COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

1. On Dec 5, 2024 over 2.3mm Massachusetts voters approved to change the language of M.G.L. c 11, §12 to include the auditing of the State's Legislature ("The Legislature"). Specifically, the law now states the State Auditor, "shall audit the accounts, programs, activities and functions directly related to the aforementioned accounts of all departments, offices, commissions, institutions, and activities of the commonwealth, including those of...the general court.¹" And that the Auditor's staff "shall have access" to the accounts they are charged with auditing and may require production of relevant records."

2. It has been over 10 months since the language in the law was enacted and the Defendants, Ron Mariano in his capacity as the House Speaker of the Legislature and Karen Spilka, acting in her capacity as the Senate President of the Legislature (collectively "Defendants"), have purposely defied the law and refused to provide the State Auditor with the expressly stated accounting materials needed to complete the audit. In explaining her lack of performance, Senator Spilka has claimed an audit is already done by the Legislature and therefore another is not needed and that the current auditor is disqualified to audit the Legislature because she was once a member of the Legislature. Neither claims are accurate.

3. As a resident of Massachusetts and a candidate for Lieutenant Governor, the Plaintiff, Anne Brensley, is seeking relief in the nature of two declaratory actions pursuant to G.L. c 231A §§ 1& 2, and a petition in the nature of writs of mandamus pursuant to G.L. c. 249 § 5.

4. Specifically, Plaintiff requests the Court (i) declare House Rule 85A does not satisfy M.G.L. c 11, §12; (ii) declare M.G.L. c 11, §12 does not disqualify an auditor from conducting the audit due to previously being a member of the entity being audited; (iii) issue an order in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the Defendants to comply with M.G.L. c 11, §12 and to do so within 30 days of the Court's order and (iv) to take such other legal and equitable action as the Court deems proper in order to ensure the will of the People of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is carried out.

¹ "General Court" is direct reference to the State's legislature

5. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to G.L. 231A § § 1 & 2; and G.L. c. 249, § 5.

6. Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to G.L. 231A; § 2; G.L. c. 214, § 1; and G.L. c. 249, § 5.²

² M.G.L. c.11, §12 expressly states, "The superior court shall have jurisdiction to enforce the production of records that the department requires to be produced pursuant to this section..."

7. Plaintiff is a resident of Wayland, Massachusetts and works at 200 Lincoln St, Ste 302, Boston, MA 02111. She has standing to bring this claim under the Public Right Doctrine and as a candidate for Lieutenant Governor giving her a sufficiently direct, particular, and personal interest in this case.³

8. The Defendants are both domiciled in the State of Massachusetts as required by their positions as members of the State Legislature.

³ The Plaintiff is also a tax payor.

9. The Plaintiff brings this action under the Public Right Doctrine.

10. The public right doctrine in Massachusetts has been invoked to grant standing in cases where a citizen seeks to enforce a public duty through mandamus, without needing to demonstrate a personal or particularized interest. This doctrine allows any member of the public to compel the performance of a duty required by law, provided the duty is clear, unequivocal, and non-discretionary. For example, it has been applied to enforce duties such as election officials counting ballots correctly or public officers performing specific statutory obligations as is the same in this case. Tax Equity Alliance v. Commissioner of Revenue; 55 Mass. App. Ct 537, 405.

11. However, the doctrine does not extend to substantive constitutional challenges or discretionary actions. For instance, in Tax Equity Alliance v. Commissioner of Revenue the court clarified that the public right doctrine could not be used to challenge the substantive constitutionality of a statute but could be applied to procedural challenges, such as whether the enactment process conformed to constitutional requirements.⁴

12. Similarly, in Perella v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, the court emphasized that the doctrine applies only to enforce clear legal duties and not discretionary actions. Perella v. Mass. Tpk. Auth, 55 Mass. App. Ct 537.

13. In this case, the Plaintiff is asking the Court to compel performance by public officials who are not completing their statutory duties.

14. The duties the Plaintiff is looking to enforce are clear duties and not discretionary actions. She is not challenging the constitutionality of M.G.L. c 11, §12.

⁴ A case addressing Rule 85A was filed in Suffolk Superior Court (case no: 2484CV03175-BLS2). Plaintiff was found to lack standing in the case under the Public Right Doctrine due to his challenge to the Constitutionality of Rule 85A. This case materially differs.

15. Even if the Public Right Doctrine does not apply, the Plaintiff has standing to bring this claim.

16. The Plaintiff is a candidate for Lieutenant Governor and must understand in detail all budgets within all departments and branches of government to appropriately prepare for the future responsibility of assisting in preparing the budget upon winning the election. By withholding the legally required audit, the Plaintiff is at a disadvantage to carry out her duties upon being elected.

17. In addition, the democrats currently have control over all three branches of government in Massachusetts (Governorship, House of Representatives, and Senate), and control of the attorney general's office. As a Republican candidate, the Plaintiff is deprived of crucial information that could allow her to uncover sources of misuse of funds, spending overrides, financial discrepancies, and contractual wrongdoings.⁵ This information is currently only accessible to the democrats who have an interest in concealing damaging information and purposely withholding it from the Plaintiff, and other opposing political candidates, in an attempt to win elections.

18. In clearest explanation, by the Defendants not performing their legally required duties, the Plaintiff is being deprived of crucial information which hurts her ability to better inform and sway voters on how she would prepare, operate, and reduce the budget for the State; and ultimately win the elected position.⁶

19. On Nov 5, 2024, Massachusetts voters voted on ballot Question 1, "A Law Expressly Authorizing the Auditor to Audit the Legislature."

20. The ballot question was voted into law replacing the first sentence of M.G.L. c 11, §12 with 2,326,932 (71.57%) voters voting yes to the ballot question and only 924, 294 against it (28.43%).

21. The full language of the Ballot Question is as follows:

22. M.G.L. c 11, §12 was amended and the language became effective Dec 5, 2024.

23. In a Feb 2, 2025, interview, Senate President Spilka stated there were three reasons she was not abiding by the law. She specifically stated she was withholding performance due to the fact the legislature does its own audit, due to her personal belief the auditor had political motives and could not be trusted to do the audit⁸ and due to her belief the auditor was not allowed to conduct the audit due to being a previous member of the entity being audited. Jon Keller interview WBZ TV, Feb 2, 2025, Minute 5.29

24. As of Oct 1, 2025, the Massachusetts Legislature, led by Majority Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka, has not abided by the enacted law by withholding documents and materials needed to audit the legislature.

25. The only keeper of records of the Massachusetts Legislature is the department of the Massachusetts Legislature.

26. Massachusetts has a public records law (M.G.L. c. 66, section 10). However, the records law excludes the Massachusetts Legislature making public access to the financial records of the Legislature impossible to access and therefore impossible to audit under any other means than M.G.L. c. Chapter 11, §12. Therefore, it is impossible to conduct the audit without the Defendants abiding by the law itself.

27. Plaintiff incorporates the allegation contained in the above paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

28. The House of Representatives for the State of Massachusetts amended Rule 85A nine days after Question 1 was approved by State voters and gives the State Auditor the right to recommend a third-party auditor to assist the House of Representatives to conduct their self-imposed audit. Exhibit B

29. Rule 85A only applies to the House of Representatives and not the total Legislature.

30. M.G.L. c 11, §12 is neither overturned by Rule 85A nor does it impede the House of Representatives from carrying out Rule 85A. Rather Rule 85A is simply superfluous and duplicative.

31. The Court should declare Rule 85A does not satisfy M.G.L. c 11, §12, but rather is a separate Rule with its own performance requirements of the State Auditor.

32. Plaintiff incorporates the allegation contained in the above paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

33. Senate President Spilka has stated she is withholding performance of M.G.L. c 11, §12 because she believes the State Auditor is unable to conduct the Audit due to previously being a member of the entity being audited.

34. The Court should declare there is no language within M.G.L. c 11, §12 stating such an exclusion.

35. Plaintiff incorporates the allegation contained in the above paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

36. M.G.L. c. 249, §5 states "A civil action to obtain relief formerly available by writ of mandamus may be brought in the supreme judicial or superior court or, if the matter involves any right, title or interest in land, or arises under or involves the subdivision control law, the zoning act, or municipal zoning, or subdivision ordinances, by–laws or regulations, in the land court."

37. A successful petition for a writ of mandamus in Massachusetts requires the petitioner to establish a clear legal duty on the part of the respondent, the absence of other remedies, standing, and compliance with procedural and jurisdictional requirements. The court retains discretion to grant or deny the writ based on the circumstances of the case.

38. This petition of writ of mandamus is simple in proving the elements needed to be successful.

39. Specifically, the legal duty is as easy as reading the black letter law of M.G.L. c 11, §12 and is clear as to the legal duty placed upon both branches of the State's legislature. As leaders of those branches, the Defendants are defying the law.

40. In addition, there are no other remedies the Plaintiff can seek as M.G.L. c 11, §12 expressly gives the power to enforce the law to the superior courts. There is also no ability for the Plaintiff to collect the documents herself as the State's freedom of information act does not include the Legislature and the democrats will not share such information with a political opponent.

41. The Plaintiff has standing under both the Public Rights Doctrine and as an injured party with particular interest in the case.

42. Finally, the law procedurally and jurisdictionally names the superior court as the enforcer of the law.

43. Enter a judgment declaring that House Rule 85A does not excuse performance by the Defendants and the State Auditor, Diana Dizoglio is not excluded from being able to audit the Legislature because she was a previous member of that entity;

44. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Defendants to comply with the law within 30 days of the Court's order and provide the State Auditor with all items included in M.G.L. c 11, §12 so she can complete the Audit

45. Grant Plaintiff costs and fees; and

46. Grant such other relief as may be just and equitable

I, Anne Brensley, hereby certify that I have on this day served this Complaint upon the defendants by mailing true and correct copies of the Complaint by first-class certified mail with return receipt to all Defendants at their ordinary place of business.

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 29th day of October, 2025