Seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Audit Explorer - what the State Auditor found

← all audits

Audit of the Bureau of the State House (BSH)

June 24, 2021 · Bureau of the State House · Read the full official report on mass.gov ↗

Published June 24, 2021 Audit covers July 1, 2017 – December 31, 2019 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023

In plain English
The audit found one main problem: the Bureau of the State House did not always have proof that required approvals were obtained before spending money from the State House Special Events Fund.
source
“BSH could not always provide evidence that SEF expenses had been approved by the Joint Committee on Rules.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
What is this?

This is a state performance audit of the Bureau of the State House covering July 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019.

“In accordance with Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) has conducted a performance audit of certain activities of the Bureau of the State House (BSH) for the period July 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019.”
Why was it audited?

Auditors looked at whether the bureau properly charged and collected State House event rental fees and whether it spent special-event money according to the law.

“In this performance audit, we reviewed the activities of the State House Special Events Fund (SEF) to determine whether BSH charged and collected fees for the rental of space in the State House, and incurred expenses, in accordance with the General Laws.”
Why it matters

If approvals are missing, lawmakers may not know how the money is being spent, and other needs may be overlooked.

“The lack of approvals indicates that the Joint Committee on Rules may not have been aware of these expenditures, and other spending priorities may not have been met as a result.”
What's in it for me?

For residents, this is about whether public-facing State House event money is billed, collected, tracked, and spent with proper oversight.

“Without a proper reconciliation process, BSH cannot ensure that all events are billed correctly and all corresponding revenue is accounted for properly.”
The bottom line

Auditors reviewed 19 expenses over $1,000 and found that the bureau could not show approvals for 10 of them, totaling $63,948.

“BSH could not provide approvals for 10 (totaling $63,948) of the transactions.”
What happens next

The bureau should get approval for all special-event fund spending over $1,000 and keep both electronic and paper records of those approvals.

“BSH should seek approval from the Joint Committee on Rules for all SEF expenditures over $1,000, save the approvals electronically, print them, and file them in its hardcopy vendor files.”
Why it's significant

The report does not say money was stolen, but it does say controls were weak: some spending approvals were missing, and revenue tracking could be improved.

“Internal controls over special event revenue could be improved.”
Jargon, unpacked

The State House Special Events Fund is the account that holds money from certain State House event fees and pays for allowed State House-related expenses.

“The State House Special Events Fund (SEF) was established in 1995 by Section 35P of Chapter 10 of the General Laws.”

2 figure(s) pending source verification - not shown

What the Auditor checked

What the Auditor found

BSH could not always prove that required approvals were obtained for SEF expenses over $1,000.
recordkeeping/documentationinternal controls

Why it matters: The Joint Committee on Rules may not have known about the expenditures, and other spending priorities may not have been met.

Standard: Section 9A of Chapter 8 and Section 35P of Chapter 10 of the Massachusetts General Laws, and BSH’s internal control plan. ( Section 9A of Chapter 8, and Section 35P of Chapter 10, of the Massachusetts General Laws; BSH internal control plan )

1 recommendation
  • BSH should seek approval from the Joint Committee on Rules for all SEF expenditures over $1,000, save the approvals electronically, print them, and file them in its hardcopy vendor files.agency: already implemented
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "The Bureau of the State House has implemented a change to our retention process for purchases to include maintaining both electronic and hard copies of legislative approvals and filing them in the hardcopy vendor files."

More audits of this entity

Other Office of the State Auditor reports on Bureau of the State House .

See this entity's page with all 2 audits →