability, and increase confidence in our democratic institutions And I believe this bill strikes that balance."

"What the Massachusetts House of Representatives is doing today is choosing solutions over constitutional stalemates,” said Representative Andres X. Vargas (D-Haverhill). “Building on best practices and working with good-government experts, this bill ensures that the Governor's office will be subject to the existing public records law — a longstanding goal of public records advocates. And the House is taking the historic step of subjecting the Legislature to a new public records requirement and process — one that is consistent with leading constitutional scholars, and that, for the first time, creates a clear process and a statutory right for the public to access legislative records. This is the constitutional path to transparency."

Public Records

This bill applies the existing public records framework to the Office of the Governor for the first time for all records made or received starting January 7, 2027. This bill also creates a new section that establishes a formal framework for public access to legislative records by defining “legislative record” and a dedicated access process separate from the existing public records law.

A legislative record includes final records made or received by the General Court, or any branch, committee, member, officer, or employee thereof, in the following categories (records that would endanger safety or security, such as building blueprints, floor plans, and security protocols, are explicitly excluded):

• Legislation, resolutions, summaries, fiscal notes, and amendments filed with clerks, including names of primary sponsors and all petitioners.
• Published committee hearing notices, member attendance records, and recordings/transcripts when available.
• Written testimony, subject to committee rules protecting sensitive personal information or safety of the testifier.
• All recorded committee votes, including roll calls or electronic polls.
• Committee reports on bills (favorable, adverse, extension, and study orders).
• Senate and House rules, joint rules, and orders to adopt or amend rules.
• Daily legislative session calendars and Orders of the Day.
• Journals of the Senate and House and all recorded votes and roll calls.
• Finalized leadership and committee assignments, office assignments, legislator contact information, and legislative caucuses and members.
• Manuals or formal written employment, training, and administrative operations policies.
• Communications regarding official appointment, resignation, or removal of a legislative appointee to any commission, board, or task force.
• Final or annual reports required by law to be submitted to the General Court or clerks.
• Financial records provided to the Comptroller, including salaries, operating expenditures, and vendor expenditures.
• Final audit reports conducted under Senate/House rules or by the State Auditor under § 76.
• Written disclosures submitted by members to the clerks under G.L. c. 268A.
• List of news outlets and reporters approved to use State House rooms and facilities as members of the Massachusetts State House Press Association.
• Electoral district maps approved by the General Court and the associated geospatial files used to create the approved electoral district maps for the most recent redistricting cycle

Each chamber must appoint a Legislative Records Access Officer (LRAO) to coordinate responses to records requests and facilitate timely production. The request process closely mirrors the process under the existing public records law, including:

• Comparable time frames for responses (10 business days for an initial response; potentially 30 business days for extended response);
• The fee structure ($0.05/page cap, $25/hour cap, 4-hour free threshold, no fee for segregation/redaction unless required by law or House/Senate rules, no fee if the 10-day deadline was missed, higher fees permissible for commercial purpose requests, fee waiver available for public interest requests or financial hardship); and
• Format of records (as preferred or otherwise in searchable, machine-readable format).

If a requested record is already available on a public website, the LRAO may respond by directing the requestor to that location. In the event the LRAO denies a requested legislative record, a requestor may file a request for reconsideration within 30 days of a written denial, specifying the records sought, the grounds for dispute, and reasons the denial is inconsistent with the section.

The LRAO must issue a written final determination within 10 business days of receiving the request for reconsideration. A copy goes to the relevant branch’s Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules may, on its own initiative, review the determination and by majority vote reverse or modify it. If the Committee does not act within 30 days, the LRAO’s determination is deemed final, which may be appealed directly to the Supreme Judicial Court.

The bill authorizes an appropriation of $250,000 each for the Governor, House, Senate, and Joint Legislative Operations to support implementation costs, including technology upgrades, records management systems, and staffing.

Legislative Audit

This new section authorizes the State Auditor to audit the administrative functions of the Legislature, covering both chambers and joint legislative operations. The bill draws a critical distinction between these administrative functions, which are subject to an audit, and “constitutional functions,” which may not be audited. The definition of “administrative functions” aligns with the documents that were the subject of the Supreme Judicial Court’s (SJC) recent order, which is limited to the following functions:

• The adoption of the official budget of either branch of the general court or of joint legislative operations beginning with fiscal year 2021;
• The commissioning and receipt of any official audit of either branch of the general court or of joint legislative operations beginning with fiscal year 2021;
• The expenditure of funds appropriated to either branch of the general court or of joint legislative operations beginning with fiscal year 2021; and
• The execution of any monetary settlement agreements entered into by either branch of the general court with a member, officer or employee beginning with fiscal year 2021.

The bill delineates clear rules of engagement between the State Auditor and the General Court during any audit, in keeping with separation of powers principles.

• Audit requests must be made in writing to the presiding officer of the relevant branch, or a designated recipient under chamber rules.
• The audit request must specify, with particularity: the audit objectives, records sought, and  any anticipated interviews.
• Records available to the State Auditor are limited to the four records clarified by the SJC order, which are:
• The official budget for the respective branch or joint legislative operations,
• Copies of any official audit of the respective branch or joint legislative operations,
• A listing of all transactions related to the funds appropriated to the respective branch, including the balance forward line item where possible, and
• A listing of all monetary settlement agreements entered into by the respective branch.
• The presiding officer or designee must respond to a request for records within 60 days. The response must either: provide the records, explain in writing why particular records are unavailable, or identify the specific constitutional, statutory, or other legal basis for declining to produce records.
• In the case of an interview request, the State Auditor must provide written notice to the presiding officer identifying: the proposed interviewee’s name, the subject matter of the interview, and the specific administrative function at issue.
• The presiding officer must respond to an interview request within 30 days: authorizing the interview, authorizing with agreed conditions, or identifying the legal basis for declining.

The bill establishes a dispute resolution process that adheres to separation of powers principles and avoids endless and costly litigation. It establishes the exclusive remedy as a detailed explanation of a dispute in the final audit report, and bars judicial review of any dispute that may arise during an audit.

Having passed the House of Representatives 125-28, the bill now goes to the Senate for consideration.