Massachusetts senators and staff from the State Auditor’s Office sparred Tuesday over the scope of an audit into the Legislature, whether Auditor Diana DiZoglio could ethically direct the probe, and the constitutionality of an investigation into the business of the House and Senate.

The voter-approved law driving the audit of the House and Senate has generated widespread disagreement between DiZoglio and lawmakers, and has prompted calls for legal action to force compliance. Tempers flared during a nearly two-hour public meeting between the two sides.

DiZoglio’s top deputies and senators tasked with responding to the Methuen Democrat’s requests found themselves arguing from the outset of the meeting, including when legislators asked DiZoglio’s staff what they were doing to “maintain an ethical standing” during the audit.

Sen. Joanne Comerford, a Florence Democrat, said a conflict of interest could arise because DiZoglio had “just left the Senate” after serving as a legislative staffer and member of the House. DiZoglio was a representative from 2013 to 2019 and a senator from 2019 to 2023.

“What are the controls within your office that would allow for the kind of objectivity and independence that the Yellow Book standards tell us is imperative in order to produce a quality audit?” Comerford said.

Staff from the State Auditor’s Office tried to distance DiZoglio from the audit process.

Michael Leung-Tat, the top lawyer at the office, said investigators conduct audits in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards — also known as the “Yellow Book” — and have consulted with the U.S. Government Accountability Office about the legislative audit.

Executive Deputy Auditor Steve Lisauskas also said DiZoglio does not do the audit work herself and a team of rank-and-file staff are instead responsible for conducting probes and writing reports.

“There is a process there to conflict-check folks,” he said. “We’ve already had the conversations with regard to the auditor, and the fact that she was formerly a state legislator has already been discussed with the Government Accountability Office and cleared.”

But Sen. Paul Feeney, a Foxboro Democrat, wanted to know whether there was “an official opinion” from the U.S. Government Accountability Office or if the independent federal agency had produced any written statement on DiZoglio’s past as an elected lawmaker.

Leung-Tat said he did not know whether the office had issued something in writing, prompting Sen. William Brownsberger to push Leung-Tat to divulge how the State Auditor’s Office received clearance from the federal government watchdog.

“We’ve reached out to them and we’ve had conversations with them,” Leung-Tat told Brownsberger.

Lisauskas said the conversations took place a year and a half ago as part of the initial stages of an audit of the Legislature that DiZoglio’s office released in October 2024.

“We’ve done 130 audits since that time,” he said.

Comerford said the conversation should “stick out.”

“This is the conversation where you presumably would have asked whether or not it would be ethical for the auditor to oversee the body doing this audit when she was just a member of the body,” Comerford said. “It would to me, anyway.”

Senators and the Office of the State Auditor’s Office also tangled over the scope of the legislative audit.

An argument broke out over language included in a Jan. 3 letter from DiZoglio to the Legislature that said the legislative audit would “cover all the topics we were unable to fully review in our previous audit, due to your refusal to participate in the audit process.”

The letter said auditors would “start with a review of high-risk areas, such as state contracting and procurement procedures, the use of taxpayer-funded nondisclosure agreements, and a review” of how unused dollars were pushed forward each year.

James DiTullio, the lead attorney for the Massachusetts Senate, said lawmakers were “confused” because the letter suggested a wider scope, while staff from the State Auditor’s Office were outlining only three topics.

“There’s a little bit of a whiplash going on here,” DiTullio said.

Lisauskas said the State Auditor’s Office has been clear about the scope of the audit — state contracting and procurement, nondisclosure agreements, and how unused cash is carried over each year.

DiTullio shot back.

“That’s not what your boss said on Jan. 3, 2025. We take her at her word and that’s what she said,” he said. “… Your boss wrote the sentence. Are you saying, today, ignore that sentence, everything else is accurate?”

Lisauskas pointed to the agenda for the meeting, which said the audit would focus on the three issues.

“So the auditor’s letters aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on?” DiTullio said to Lisauskas.

Lisauskas demurred.

“Jim, I know what you’re looking to do. We’re not going there. We’re telling you what the scope of the audit is,” he said before the room devolved into crosstalk.

Then Brownerberger jumped in.

“Finish that sentence. You know what we’re looking to do? Lay it out. What are we looking to do?” Brownsberger said to Lisauskas.

Lisauskas said he had finished his thought.

“This is the scope of the audit is the end of the sentence,” he said. “There was a period.”