By Sydney Wise
The setting for a state Senate candidates’ forum seemed emblematic: inside a Quaker meeting room near a home once used as George Washington’s headquarters. The candidates obliged by painting a picture of an opaque, unproductive state legislature failing to live its democratic ideals.
The five candidates for the 2nd Middlesex District senate seat — state Representatives Erika Uyterhoeven and Christine Barber, Cambridge Vice Mayor Burhan Azeem, Somerville City Councilor Matt McLaughlin, and Winchester School Committee member Tom Hopcroft — pitched themselves as the one who could bring transparency to Beacon Hill with variations like Hopcroft’s “We can keep doing things the same way and hope the building reforms itself from the inside, or we can decide that first in education, first in innovation, and last in democracy is no longer good enough.”
All resoundingly supported a potential ballot question bringing the legislature and Governor under public records law. But the candidates split over leadership stipends and an audit bill passed by the House this month.
Barber, Uyterhoeven defend audit vote
In 2024, 72 percent of voters approved a ballot question allowing the State Auditor to audit the state legislature. Since then, legislative leaders have criticized the audit, arguing that it the violates separation of powers, while the audit’s supporters have lamented slow progress.
In early June, the House passed a bill that would allow for an audit but narrow its scope. Under the approved text, the Auditor can access the “administrative functions” of the legislature, including budgets, external audits, expenditures, and settlement agreements with former members, officers, and employees. The bill also states that the courts can’t intervene in audit disputes.
Uyterhoeven and Barber were among those who voted 125-28 to pass the bill. On Tuesday, they defended their positions. “I want the audit to happen already,” Uyterhoeven said. She also noted that the documents included in the bill reflect a list provided by State Auditor Diana DiZoglio in January 2025 (though DiZoglio has indicated she’s also interested in other areas, the Commonwealth Beacon reports).
Barber agreed. To “put in statute that the legislature will be audited” was critical, she said. “I felt voting for that was a way to move the audit forward and actually get something in law that can continue this discussion,” she said.
Their opponents were more hesitant. Hopcroft said that limiting the audit’s scope is “useful,” but that the real issue is the number of bills in the legislature that don’t get passed (or even voted on).
Azeem said he would not have voted for the bill and called State Rep. Mike Connolly, one of three Democrats who voted “no,” “incredibly brave.” Connolly represents parts of Cambridge and Somerville in the 26th Middlesex District.
McLaughlin also said he would have voted “no.” He added, “I’m genuinely befuddled as to why people are claiming this is an accomplishment when the auditor and other people who supported the audit don’t think that we accomplished anything from this.”
Support for public records referendum
Uyterhoeven said one reason she supported the bill was its provisions for public records. The bill brings the Governor’s Office under existing public records law and sets a new framework for public access to legislative records. That framework outlines specific types of documents to be made publicly accessible.
The provisions are similar to a referendum that DiZoglio is aiming to get on the ballot this year. If passed, the referendum would bring the Governor and legislature entirely under public records law.
All of the candidates said on Tuesday they supported the referendum. “It’s common sense,” McLaughlin said. Uyterhoeven said that public records law is necessary to fight wrongful incarceration.
Hopcroft criticized the House bill’s uneven treatment of the legislature and Governor’s Office. “It feels particularly funny that they would say, ‘oh, you can look over there, you know, the Governor’s Office, but you can’t look over here,’” he said.
Azeem expressed concern that the bill could blunt future progress on the referendum. “One of the most powerful phrases in politics is ‘we already did this,’” he said.
Barber said that, while she’s proud of the “teeth” behind the House bill, she supports the referendum in going further.
Agreement on stipend reform – but how?
While all five supported stipend reform, they differed on the specifics. In Massachusetts, members of the state legislature can receive stipends for taking on leadership positions on top of their regular salary. This session, legislators take home a base pay of roughly $82,000, according to the State House News Service. At the highest levels, they might even double their pay: stipends range from $7,776.07 for acting as vice chair of a committee to $119,631.81 for the House Speaker and Senate President.
A proposed ballot question aimed at changing the way stipends are distributed was blocked by the Attorney General’s office last month.
Azeem is in favor of removing stipends and normalizing pay through a ballot question to change the state Constitution, which sets the current rate. It’s what’s “fair and just,” he said.
Barber is the only candidate who holds a leadership position in the legislature. She serves as Chair of the Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, a position that earns an extra $22,430.96.
Barber said she agrees with proposals to re-evaluate stipend amounts based on the amount of work taken on by each position. In her committee, every bill gets a hearing, which is significant work, she said.
Hopcroft agreed that, if stipends are given, they should be differential (though he said he likes Azeem’s proposal) and require that certain transparency measures are in place.
There are also challenges with deciding who leads, Barber said. “There [are] a lot of challenges with committee assignments being given out by who is in favor, who is popular, and there is a better way to do that.”
Uyterhoeven seconded that. “There is a literal cost to not following what leadership tells you to do, and that has been the function of having these committees that don’t do anything,” she said, “and so the solution that they’ve had is, okay, we’re going to have hearings and we’re going to try to do something and make it seem like we’re doing it to justify the pay.”
McLaughlin said that stipends shouldn’t be given based on a committee’s perceived importance. “That’s the whole point of being out there,” he said of committee work.
The event is the third in a series of candidate fora hosted by the Cambridge Committee on Transparency and Accountability, Act on Mass (a group cofounded by Uyterhoeven), and the Coalition to Reform our Legislature. Pete Septoff of the CCTA moderated.
The next forum in the series will be for the 27th Middlesex District, where Uyterhoeven’s departure from the seat has opened a contest between political aide Olivia Gilligan-Corsetti and Somerville City Councilor Ben Ewen-Campen, at the Central Square Library on July 7.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
