"Boy, that escalated quickly... I mean, that really got out of hand fast."
— Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) in the movie “Anchorman” describing a violent clash between competing San Diego TV news teams
The Rumble Under the Rotunda between Auditor Diana DiZoglio and the Beacon Hill establishment has been a bit slower to reach full boil than the “Anchorman” brawl. And unlike the movie version, no one has been murdered by a trident — yet.
But last week saw a new level of personal animosity and political warfare in the dispute over the 2024 initiative petition giving DiZoglio authority to audit the Legislature, famously approved by 72% of the voters.
When she sat down with us for a WBZ-TV interview last week, DiZoglio reported that a day after the Supreme Judicial Court agreed to hear arguments on the disputed constitutionality of the audit, Attorney General Andrea Campbell “actually decided for the first time in well over a year to call me on my personal cell phone to try to discuss the matter.” No dice. Claiming the call was a violation of the rules of professional legal conduct, DiZoglio had her general counsel call back and say “we would be happy to speak with the Attorney General, but that that does need to be done in the light of day, through official channels, and not behind the scenes, over private cell phone conversations where the public can't see.”
So much for settling out of court. We’ll leave analysis of the legal semantics of the call to others, and the constitutionality of the audit to the SJC. But it’s notable that in our interview, DiZoglio was hard at work laying down some of her most aggressive political attacks on the motives of not only her opponents, but also the judges who will decide the audit’s fate.
The audit petition capitalized on traditional public distrust of the legislature (but not their own senator or rep; Massachusetts has one of the nation’s highest incumbent re-election rates). And DiZoglio aims to keep the mistrust percolating: “I do believe that there is some level of public corruption going on between the attorney general, Speaker and Senate President, because it is unlawful to conspire behind the scenes, even if it's just two or three people to violate the law, and that is what they have done.”
The alleged violation: Failure to cooperate with her audit while the legal process plays out. By that reasoning, Karen Read should have languished in stir while her case was adjudicated.
And get a load of this exchange over DiZoglio’s claim that Campbell is employing “stall tactics giving the legislature more time to destroy documents and records.”
Q: That's a very specific charge. Do you have any evidence of such destruction?
A: Many agencies that we have audited have either lost or destroyed the public records that they are supposed to maintain, and if the legislature is unwilling to produce any documentation, then we do believe that there is the potential that they are destroying records right now…. If they'd like to prove their innocence to the general public, they can release the documents at any time.
Q: Aren't they innocent until proof is offered of their guilt?
A: I believe it's incumbent upon them to release the records that they're required to release by law, and if they continue to choose not to release the records, what are they hiding?
Presumption of guilt - a potent political weapon, but also widely considered a violation of the code of professional legal conduct.
DiZoglio is not a lawyer, and seems to have little regard for the integrity of the legal system even as she demands its protections. “When you're trying to sue the legislature, but the legislature funds the salaries of the people making the decision about such a lawsuit, it can be challenging for us, the people of the Commonwealth, to have complete faith and trust in the system,” she says. “The courts are not infallible, and we cannot just blindly trust everybody just because they have a title. And I will push back if I feel like the rights of the people or my office or me personally are being violated, and I would like for people to know that we have an opportunity here for the law to be followed, and we hope the SJC sides with the people.”
DiZoglio’s has been increasingly questioning judicial motives, reacting to a Supreme Court justice’s dismissal of her push to hire a special assistant attorney general earlier this month with this broadside: “This is why most of us don’t trust the courts anymore. It’s hard to take on the Legislature in court when it’s Beacon Hill who appoints our judges and funds their salaries.”
That drew the ire of Governor’s Councillor Mara Dolan, who says in a recent note to constituents that the auditor’s claims are “flat out wrong” and “dangerous.” Dolan notes she voted for the legislative audit (as did Campbell and another DiZoglio target, Gov. Maura Healey) but says the SJC will rule on the facts and the law, and “no one should use the opportunity to attack our courts and undermine the rule of law,” especially at a time when extremists are questioning their legitimacy.
Surely, DiZoglio doesn’t want to make common cause with them?
The auditor is passionate about her cause, and she may be right about the usefulness of an outside audit.
But it might be better for her – and us – if she put the trident down before things get out of hand.
