By ROBERT KATZEN
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Note: Bob Katzen, editor of Beacon Hill Roll Call, has compiled summaries of the five ballot questions facing voters on November 5. Here are the first three. The rest will run next week.
QUESTION 1: Auditing the Legislature
The question asks voters if they approve of a proposed law that would allow the state auditor to audit the Legislature.
The actual language of the proposal is as follows:
“The department of the state auditor shall audit the accounts, programs, activities and functions directly related to the aforementioned accounts of all departments, offices, commissions, institutions and activities of the commonwealth, including those of districts and authorities created by the General Court and the General Court itself, and including those of the income tax division of the department of revenue, and for such purposes, the authorized officers and employees of the department of the state auditor shall have access to such accounts at reasonable times and the department may require the production of books, documents, vouchers and other records relating to any matter within the scope of an audit conducted under this section or section 13, except tax returns.”
The long trip of this question to the ballot started in 2023 when Diana DiZoglio, the newly-elected state auditor, announced she had launched an audit of the Massachusetts Legislature—something she promised in her 2022 campaign.
“As I committed, my office has begun an audit of the state Legislature,” said DiZoglio. “We hope this will increase transparency, accountability and equity in an area of state government that has been completely ignored. Historically, the Legislature has been a closed-door operation, where committee votes have been hidden from the general public and legislation has been voted on in the dark of night.”
House Speaker Ron Mariano (D-Quincy) responded. “That your office has the legal authority to conduct an audit of the General Court is a claim entirely without legal support or precedent, as it runs contrary to multiple, explicit provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution, and is wholly unnecessary as the public currently has full and ready access to the House’s financial information,” said Mariano in a letter to DiZoglio.
“All of the House’s accounts are available on the Commonwealth’s Financial Records Transparency Platform (“CTHRU”) webpage, which can be viewed at www.macomptroller.org/cthru,” continued the letter. “There are no expenditures of the House that are not posted on CTHRU and available for public inspection. Additionally, the House adopts rules for each legislative session, including a rule that requires all House accounts to be independently audited on an annual basis in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States and that the audit report be filed with the House Clerk for public inspection.”
Enter Attorney General Andrea Campbell. In November 2023, Campbell’s office stepped in, saying the auditor “does not currently have the legal authority to audit the Legislature without the Legislature’s consent.”
“Massachusetts has one of the least transparent legislatures in the country, and a legislative audit would shine sunlight on an infamously opaque body,” DiZoglio told Beacon Hill Roll Call last week. “This ballot measure would simply provide parity so that the Legislature receives the same type of audit conducted of all other state entities.
Our incredible bipartisan coalition of advocates and activists agree, including Progressive Massachusetts, Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts, Act on Mass, the Massachusetts Voter Table, the Massachusetts Democratic Party’s State Committee, the MassGOP, the Coalition to Reform our Legislature, the Pioneer Institute, MassFiscal Alliance, Our Revolution and more. Most recently, the Boston Globe Editorial Board endorsed a yes vote on Question 1, saying it’s ‘simply the right thing to do.’”
Here are the official arguments, gathered by the secretary of state, by each side of the question.
IN FAVOR: Written by Neil Morrison, Committee for Transparent Democracy, 617-297-8476 www.auditthelegislature.com
“A Yes Vote on Question 1 expressly authorizes the state auditor to audit the Massachusetts Legislature. The state auditor is independently elected by the people of Massachusetts to audit every state entity to help make government work better. The State Legislature is the only state entity refusing to be audited by the state auditor’s office.
Legislative leaders claim it is sufficient for the Legislature to conduct audits of itself through a procured private vendor. However, the Massachusetts Legislature is continuously ranked as one of the least effective, least transparent legislatures in America and is one of only four legislatures that exempts itself from public records laws. Support for this initiative will help the state auditor’s office shine a bright light on how taxpayer dollars are spent to help increase transparency, accountability and accessibility for the people of Massachusetts.
Vote “Yes” to expressly authorize the state auditor to audit the Legislature.”
AGAINST: Written by Jerold Duquette, Professor of Political Science, Central Connecticut State University, 860-832-2964 www.masspoliticsprofs.org
“A legislative audit conducted by the state auditor, who is an executive branch official, without the Legislature’s consent would violate the separation of powers and legislative supremacy described in and required by the Massachusetts Constitution. The performance audits conducted by the state auditor measure administrators’ performance in achieving the legislatively determined goals of the public policies they administer.
The state auditor cannot substitute her interpretation of those goals for the Legislature’s without compromising the constitutional independence and preeminence of the Legislature. If enacted, Question 1 would make the state auditor into a political actor and a potentially influential participant in the legislative process, two roles that would clearly compromise the state auditor’s ability to carry out her fundamental constitutional duty to conduct credible, independent, objective and nonpartisan audits of state government departments and programs.”
QUESTION 2: Eliminate MCAS
as graduation requirement
The question asks voters if they approve of a proposed law that would eliminate the current requirement that in order to get a high school diploma, a student must pass the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests in mathematics, science, technology and English. This requirement would be replaced by a requirement that the student complete coursework certified by the student’s district as demonstrating mastery of the competencies contained in the state academic standards in mathematics, science and technology and English, as well as any additional areas determined by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.
WHAT SUPPORTERS SAY: “The Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) and the other supporters of Question 2 were certainly pleased to see polling indicative of strong public support for replacing the MCAS graduation requirement with a more authentic assessment of students’ academic work and achievement,” MTA President Max Page and Vice President Deb McCarthy told Beacon Hill Roll Call last week. “Between now and Election Day, we will just keep doing what we have been doing all year: Talking to voters. Thousands of classroom educators have knocked on doors and made phone calls, explaining what Question 2 does and listening to stories from people adversely affected by the MCAS graduation requirement.”
“Opponents of Question 2 are attempting to mislead the public into thinking the ballot measure eliminates the MCAS altogether or dismantles our state’s high academic standards,” said Page and McCarthy. “Both claims are false. MCAS exams fulfill a federal requirement, and the ballot question does not seek to end their use. MCAS exams will continue to be given just as they are now, and the tests will yield the same data.”
The pair continued, “The state’s uniform academic standards exist independently of the assessment tool. In fact, educators will be able to more fully immerse students in standards-based content once (they are) free to better diversify teaching strategies that accommodate all learning styles. Public education needs to focus on preparing students for the workforce, higher education and career training. Our partners in the business world and from colleges and universities tell us we accomplish those goals by developing students’ abilities to be critical thinkers, problem solvers and team players. The standardized MCAS exams do not focus on those skills and should not be a tool used to hold back students.”
WHAT OPPONENTS SAY: “Having a single, statewide standard for graduation has raised expectations in ways that have resulted in greater equity and achievement for all students,” Dom Slowey, spokesman for the Vote No on 2 campaign told Beacon Hill Roll Call last week. “Massachusetts has risen in the national rankings to first in the nation in student achievement. Graduation rates have risen, and dropout rates have fallen. Question 2 would remove our only statewide graduation standard. Nothing will replace it. The only statewide requirement left will be that students participate in four years of gym, and that districts offer – but students are not required to pass – history and civics. Massachusetts would have less rigorous high school graduation requirements than Mississippi and Alabama.”
Slowey continued, “If we remove this key graduation requirement, it will result in more than 300 different and unequal standards for high school graduation across the commonwealth leading to haphazard assessments of student readiness for college and careers and even wider inequities in student achievement and opportunities. Some school districts will just adopt lower standards so students ‘graduate’ even if they haven’t learned the knowledge and skills they need to succeed. It’s not fair to kids to grant diplomas when they aren’t yet ready to graduate.”
“If students cannot pass basic assessments in math, English or science, the answer is not to eliminate the standard. Rather than lowering the academic standard for all students, the focus should be on ensuring students who are struggling get the help they need. The vast majority of students pass the 10th grade assessment and are awarded diplomas. Annually, the number of students who don’t graduate is about 700 out of more than 70,000 graduates. Put differently, only 1 percent of high school graduates do not graduate on time because they have not passed the MCAS. High school students have several chances to pass the test between 10th and 12th grade. The state also provides numerous accommodations for students with disabilities, English learners and other students who need them, so they are not disadvantaged.”
OFFICIAL ARGUMENTS: Here are the official arguments, gathered by the secretary of state, for each side of the question.
IN FAVOR: Written by Shelley Scuggs, Parents Volunteer of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, https://massteacher.org/
“A ‘Yes’ on Question 2 gives all students the opportunity to thrive and reach their full potential. We all agree that high standards help keep our public schools great, and assessments are needed to ensure that students master the knowledge and skills to succeed in life after high school. However, the MCAS is a one-size-fits-all exam that fails to measure other student achievement measures such as GPA, coursework and teacher assessments in determining if a student is allowed to graduate.
Replacing the MCAS graduation requirement with more comprehensive measures will allow teachers to stop teaching to a test and unburden students from a make-or-break standardized test. Voting ‘Yes’ will allow schools and teachers, together with parents and students, to focus on the most important skills and knowledge to help students succeed in life, rather than having to focus on only those skills that can be measured on a standardized test.”
AGAINST: Written by Protect Our Kids’ Future: Vote ‘No’ on 2, www.protectourkidsfuture.com
“Question 2 is unfair to kids and will increase inequality. Some school districts will just adopt lower standards so students ‘graduate’ even if they haven’t learned the knowledge and skills they need to succeed. It’s not fair to grant diplomas to kids who aren’t yet ready to graduate. If students cannot pass basic assessments in math, English or science, we adults should do the hard work to get them up to speed. Instead of supporting kids, Question 2 would abandon them.
Question 2 would remove our only statewide graduation standard. Massachusetts would have less rigorous high school graduation requirements than Mississippi and Alabama. Question 2 is a radical and untested proposal and should be rejected. Significant changes to our education system should be carefully studied, designed and implemented by experts to ensure these policies are actually better for our kids.”
QUESTION 3: Collective bargaining
for ride share employees
The question asks voters if they approve of a proposed law that would allow drivers for Lyft and Uber, and any other companies that use a digital network to connect riders to drivers for pre-arranged transportation, to collectively bargain to create negotiated recommendations concerning wages, benefits and terms and conditions of work. Drivers would not be required to engage in any union activities.
Companies would be allowed to form multi-company associations to represent them when negotiating with the union. The state would supervise the labor activities permitted by the proposed law and would have responsibility for approving or disapproving the negotiated recommendations.
WHAT SUPPORTERS SAY: “Voting ‘Yes’ on Question 3 is about giving these Massachusetts rideshare drivers what nearly every other worker in the state has: the option to join a union,” Roxana Rivera, co-chair on the Yes on 3 Coalition told Beacon Hill Roll Call “We know this is what our state’s rideshare drivers want. A recent driver survey showed 95 percent support for the option to join a union and Question 3 won’t force any rideshare drivers to join the union if they don’t want to. Seventy percent of voters support Question 3, according to a just-concluded poll of likely 2024 voters. Nationally, unions are more popular than they’ve been in generations.”
On its website, the “Vote ‘Yes’ on 3 Committee” says, “The option to join a union is guaranteed for most workers but rideshare drivers don’t have that choice. Drivers are struggling to support their families despite working in a billion-dollar industry. After expenses, they take home less than $15 an hour, the minimum wage, with no protections against arbitrary deactivations that make it impossible to support their families. Vote ‘Yes’ on Question 3 to ensure drivers can challenge these unfair practices.”
WHAT OPPONENTS SAY: Paul Craney, a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, told Beacon Hill Roll Call that although the alliance is not a ballot questions committee, “[we] authored the voter guide (red book) summary because we are ideologically opposed to the ballot question and wanted to make sure the voters had both sides of the story available to them before making a decision.”
Craney continued, “No group from the affected industries has stepped forward to oppose this ballot question. The way this ballot question is currently written potentially violates state and federal labor law and if passed by the voters, would most likely result in a prolonged legal battle before this potential law is changed.”
On its website, the alliance says, “The passage of this question will allow state government to set the wages for these private companies, and ultimately force drivers to pay dues into a union they don’t want and that they have little control over. This is possible because this question artificially lowers the threshold required to call a unionization vote from the normal 30 percent of employees to just 2.5 percent. Not only is this unfair to drivers, but this is also a violation of long-established federal labor laws and will likely open the state up to lawsuits and litigation in the future, if passed.”
OFFICIAL ARGUMENTS: Here are the official arguments, gathered by the secretary of state, for each side of the question.
IN FAVOR: Written by Roxana Rivera, United for Justice, www.DriversNeedUnion.org
“A ‘Yes’ vote will give Massachusetts rideshare drivers, who work for companies like Uber and Lyft, the option to join a union while also maintaining driver flexibility and independence. The option to join a union is guaranteed for most workers but rideshare drivers currently don’t have that choice. Vote ‘Yes’ to allow rideshare drivers the option to choose a union.”
AGAINST: Written by Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, www.massfiscal.org
“Drivers and riders urge ‘No’ on Question 3 which would raise the prices for all riders, funding union pockets, not drivers’ pockets. This law gives politicians the right to set rules with no accountability and creates a new radical labor category that is inconsistent with federal labor law.
“Drivers in Massachusetts already receive base [pay] of $32.50 per hour with yearly increases; paid sick leave; paid family medical leave; healthcare stipend; on-the-job injury insurance; anti-discrimination protections; domestic violence leave; anti-retaliation protections; and an appeals process.
“Question 3 does not really create bargaining for workers. Drivers will have no control over leadership of the union and will pay significant dues without real representation. This proposal is not fair to drivers and allows just 2.5 percent of drivers to force unionization and leaves many drivers without a voice.”
