Globe Endorsement: Yes to question 1

“This is a path forward toward transparency and accountability,” State Auditor Diana DiZoglio told the editorial board. “It will help build public trust and enable greater public access and accountability.”

DiZoglio ran for the comptroller's office in part to audit the Legislature, where she served for more than a decade. But a legislature exempt from public records laws and public meetings laws would hardly be willing to voluntarily open its books and records.

In fact, lawmakers have secured the right not to audit since the 1990s, when then-Speaker Charles Flaherty (who later pleaded guilty to federal tax evasion) argued with then-Auditor Joe DeNucci, who insisted he had the right had power to scrutinize the legislature—as he did all other “departments, offices, commissions, institutions, and activities of the Commonwealth.” He asked then-Attorney General Scott Harshbarger for comment.

Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks, now an appeals court judge, wrote back to DeNucci with some good news and some bad news. The bad news: It's unlikely, he said, that lawmakers intended to subject themselves to the comptroller's control when they drafted the law that established that office's responsibilities.

But laws can be changed as long as they do not violate the state constitution. And Sacks made clear that there would be no significant “separation of powers objection to a law that clearly authorizes you to audit the accounts of the Legislature,” clearing the way for DeNucci to seek a change in the law.

However, not surprisingly, lawmakers did not agree with this idea.

That's why, nearly three decades later, DiZoglio tried to put the issue before voters instead. Echoing Sacks, Attorney General Andrea Campbell agreed in a letter that “the comptroller does not have the authority under current law” to audit the Legislature — but she allowed DiZoglio's efforts to put the question on the ballot.

While DiZoglio did indeed find numerous audits conducted by the state auditor of the Legislature before the 1990s, the real question is: What would be a modern performance audit of the Legislature that would be conducted under the principles established by the Federal Government Accountability Office – as DiZoglio promises? – look?

It will certainly be more informative than the mere balance sheets of independent auditors, which are repeatedly touted by lawmakers as the be-all and end-all of financial transparency.

Of course, a performance audit could also look at nondisclosure agreements and whether they were legally signed – something its auditors recently did at the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority. It could deal with procurement processes for goods and services and the handling of funds.

“This is an audit, not an FBI investigation,” DiZoglio emphasized. “We want to improve the way government works and shed light on some of the darker processes and procedures,” not interfere with the core functions of the Legislature.

And like most audits, she added, it could end with a list of “best practices” to make things better — whether lawmakers implement those practices will be their decision.

Should the auditor overstep the new powers granted to her by law, there will be no shortage of powerful people waiting to take her to court. As the attorney general warned in her letter to DiZoglio last year, “Should the initiative become law, we may need to consider whether constitutional limitations will impact the application of the law.”

As Jerold Duquette, a political science professor at Central Connecticut State University and an opponent of the ballot question, told the editorial board, “The likely scenario is that the Legislature would continue to operate under its prerogatives,” and that would probably also be the case on the question of powers take the auditor to court.

Of course, even if Question 1 passes and the courts uphold it, lawmakers could still undo the new law, Duquette said, citing the precedent of the voter-approved Clean Elections Law of 1998. After lawmakers balked in that case had to provide money to fund the law, a Supreme Court judge ordered the auction of lawmakers' office furniture. Lawmakers responded by simply repealing the law in 2003—apparently with no political consequences for legislative leaders.

But even in a virtually one-party state, lawmakers would have to think at least twice before offering such criticism to voters.

For too long, this legislature has been allowed to circumvent too many laws designed to open its processes to the public, allowing it to evade public scrutiny and even damage its own credibility. This ballot measure would provide a small but important window into how it works. This opportunity for reform – whatever it ultimately turns out to be – should not be missed.

Editorials reflect the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us @GlobeOpinion.