After months of back and forth between Massachusetts State Auditor Diana DiZoglio and the attorney general’s office over the auditor’s attempts to look into the legislature’s finances, DiZoglio told GBH News she does not believe the attorney general will ever represent her in court. She said Wednesday she would waive attorney client privilege with the attorney general’s office, releasing communications between the two state agencies to the public.

DiZoglio has faced questions on the constitutionality for her efforts, even as a ballot question approved by Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office passed last November with nearly 72% voter support.

Since then, the Legislature has maintained the auditor has no authority to audit their finances and contracts. The auditor’s office has said she would sue for the authority, and asked the attorney general to represent her in court against the legislature.

“It’s undeniable that financial information and state contracts are certainly within the realm of what we’re able to examine,” said DiZoglio. “I certainly don’t believe the constitution says that taxpayers don’t have a right to see how their money is being spent and to see how contracts are being executed.”

Legislative leaders on Beacon Hill argue DiZoglio’s efforts are incongruent with the state constitution’s separation of powers

At a hearing in February, lawmakers questioned whether opening the door to DiZoglio’s audit would amount to a slippery slope. The Massachusetts Legislature is one of the only state legislative bodies in the country that exempts itself from public records laws.

DiZoglio said her team has intentionally narrowed the scope of their requests, with an understanding that lawmakers who oppose the effort will be combing through her asks to look for overreach or unconstitutionality.

“The reality is that what I continue to hear [from the attorney general] is more rationale for keeping us out of court,” said DiZoglio in an interview with Boston Public Radio on Wednesday, accusing Campbell’s office of intentionally slow-walking the process. “We have said very clearly: If the attorney general feels as though she doesn’t want to pick a side ... it’s incumbent upon her to at least make sure that we have representation.”

The auditor suggested Campbell’s office assign a special assistant attorney general, or outside counsel. The Attorney General’s office is the chief legal officer of the state; their duties include representing state agencies in legal matters.

Campbell told Boston Public Radio in March  that she personally voted in favor of the law, but that DiZoglio had not completed the required preliminary inquiry that would solidify the attorney general’s decision to represent them in a legal challenge to the legislature.

After pressure from Boston Public Radio host Jim Braude on Wednesday, DiZoglio said she would release all communications between her office and the attorney general on this specific issue, though she did not offer a timeline.

GBH News reached out to the attorney general’s office Thursday morning for comment, and has yet to receive a response.

Extended transcript, edited for clarity:

Jim Braude: Are the communications between your office and the attorney general’s office public?

Diana DiZoglio: They’re attorney client privilege.

Braude: Why? She’s not your lawyer — you want her to be.

DiZoglio: We are. I’m actually most likely going to be releasing the interactions.

Braude: Why don’t you do that? Why don’t you do that?

DiZoglio: I’m actually thinking about it. My attorney in our office is going through the interactions to make sure we’re not giving away our, you know, legal position, or you know, setting the office up for, you know, folks to come after this question unintentionally so. But I do think moving forward that those attorney-client conversations — that are supposedly attorney client because we’re supposedly being represented, when we don’t know if we are.

I really would like — since the [attorney general] keeps claiming we’re not answering [her] questions, she should make those requests moving forward public, so the entire general public can help us to answer questions.

Braude: If there is attorney-client privilege, which there may or may not be, even though she’s not formally representing you, you could say right now: ‘We are waiving it, we are going disclose every single thing we’ve sent to the AG, we are granting permission to our possible lawyer to do the same.’ You have unilateral power to waive that privilege. So, do you want to say here and now that you would waive it so those documents be made public?

DiZoglio: I actually do think that we should waive it, yes.

Braude: So the answer is yes, you would waive it, and say to her 'Release everything we’ve sent to you?’

DiZoglio: Yeah, yeah. On this issue.

Braude: Fine. OK, great.