HOW I VOTED ON H.5469

SUBJECT: AUDIT AND PUBLIC RECORDS

On Wednesday, June 3, 2026 the House passed, H.5469, An Act promoting

transparency and public access in state government, 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.

MY VOTE

I voted YES on H.5469, which passed the House by a vote of 125 Yes, 28 No.

WHY VOTED YES

In 2024, I voted yes on the audit question because I believed it was important to indicate to the Legislature through the ballot that there is a need for greater transparency. I also believed then, as I do now, that there are important constitutional issues surrounding this ballot question, particularly as it relates to the Auditor’s stated intention to review how the House operates (for example, how the Speaker or leadership make decisions around who is appointed to what committee). That is an important issue because the Legislature can’t tell the Executive or Judicial Branch who to hire or why, or instruct a jury how to vote or demand that jury explain why they voted the way they did – and vice versa for the Legislature.

After I was sworn in, I proudly voted for new transparent, open, House and Joint

House/Senate rules. It is of important note that until the 194th session (current), it had

been years since the House and Senate agreed to joint rules. The joint and House

rules we adopted require public disclosure of committee votes, taking and making public committee attendance and setting a timeline for when committees must take action on bills it has heard – all to name a few. And, as part of the rules we adopted, the House gave the Auditor, consistent with the ballot question, the ability to select the independent auditor to conduct the audit of the House.

Link: https://www.staterepmarksylvia.com/post/h-2024-h-2026

As it related to the audit, I learned something I did not know during the campaign, that each year the House and Senate conduct independent audits of their operating budgets and post them on its website.

Link: https://malegislature.gov/ClerksOffice/House/Audits

Since then and as a result of dispute between the Auditor and the Attorney General on the scope of the audit in determining legal representation, the Supreme Judicial Court confirmed what the scope of the audit is. It did not include a review of how the Speaker or leadership make committee appointments or office assignments. The scope is as follows:

The court-approved scope of the document requests includes:

• 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.

It is important to point out that most of this information is already publicly available.

With the scope of the audit clarified by the courts and agreed to by the Auditor, the Legislature acted accordingly, and that is why I voted YES.

---

H.5469 not only authorizes the House to provide the information referenced above, (as clarified by the SJC), the bill empowers the Auditor to now conduct the annual operating budget audit for the House, meaning the House and Senate will no longer conduct the annual audit through an independent auditor – it is the Auditor’s responsibility.

I’ve had the opportunity to speak with constituents before and after this vote and am grateful to everyone that has reached out by email, phone or stopped me on the street to discuss this topic. It does sadden me, particularly in my first term and as someone who believes in and strives for good government everyday - that this issue has added to the disappointment and distrust that voters have for our government. I will continue to fight for transparency, honesty, openness and accessibility as an individual representative, as I do with my “How I Voted”.

But I also think it is important to stand up for what I believe is right on behalf of my constituents and to ensure that the public has all of the facts.

When I speak to constituents about this issue I break it down as follows:

1. If you believe you voted for the audit to review state spending, like roads, state agencies, social programs, emergency shelters, public safety, parks etc., that is currently the responsibility of the State Auditor’s Office, since 1849 when the Legislature created the Office of State Auditor (In 1855, there was a constitutional amendment to elect the Auditor). We did not need a ballot question to empower the State Auditor or the Inspector General to review the spending and operations of state agencies. The Legislature appropriates the funds and the Executive and Judicial branches spend the money.

Auditor Link: https://www.mass.gov/orgs/office-of-the-state-auditor

Inspector General Link: https://maoig.gov/

You can also track state pending on the Office of the Comptroller’s Office here:

https://www.macomptroller.org/cthru/

2. If you believe you voted for the audit to review the House or Senate operating budgets (House’s operating budget is ~$50 million), as mentioned above, there is an annual independent audit done by each chamber. You can find the completed audits here: https://malegislature.gov/ClerksOffice/House/Audits

And as referenced above, by our voting to pass H.5469 (which still must be taken up by the Senate and signed by the Governor to become law), we have now empowered the Auditor to do that administrative audit, not the Legislature.

I support this, because I believe it is consistent with what was passed by the

voters.

3. If you believe you voted for the audit to review how the House and Senate are led, meaning how committee assignments made or who is selected for which leadership role, that’s where I believe the true separate of powers issues resides. The voters hold their elected representatives and senators accountable for their votes, which include electing the Speaker and the Senate President.

I have shared with constituents that have asked, what my experience has been in terms of committee assignments, etc. As an example, when we are sworn in, we are asked to provide a list of three committees we would like to be appointed to. In addition to listing the committees I was interested in serving on, I included some narrative explaining why the committees I selected were important to our district. Leadership then takes those lists and makes assignments. To me, once I am assigned to a committee, whether it was on my list or not, I will work hard to be the best representative for my district on that committee.

4. From the moment this ballot question passed, by 72% of the votes (including me), there has been disagreement and debate, and unfortunately, division as a result. So where do we go from here. The House has passed a bill, the Senate has passed a resolution, both to comply with the scope that has been established through the judicial process. The Auditor will pursue her litigation and at some point either legislatively, through the courts or a combination of the two, this matter will come to an end.

This all demonstrates a few things that need to change, to which I will continue to

dedicate my public service to:

1. The ballot initiative process must be updated to resolve any questions of constitutionality well before signatures are collected and the voters vote on it. Imagine if the constitutionality of this ballot question was fully determined before it was voted on. If it were deemed constitutional, there would be no dispute at what the voters voted for by 72%. Alternatively if it were deemed unconstitutional, either there would be a question drafted that was or this matter would not be subject to a ballot question.

2. The facts truly matter – what we all actually voted for (or against), what the scope is, is this duplicative, is the legislature already audited, what is the role of the auditor or the inspector general? Facts exist on all of these questions and understanding them gives an important perspective. And in world where we are all in constant social media overload – it is hard to parse fact from opinion or fiction.

3. Voters are frustrated – not just about this and certainly not just at the state level. It is incumbent on us elected officials to do what we can to listen, to share information and certainly to engage with our constituents. Unfortunately, this issue has become a lightning rod for mistrust in our government – in our own ways and collectively, including the Auditor and the Legislature and all of our elected officials, we need to come together.

It also means that this has to be resolved, whether by legislation or more likely (and expeditiously) by the legal process and ultimately the Supreme Judicial Court. It is my hope that happens because in the shared government / checks and balances government we have in Massachusetts (as the longest living constitutional government in the world), it is the courts that adjudicate disputes like this.

SUMMARY

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 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.

NEXT STEPS

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

for consideration.

###

HELPFUL LINKS

1. Roll Call: file:///Users/msylv/Downloads/hj06032026_RollCalls%20(2).pdf

2. Bill Tracker: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/H5469