[00:00:00] Speaker A: So today on AEM Kwinzu, we'd like to introduce you to the state auditor from Massachusetts. Diana Dizoglio is joining us here in studio to tell us a little bit about herself, about her office, and about what's coming up for the rest of this year. So, madam Auditor, it's nice to sit and chat with you. Thanks for coming.
[00:00:15] Speaker B: It's great to be here. Thanks for having me. And Quincy, very much a pleasure.
[00:00:18] Speaker A: You've been here before, I know. Not your first time. Right. But not your last as well.
[00:00:22] Speaker B: Yes. And I was actually just at your inauguration.
[00:00:25] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:00:26] Speaker B: In Quincy and got to celebrate the inauguration of your new city council.
And that was exciting. Got the opportunity to address folks and talk about working together with local government and how important that is and impactful that is.
[00:00:41] Speaker A: Sure. Which you have experience in. Right. Before auditor, you served in the legislature yourself.
[00:00:46] Speaker B: Yes. So I was a state representative for six years. I represented the cities of Methuen, Haverhill, Lawrence and North Andover. And then I served for four years as a state senator alongside your senator here, Senator John Keenan, who's doing great work on behalf of the residents here in Quincy and served there for four years representing some additional communities in the Merrimack Valley up on the New Hampshire border, until I ran for State Auditor in 2022 and was successful in that run.
Thank you to everyone who came out and voted and have been working hard to increase transparency and accountability up on Beacon hill for all 351 cities and towns since that time. And it's really been great to be able to work together with Quincy, local elected officials and all residents. It's been great.
[00:01:38] Speaker A: Yeah. Can you talk maybe a little bit about what the auditor's office does, what it's responsible for?
[00:01:43] Speaker B: Sure, sure. I think the number one thing that I like people to know when they see me out and about in the community is I don't audit any of you.
I am not the irs. I am not the Department of Revenue. And I think that folks get a little bit nervous when they hear that the auditor is coming. They kind of look at you and they think, oh, man, do I even want to talk to this woman? Because can't she audit me? No, we do not audit individual residents. We actually, in the office of state Auditor, we audit state government for you, the taxpayers of Massachusetts. And we make sure that state programs are operating efficiently and effectively. We help to root out waste, fraud and abuse in different government programs. But we also look at programmatic efficacy and we look at whether or not certain programs in State government are working as well as they could be. We have audited, for example, through the last few years, an agency that I'm sure nobody's ever heard of. It's called the mbta.
Said a little bit of sarcasm there. Of course, we all know about the mbta, and we know that over the course of the last several years, the MBTA has had a lot of challenges with safety and performance.
And I would argue that public transportation in Massachusetts has never really truly served the residents of the Commonwealth the way that it could and it should.
But years ago, we were seeing trains catching on fire. We were seeing constant derailment after derailment occur in ceiling tiles falling from the ceiling and all these safety challenges. And I had committed to auditing the MBTA for safety and performance. And we, in our Office of State Auditor have actually recently produced multiple reports about the MBTA and its performance issues, safety issues, and provided guidance and recommendations as to how to improve safety and performance at the mbta, how to provide better oversight to contracts like those that the MBTA has with Keolis regarding those commuter rail stations. And we recommended areas for improvement in terms of making sure that we are not losing revenue with some of these contracts and that there's better oversight. We've identified areas for cost savings for the Commonwealth, and we've drafted those reports. You can find them on mass.gov Auditor if you're interested in checking out those reports. But we've audited agencies such as the mbta. We've also audited agencies such as Department of Children and Families, where folks know that a lot of children in this Commonwealth end up in the custody and care of parents, the state, as wards of the state, essentially through no fault of their own, due to traumatic circumstances that they may have had in their family situations where they do end up needing state services. And that's what DCF is there for, is to help these children and these families who are in need. Well, we went in and we did a very comprehensive audit of issues pertaining to mental health services and the oversight of prescription drugs. When it comes to assisting these children, we found that there was significant lack of oversight with respect to really powerful antipsychotic drugs being given out to these children. And that when these powerful drugs were being prescribed to these children with these mental health issues, that they were not always being given a therapist or a counselor to help guide them through the circumstances that they were experiencing. And that's required that they actually get provided with this type of assistance. We can't just be giving children powerful prescription drugs and not providing them any resources with respect to behavioral health counseling or therapy.
So we did cite DCF for these and other challenges when it comes to these children and the services they're being provided with, and wrote a report on those issues as well. So a lot of people might not think of safety and transportation or services for children as being something that the auditor's office looks at, because we do look at the financial aspects of these things as well. But we really take a look more so at the performance of these agencies because our office is required by law to conduct performance audits of these entities and to do so at least once every three years, which we have done.
[00:05:57] Speaker A: And you say you cited. So does your office have enforcement powers when it finds irregularities?
[00:06:03] Speaker B: No. And that's a great question. Thank you for that. Because a lot of folks will ask, well, how can you make sure that they're actually following your recommendations?
We can't actually require that these agencies follow our recommendations. We're essentially like public service journalists in the office of state auditor, where we are able to get access to this information and draft a report about it, highlight these challenges to the agency and make it so that it's transparent to you, the residents of the commonwealth, what's going on in these agencies and. And then raise awareness about it and draw attention to these issues through these audit reports and call on these agencies to make changes while we also provide a series of recommendations that they can potentially utilize to improve their services. They're not required to take these recommendations, but we do make recommendations nonetheless, and we hope that those recommendations will assist them as they hopefully seek to remedy some of the challenges that we've identified.
[00:07:09] Speaker A: Could your recommendations lead to legislation enacting new laws to enforce those?
[00:07:15] Speaker B: Certainly. And sometimes our recommendations are actually that they pursue working together with their legislators and that they pursue conversations with the governor's administration to seek ways to remedy the challenges that were identified. And if it's a funding issue, they need to be having those conversations with the legislature and governor's office. If it is a policy issue, they should also be having those conversations with the legislature and the governor's office. If it's an issue that we've identified in an agency where the law was being broken and that agency is bucking against the finding, we will at times recommend the finding over to, or refer, I should say, the finding over to the attorney general's office.
If there was destruction of public records and our office was not able to complete the audit report with all the records that we needed in order to identify what we were looking for, we will refer that over to the Secretary of the Commonwealth's office because they have the Supervisor of Public Records in that office. So we will refer different issues to different agencies for additional follow up.
They do get to determine whether they want to pursue these issues.
If the AG's office does not want to pursue the issue of ensuring the law is enforced, it won't happen.
But we do refer a lot of these issues over to the AG's office and we do refer these issues to other entities like the State Ethics Commission and others if we believe further review is warranted.
[00:08:46] Speaker A: Okay. Now it's certainly no secret, Madam Auditor, that your office is trying to audit the state legislature.
[00:08:51] Speaker B: Oh, you heard about that?
[00:08:52] Speaker A: You heard a little bit about that.
Can you bring us up to date on where that stands right now?
[00:08:56] Speaker B: Yes. First and foremost, I want to say thank you to every single resident who is part of the 72% who voted to support our office's audit of the state legislature. I am a former member of the state legislature and I can say this. I love our state legislators. I have worked with them for years and years.
I consider many of them as friends.
I love our state legislators and not. But I also love transparency, accountability and accessibility to taxpayer funded documents such as financial receipts and state contracts, which is all that I have been asking for with respect to this audit that I am pursuing of our state legislature.
Now you may hear that we have sought to audit things that are well outside of the purview of what should be audited.
But friends, I haven't sought to access documents like text messages or email exchanges between reps and their constituents.
Frankly, that's not something that we're trying to audit. We're only trying to right now audit the financial documents such as receipts to how taxpayer money is being spent and state contracts that have gone out with private vendors, for example, that have utilized taxpayer dollars and other state contracts that exist in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Now this has been rebuffed by Mr. Speaker who I know resides right here in Quincy and is a former colleague of mine in the House of Representatives. And it's also been rebuffed by Madam President who resides in Ashland.
And they have both taken this position against this audit of taxpayer funded resources, essentially stating that they think it's in violation of the Constitution. But it's my position that the Constitution is there to protect the the people and not the politicians and that the Constitution that they are citing, you know, that has separation of powers.
Certainly the Constitution says That there's a separation of powers. But that simply means that we in the auditor's office can't go in and take the position of legislators and do their job for them, which we're certainly not seeking to do.
The auditors in our office, the accountants and CPAs who work in the office of state auditors would never seek to sit in a legislator's seat and push the button for them in the house of representatives and take a vote on their behalf. Certainly not. Nor would they seek to get up on the senate floor and debate an issue with respect to the budget process. That's a power of the senate. That's a power of the state reps, and they're not seeking to do that. That is where the separation of powers exists. The legislature has the power to legislate.
The power of the auditor's office is to simply audit and to report on our findings, and that's all we're seeking to do. And I just find it disappointing that the constitution is being weaponized against the people of the commonwealth in this way, because the constitution also has what's called checks and balances.
There are checks and there are balances, and the legislature has a check on the executive branch with their post audit and oversight committee, for example, where they actually conduct performance audits, the same thing my office does. They conduct performance audits of different state agencies in the executive branch, such as the department of transportation, such as the department of children and families that we've just talked about that our office also provides oversight to the legislature, provides oversight to the executive branch through their committee on post audit and oversight and other committees, and where they actually can subpoena the executive branch to come in before them in their hearings and get access to executive branch documents.
But when we try to conduct the same type of oversight back with respect to the legislature, it's being called unconstitutional. And I simply disagree with that interpretation of the law. So what I'm trying to do is get this matter before the courts so that the courts can decide, because it is okay for people to have disagreements about the interpretation of the law, but that is for the courts to adjudicate and not for any member of the legislature or executive branch to decide. Right? So neither the executive branch or the legislative branch is in the position under our constitution of having the power to adjudicate a disagreement about what the law says. That's a matter for the courts to decide. So right now we're trying to get access to the court so they can settle this dispute. Dispute between my office and legislative leaders so that we can hopefully move forward. And if there are some parameters set around what's auditable and what's not auditable, we'll take that because the courts do have the final say on what we're allowed to look at and what's considered constitutional or potentially unconstitutional. But I don't think any court is going to say that financial receipts and state contracts are a power of any branch. Those are just financial documents.
[00:14:05] Speaker A: So are there areas in state government, Madam Auditor, that you suspect are questionable, or are there areas that you think need to be examined, be made public? You served in the legislature. When you were serving, did you say people should know about this or people should know about that? I wouldn't mind answering an audit about this.
[00:14:24] Speaker B: Yeah, I think a lot of people have concerns about things like attendance records. They'll raise that to us.
And I can say that while that might not be a topic that would exist in this current audit that we are doing, I think that that should be made available to residents of the commonwealth if their reps and senators are showing up to take votes, if they're showing up to their hearings and what level of work they're engaging in. And I think actually that that is something that we need to be able to examine as residents of the commonwealth that would be made available through this push on these ballot questions that's coming up soon. So the audit is just one of the ways that we're seeking to address this lack of transparency and accountability at the statehouse. But it's not the only thing that we need to be focused on. I tell people often the audit is not a saving grace to this issue with transparency and accountability at the State House. It's just one of the many, many things that we need to be doing to open up Beacon Hill to the residents of this commonwealth. But another thing that I am pushing is this new ballot question that's going to be on the ballot when you all go to vote in November. Hopefully, if we can get the rest of the signatures. And what that ballot question is going to give residents of the commonwealth an opportunity to vote on is increasing access to public records at the state House with the legislature and the governor's office. Now, folks might not know this, but Massachusetts is frequently ranked as the least transparent state government in the entire nation.
We recently were ranked as the least effective state legislature in the entire nation.
And while we do rank number one in a host of different areas, and you'll hear folks talking about that a lot, and I'm very proud to live in the state of Massachusetts. I am really, really grateful that I live in a state that gave someone like me access to public education.
I went to community college. This is something that our state legislature and administration found was important to make sure we have state resources for. For kids like me who come from single parent households to be able to have opportunities.
So I for one am incredibly grateful to live in the state of Massachusetts where these opportunities exist. They don't exist everywhere in this nation. But where we fall short in Massachusetts is in this area, unfortunately, of transparency and accountability within state government.
And this new ballot question that I'm pushing would make records at the state house that are taxpayer funded accessible to everyday residents of the commonwealth and not just accessible to the state auditor's office.
[00:17:03] Speaker A: Such as.
[00:17:04] Speaker B: Such as these financial receipts and these state contracts that I've been trying to get access to but have been being denied access to.
[00:17:10] Speaker A: Can you name one contract just to give folks an example?
[00:17:13] Speaker B: Yeah. So I will say we've actually wanted to get access to settlement agreements, right? Settlement agreements that we would seek to audit in the house of Representatives and state senate. And we just did an audit of settlement agreements and settlement agreements for those who don't know they're contracts essentially between employees and state agencies and departments where an employee of the Commonwealth might need to settle outside of court about an issue that they need to resolve with that state entity.
Now we have done audits of many different state entities, including quasi public state entities such as Massport and the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority. And what we found is that there is a lack of oversight with respect to how these contracts are being executed with employees of the Commonwealth. And there's a lot of use of non disclosure language and confidentiality language that allows for potential abuses in state government such as harassment, discrimination and abuse to be covered and hidden with taxpayer dollars. And we are seeing that that has continued through the years and it's still happening in state government.
That is something that we have audited for all these other state entities. But that unfortunately, because the legislature is refusing to be audited, we can't see see how those contracts are being entered into if confidentiality language is being used and what it's being used for.
And we have been able to audit those things in all these other entities.
So that is something that we would like to analyze and view and make available for people to see. How's the money being spent? When is confidentiality language being used? Is it being used to cover up things like harassment, discrimination and abuse at our state house?
And there is A lot of concern about that. Now, with respect to this public records reform issue that we're pushing, it's important to say that these things are generally speaking a matter of public record for all these other state entities for cities and towns.
And you know, it's allowed that victims names are, you know, redacted and they're able to be redacted in these cases. So just for folks who think, well, what about the victim? We want to make sure the victim has confidentiality.
You know, I support allowing for the victim's name to be redacted from these things.
But as far as the money is concerned and about the language that is used to force someone into silence, we should know when that's being allowed. We should know how much in taxpayer resources are being expended in those cases so that there can be proper oversight on these things. And this push for public records to be increased at the statehouse would basically say that with respect to these state contracts and financial receipts about even how they're purchasing things like office supplies, for example, that taxpaying residents would be able to get access to the receipts concerning these alleged purchases. To just trust but verify. You can do this with the city of Quincy. You can do this with every city and town across the commonwealth. If you have a question about anything that's taxpayer funded, you can actually just submit a public records request and ask for the documents. And they are required by law to give you access to those documents. And yes, there are privacy exemptions that exist where you can redact folks names who are residents that may be involved in these things for privacy concerns. But the rest of the record has to be released so we can track the use and potential abuse of taxpayer dollars. The legislature and governor's office are currently exempt. So we need to change the.
[00:20:48] Speaker A: With regards to auditing the legislature, the speaker of the House has said you can bring in your own independent audit company, audit agency to conduct the audits. So to avoid an appearance of conflict, how do you respond to that?
[00:21:00] Speaker B: Yeah, you know, I think that Mr. Speaker and Madam President made those points during the entire campaign for the audit of the legislature to be conducted by my office.
And we actually highlighted that the speaker and senate president do use a privately contracted auditing firm to self audit essentially. But the important point of that that I made, that I made in the voter guidebook that everybody received, I myself made this point. I said, yes, you are allowed to use a private auditing firm to provide auditing services to your agency or to your state department. And that's Fine. But that does not nullify the outside independent audits that our office provides. And where we go in and we examine things that your auditor that you hired and controlled as a result, you know, that they looked at. We, for example, want to audit things like state contracts, and we want access to the receipts that were allegedly audited. But the House of Representatives and Senators are saying, oh, no, no, no, we're overseeing ourselves. We hired a private auditing firm that we paid for out of our budget. And, and we're only going to allow you to have access to some of those records, not all of those records.
The document that you'll see that was a result of that alleged audit that was conducted, it's very, you know, focused on just high level line items and high level numbers that basically say this much was spent and we're verifying that that much was spent. Right. It doesn't give you access to itemized receipts and expenses, expenditures. And we're not being allowed still in the auditor's office to even get access to the receipts that were allegedly examined.
So when our office looks at these things, these receipts are a matter of public record. When we get access to the receipts, you get access to the receipts. What they're basically saying is they want to have a private auditor that's contracted out with by them, that the speaker and Senate President get to determine what that auditing firm is going to look at. And then the speaker and Senate President get to determine what. What's then released to the public and what's not released to the Republic. Our office provides that independent oversight for these state entities where the speaker and Senate President do not tell my office what they prefer to be redacted from the audit. It's the auditing team that makes those decisions in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, which are passed on to us by the Government Accountability Office at the federal level. And they have to file a very strict set of guidelines. By law, we are mandated to follow that. Where they have to follow that federal standard. By law, they're not allowed to just go in and say, oh, they'll look the other way for this issue or that issue, and they'll redact whatever the speaker and Senate President say. And I think that that's important that these standards be followed and that the independent Office of State Auditors. Auditors get to examine this as was required by this law.
[00:24:02] Speaker A: So as you pointed out, the ballot question passed overwhelmingly. 72% of the voters, I think, approved of this ballot question. Is it up to the Attorney General's office to now enforce that ballot question.
[00:24:13] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:24:13] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:24:14] Speaker B: Yes. And the Attorney General's office has resisted and actually pushed back on our push to get this law enforced. The Attorney General got a very significant increase to her budget in the millions.
Our local district Attorney's offices, who take the vast majority of cases in the court system, only saw roughly a 3% increase for the most part to their budgets. And the Attorney General's office saw, I believe it was roughly a 12% increase to her budget. Now, that is actually not just going to be for this year, that's going to be next year and the year after and the year after.
Because generally speaking, the offices such as ours, you know, they'll get an increase. They don't generally decrease the budget. Right. So that 12%, that's going to be a lasting impact on the office of the Attorney General.
And I do believe that there were conversations had behind the scenes where some trades were made where the Attorney General agreed not to enforce the law, really, in exchange for a significant increase to her budget.
That is my strong belief.
And do you have evidence to that? I will tell you that I have asked for the records to be released by the Senate President's office and the speaker of the House's office that we have requested, such as those receipts. And without documentation to suggest that they're not destroying records and that these records even exist, how can anybody know? Right. So we are left to wonder. We are left to question. And. And we're asked to be people who trust without being able to verify anything. So I have very strong concerns, and I have asked them to participate in this audit and to enforce the law to increase the public's trust. But the exact opposite has happened. They have essentially said that they are going to instead not enforce the law, refuse to give us access to court from the Attorney General's office. We need the Attorney General's Office's permission to access the court system because the Attorney General's Office is the attorney of record for all state agencies.
And we've even said, hey, Madam Attorney General, if you don't want to allow us access to the courts with you representing us, and you want to stay out of this, okay, you can stay out of this, but let us get our own attorney. And we have actually even been denied access to our own private legal counsel at no cost to the taxpayer to access the court system separately from the AG's office.
And that has led me to really, really question the integrity of these conversations that have been being had about this issue. I don't Think it's any surprise that the Attorney General's office was rewarded with such a large increase to her budget? And that simultaneously we're being prevented from even accessing the courts with a private attorney at no cost to the taxpayer. Why would anyone want to block this issue from going to the courts?
So I'm very concerned about what's going on on Beacon Hill right now, and I really think that people need to be aware of what's happening up there that we can't even get access to an impartial hearing, which is a constitutional right for every resident of this commonwealth. We're supposed to be able to access an impartial hearing, and we can't even get access to the courts to decide this matter.
[00:27:32] Speaker A: Where do you take it from here, then, Madam Auditor?
[00:27:34] Speaker B: We're taking it back to the people. I am sorry. Still fighting to file a lawsuit. We're going to be seeking to file with a single justice soon to get access to the court and have the single justice decide whether or not they're going to grant us access to the judicial system?
Hopefully they do, but we're not guaranteed that. So what I'm also doing as we're pursuing litigation is I'm taking it back to the people with this new ballot question.
Because, like I said, this isn't about an audit. You know, the audit is just one. The audit not happening is one symptom of all of these underlying issues of, you know, just a real lack of transparency and accountability up at the statehouse that's existed for years. It's not just with this current administration or this current legislative leadership team. You know, I know we talk about Mr. Speaker and Madam President right now, but, folks, this lack of transparency has existed for years and years and years. It has gotten worse in recent years. But, you know, we really need to focus on the underlying causes of all of this. And I believe that increasing transparency and accountability by making sure that the state House is subject to the FOIA laws, the Freedom of Information act, and the state's public record laws, that. That will go a long way to. Towards making sure that our government is more open and more accountable. Because I can write an audit eventually at some point, if they ever allow me access to these records like you said they should in this last vote, but that's still just gonna be an audit, right? It's not going to allow access to all of the records all at once. I believe that this new ballot question allows access to a lot more than an audit could ever potentially cover, and that it also gives the opportunity for private citizens of the commonwealth to be able to get access to records without the attorney general's office being able to block them from enforcing this law. For example, if the media outlets in this state seek to get access to a public record and they're denied access, they can file a lawsuit and the attorney general can't block them the way she's blocking my office, because they're not a state agency and they're not required to get approval from the AG's office to sue. So I think that this gives really just a lot more opportunity for us to access these records, and it allows for private residents to sue if the law is broken. And it just gives us one additional path forward to being able to access these records that we, the taxpayers, pay for.
So I would ask folks, please vote for that, support that. That's a really big deal.
And, you know, if they don't want to give me access to the records, they'll definitely have to give them to all of you. Right? So maybe you can send me the receipts and the state contracts and then I can finally do this audit.
[00:30:29] Speaker A: Do you know, is there precedent in other states, Madam Auditor, for the auditor of that state to audit their legislature?
[00:30:35] Speaker B: Certainly, certainly, yeah. I mean, look, I was even talking to who was the president of the national association of State Auditors, and he had said he hails from Connecticut and he had called me and said, what is going on in Massachusetts?
And I was kind of shocked to just be receiving this call from the president of the state auditor, national association of State Auditors at the time, because I was a rookie state auditor, I had just gotten elected, and here you have the president of the national association calling me.
And he said, what's going on there? So what do you mean? And he said, I'm getting calls from all these media outlets in Massachusetts who are saying, you know, do you audit your state legislature? And he essentially said, yes, that they audit the state legislature so often as a matter of routine that he couldn't get press coverage if he tried to get press coverage, that it's just not a big issue. He said, yeah, we audit them all the time and we write a report and we just say, here are some areas for improvement. They say, thank you, everybody moves on. He goes, it's really a non story. And he goes, it barely ever makes the press that we audited the state legislature.
And honestly, if you think about it, how often did you hear about the state auditor's office before this issue?
Not often. Right. Because generally speaking, it's not really that big of a deal to get these audits. We do these audits of over 200 state entities. And we're not the FBI. Right. Our auditors, our CPAs and accountants are not going into offices and. And confiscating laptops and tossing desks, nothing like that. They're going in and they're reviewing process and procedure, and then they're writing a report about ways to improve. And generally speaking, these state departments and agencies comply. They cooperate. They many times thank the auditors in our office, not always, but most times they do. And they say, hey, thanks so much. We're going to work to improve the systems. And it's not generally, you know, really a big story. The reason why you. You even know about the state auditor's office existing for many folks, at least from what I've been hearing, is because of this pushback that. That we've been getting with respect to the legislature. And I know we're short on time here, but it's worth noting, the legislature was always audited throughout history, since 1849, which is the inception of the state auditor's office.
And I'm not the first auditor to have this sort of battle with legislative leaders about this auditing being conducted. It was actually former auditor Joe dinucci, another Italian American, I might add, former auditor Joe denucci in the 90s. He had always been auditing the legislature. The last audit, I believe, that he conducted of the legislature was of a court officer in the house of representatives receiving fraudulent payments. And he went in and audited this issue, and he found that the court officer was accepting fraudulent payments. And he wrote a report about the house of representatives, and that was released in 1992. There were roughly over 100 other audits of the legislature that took place before that last audit in 1992. When he subsequently went in to conduct his audit of the house of Representatives, the speaker at the time said, essentially, you're not auditing me. And as we know, those of us who know about what happened up at the Statehouse in the 90s and. And a little bit longer, was there was actually a series of unprecedented scandal and corruption in the house of representatives that we know where. We had three indicted speakers.
And this audit that was being pushed by auditor Joe denucci, he did fight with the speaker of the house very publicly about this at the time. Now, it didn't get to the point where there was a lawsuit. It didn't get to the point where there was a ballot question.
I have taken it to this next level level, but Frankly, I stand on the shoulders of former auditor Joe Denucci's push because he was actually the first one to push back and to argue with the speaker at that time. And he did fight for this at the time. And I'm just carrying on that fight.
[00:34:42] Speaker A: Will you be seeking re election, Madam Auditor?
[00:34:45] Speaker B: I have not announced any campaign plans for this upcoming plan. I've been focused on the ballot question. But stay tuned. I will be in touch shortly about election year plans.
[00:34:54] Speaker A: Okay. Is there a way for folks to reach out to your office if they'd.
[00:34:58] Speaker B: Like to get in contact? Yes, absolutely. So for official business, please go to mass.gov Auditor and you can email auditorassauditor.gov if it's something campaign related. You want to know how you can get involved in the ballot question, Please go to dianadianadizaglio.com Click on the ballot button. Or you can email
[email protected] thanks so much.
[00:35:21] Speaker A: Thanks for stopping by. Good to talk to you. You're welcome. And thanks for watching us here at AM Quincy. I'm Joe Catalano and we'll see you next time.
