Some Marblehead residents are voicing strong concerns as Massachusetts lawmakers resist implementing a voter-approved audit of the Legislature while hybrid meeting provisions approach their March 31 expiration date.
“We have the least democratic legislature in the frickin’ nation!” said Judith Black, a Marblehead resident and activist. Her frustration reflects a growing sentiment among constituents as two transparency issues converge: the Legislature’s reluctance to comply with Question 1 and uncertainty about the future of remote meeting access.
Question 1, which authorized the State Auditor to audit legislative operations, passed in November with 71.4%, an outcome fiercely resisted by lawmakers citing separation of powers. Meanwhile, the temporary law allowing remote participation in public meetings expires in less than a month. Municipal officials and residents have come to rely on hybrid access.
“Anyone who has been part of a citizen group which has proposed and supported legislation over the past 40 years has seen a deterioration of democracy in the Legislature,” Nadeau wrote. “Citizens are frustrated, exhausted and angry at the Massachusetts Legislature.”
Lynn Nadeau, another Marblehead resident, has observed a troubling pattern. In 2022, she sponsored a citizen petition, known as Article 44, which proposed mandating hybrid meetings and easily accessible recordings for all town boards and committees. This led to the formation of the so-called Article 44 Committee that analyzed the associated costs and logistics of implementing such measures.
In 2023, she sponsored two Town Meeting citizen petitions: one urging all committees and boards to post meeting recordings on the town website, and another to allow for remote meeting participation for both members and the public.
Despite these efforts, several regulatory boards in Marblehead continue to hold meetings exclusively in person, raising ongoing concerns about accessibility and inclusivity.
“It is obvious that our democracy works best when everyone can observe public meetings and participate in them,” she told the Current. “All people should feel empowered to contribute and shape their own communities within a dynamic and responsive democratic system.”
The House recently voted 128-23 against an amendment that would have enforced compliance with the audit, with only first-term Rep. Michelle Badger of Plymouth breaking Democratic ranks to support it.
Black believes the audit is essential for true accountability. “Always follow the money, which is what [State Auditor Diana] DiZoglio is trying to do,” she said, referring to DiZoglio’s efforts. “The huge amounts given out to committee heads who are appointed by the Speaker ensures a lack of democracy.”
Do committee assignments enforce party discipline?
Black sees the appointment of committee chairs and vice chairs — positions that now come with stipends ranging from $7,500 to $88,000 — as a key mechanism for consolidating power in the State House. She argues that the speaker and Senate president can use these financial incentives to secure loyalty, as they are awarded in addition to lawmakers’ base salary, which recently increased to $82,044. Lawmakers also receive expense and travel stipends ranging from $22,431 to $29,908, further boosting their overall compensation.
Leadership stipends vary widely depending on rank and assignment. Committee vice chairs receive between $7,500 and $26,917, while committee chairs earn anywhere from $15,000 to $88,000. More influential positions command even higher payouts: budget chiefs receive $97,200, Democratic and Republican floor leaders make up to $89,723, and the House speaker and Senate president each collect an additional $119,632, bringing their total pay to $224,107. Black believes this structure discourages dissent by financially rewarding lawmakers who align with leadership, effectively stifling independent decision-making and reinforcing leadership’s grip on power.
Constitutional concerns or legislative obstruction?
Black and Nadeau see the audit as a crucial step toward holding lawmakers accountable, but legislators insist the issue is more nuanced. Rep. Jenny Armini of Marblehead argues that the debate is not about transparency, but about constitutional limits.
“The House is very open to a financial audit, as it already goes through one every year,” Armini said. “In response to Question 1, the House took the step of voting to allow the Auditor to actually choose the outside firm.”
She drew a distinction between financial and political oversight: “Here’s the rub: The Auditor is not seeking to conduct just a financial audit. She is looking to do a political audit. This encompasses how legislators vote, debate, assign committees, decide on policy priorities and more — all core legislative functions that are outside of the Auditor’s jurisdiction.”
State Sen. Brendan Crighton, D-Lynn, who represents Marblehead, echoed these concerns.
“While I appreciate the voters’ desire for transparency, I have to consider whether this audit would violate the separation of powers that’s fundamental to our government,” Crighton said. “The Constitution restricts executive branch officials from interfering with core legislative functions, regardless of voter sentiment.”
Crighton noted that the Senate is taking a more deliberative approach by establishing a special committee to review the constitutional implications before taking action.
“We need to be thoughtful about how we respond to this mandate while respecting constitutional boundaries,” he added.
DiZoglio, undeterred by legislative resistance, is drafting a writ of mandamus, seeking a court order directing a government official to fulfill their legal duties or correct an abuse of discretion — in an effort to force compliance or compel Attorney General Andrea Campbell to take a position in the dispute.
Campbell reinforced lawmakers’ constitutional concerns in a 2023 letter, stating that the State Auditor lacks the legal authority to audit the Legislature’s core functions without its consent.
Access for all
While the audit fight plays out on Beacon Hill, Marblehead residents are also facing another transparency challenge: the potential loss of remote access to public meetings
According to a 2023 survey by Massachusetts organizations advocating for open government, 45% of Massachusetts city council and select board meetings are fully hybrid, with an additional 17% live-streamed, totaling 62% offering some form of virtual access.
The Select Board, Board of Health, Historical Commission and School Committee have embraced remote participation. However, several regulatory boards in Marblehead still conduct business exclusively in person, including the Board of Assessors, Cemetery Commission, Recreation and Parks Commission, Harbors and Waters and Water and Sewer Commission.
For Laurie Blaisdell, chair of the Marblehead Disabilities Commission, this issue directly impacts vulnerable residents.
“I believe that it is very important that meetings remain hybrid because it gives access to all to include someone that lives with a disability,” Blaisdell said. “We have quite a few members and residents that have not returned to public meetings for fear of getting sick or falling on ice, but they have consistently been able to attend our meetings.”
Blaisdell supports hybrid access but notes financial challenges. “I am conflicted with this unless it was a funded mandate,” she said. “Even for Marblehead, holding hybrid meetings has been a financial stretch. State funding would be essential to make this work for all public meetings.”
For example, a committee that studied remote participation found Marblehead’s Jacobi Community Center faced an estimated $6,000 in technology upgrade costs to facilitate hybrid meetings.
Marblehead resident Mark Thomson emphasized practical benefits for working residents: “I commute to Cambridge for work plus travel periodically, so an option to attend town meetings by Zoom makes it much easier to participate.”
The temporary law allowing remote participation in public meetings expires in less than a month, creating urgent uncertainty for local boards and residents who have embraced hybrid access since the pandemic.
The future of public access
In January, Gov. Maura Healey filed the Municipal Empowerment Act, proposing to make hybrid and remote meeting options a permanent choice for municipalities. This legislation would give cities and towns the flexibility to determine the meeting formats that best serve their communities.
Meanwhile, a separate bill filed by Rep. Antonio Cabral of New Bedford (HD.368) takes a firmer approach. It mandates hybrid meetings for elected municipal bodies by 2030, includes economic hardship waivers, and establishes a Municipal Hybrid Meeting Trust Fund to help with technology upgrades.
These two proposals take different paths — one emphasizing local control, the other setting a statewide requirement — yet Marblehead officials aren’t waiting for Beacon Hill to decide. The Select Board recently joined municipal leaders across the state in petitioning lawmakers to make hybrid access permanent.
The petition requests that legislators “consider including funding for technology updates, staffing needs and broadband expansion” in the state’s upcoming fiscal year 2026 budget. It also emphasizes that “the flexibility to hold public meetings via in-person, hybrid, or remote means is critical to ensuring that we can continue to provide maximum support and flexibility for our residents.”
