Witness the office of inspector general, a position created two decades ago in response to a massive construction scandal at UMass Boston and other state facilities. Though the two men who have held the job - Joseph Barresi and Robert Cerasoli - have each produced valuable work, there is a sense that the office has never quite lived up to its potential.

Now, with Cerasoli stepping down at the end of this month after two five-year terms (the legal limit), elected officials have a chance to get it right. Unfortunately, a combination of political gamesmanship and unexpected circumstances is threatening to turn an office that's been merely a disappointment into a full-blown disaster.

The inspector general's task, quite simply, is to check up on the rest of state government, nosing around wherever he or she thinks it will do the most good. Earlier this year, for instance, Cerasoli produced what has been perhaps his most important and controversial report, asserting that former governors Bill Weld and Paul Cellucci almost certainly knew about cost overruns at the Big Dig as far back as 1994 - six years before the overruns were revealed to the federal government, as required by law. Cerasoli's findings are now the subject of an investigation by Attorney General Tom Reilly.

Over the past 10 years Cerasoli has also investigated such matters as the dubious funding of some taxpayer-supported charter schools, Medicaid abuse, the management of a municipal-waste incinerator, a $64 million royalty dispute involving two state vaccine researchers, and charges of overspending by agencies such as the MWRA and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. And though Cerasoli, a former state representative, is sometimes criticized as a lightweight and a headline-hunter, he enjoys a generally good reputation for independence and integrity.

Now, with less than a month to go before his term ends, the search for a replacement appears to be melting down. On Monday, Donald Mullinax, the inspector general of the Los Angeles school system, withdrew his candidacy, explaining - believe it or not - that he had neglected to tell his wife about the job, and that she was unwilling to move. This raises a few questions about his judgment, but Mullinax was the only outsider and the only person with any relevant experience who was under consideration.

Reilly, who along with Governor Jane Swift and Auditor Joe DeNucci must pick the new inspector general, wants to reopen the search, saying he is uncomfortable with the remaining field of three Beacon Hill insiders: Representatives Maryanne Lewis (D-Dedham) and Joseph Sullivan (D-Braintree), and Michael Sullivan, director of the state's Office of Campaign and Political Finance. DeNucci, who had wanted the job himself only to run into opposition from Reilly, is disparaging Reilly's concerns, telling the Boston Herald, " Now the out-of-stater is out, and he needs a new nationwide, worldwide search? I'm sick and tired of this 'you have to be from someplace else to be good.' "

The next inspector general doesn't have to be from someplace else, but Reilly's concerns are well founded. The last thing some elected officials and state agencies want is tough, independent scrutiny. Weld, for example, tried to get rid of the inspector general's office in 1991, and Cellucci tried to strip it of funding earlier this year. The final choice is one we will have to live with for five or 10 years. Getting it right should take precedence over getting it done quickly - never mind the June 30 deadline. Even if Reilly, Swift, and DeNucci ultimately choose one of the insiders, they should at least have the option of naming an outsider with strong credentials.

" It should be free and totally separated from politics, " Reilly told the Herald. Well, it never is, and Reilly, a savvy pol, is no more immune to political grandstanding than anyone else. But in this case he is absolutely correct. Contact Swift (617-727-6250; e-mail GOffice@state.ma.us) and DeNucci (617-727-2075; e-mail Auditor@SAO.state.ma.us) and tell them to reopen the search for an inspector general.

    ***************

Senate president Tom Birmingham deserves praise for his innovative plan not only to fund the Clean Elections Law this year with a $20 million line item in the budget, but to fund it every year by mandating the automatic appropriation of $10 million from the state's general funds. The move would ensure that the controversial law gets funded outside the highly charged budget negotiations that take place each spring.

Though the Clean Elections Law was passed by two-thirds of voters in 1998, it has yet to be implemented. (There is about $22.4 million in the Clean Elections trust fund; advocates estimate that it will cost between $30 million and $40 million to fully implement the law in the upcoming election cycle.) Last month, under House Speaker Tom Finneran's guidance, the House voted not to provide funding for the law this year. Instead, taxpayers will be given the option of adding up to $100 to their taxes to pay for it. The move, which would effectively kill the measure, was contemptuous of the voters who passed the law in the first place. (Indeed, there was so much voter outrage that at least one representative, Concord's Cory Atkins, has publicly changed her position and now says she supports full funding of the law.)

Though nothing is guaranteed, the Senate is likely to approve Birmingham's proposal. The real test, however, will come in conference- committee negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the budget.

Contact Birmingham's office (617-722-1500; e-mail tbirming@sen.state.ma.us) to let him know you support his proposal. More important, call your local senator; you can find a complete listing on the Web at www.state.ma.us/legis/legis.htm.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com.

Witness the office of inspector general, a position created two decades ago in response to a massive construction scandal at UMass Boston and other state facilities. Though the two men who have held the job - Joseph Barresi and Robert Cerasoli - have each produced valuable work, there is a sense that the office has never quite lived up to its potential.

Now, with Cerasoli stepping down at the end of this month after two five-year terms (the legal limit), elected officials have a chance to get it right. Unfortunately, a combination of political gamesmanship and unexpected circumstances is threatening to turn an office that's been merely a disappointment into a full-blown disaster.

The inspector general's task, quite simply, is to check up on the rest of state government, nosing around wherever he or she thinks it will do the most good. Earlier this year, for instance, Cerasoli produced what has been perhaps his most important and controversial report, asserting that former governors Bill Weld and Paul Cellucci almost certainly knew about cost overruns at the Big Dig as far back as 1994 - six years before the overruns were revealed to the federal government, as required by law. Cerasoli's findings are now the subject of an investigation by Attorney General Tom Reilly.

Over the past 10 years Cerasoli has also investigated such matters as the dubious funding of some taxpayer-supported charter schools, Medicaid abuse, the management of a municipal-waste incinerator, a $64 million royalty dispute involving two state vaccine researchers, and charges of overspending by agencies such as the MWRA and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. And though Cerasoli, a former state representative, is sometimes criticized as a lightweight and a headline-hunter, he enjoys a generally good reputation for independence and integrity.

Now, with less than a month to go before his term ends, the search for a replacement appears to be melting down. On Monday, Donald Mullinax, the inspector general of the Los Angeles school system, withdrew his candidacy, explaining - believe it or not - that he had neglected to tell his wife about the job, and that she was unwilling to move. This raises a few questions about his judgment, but Mullinax was the only outsider and the only person with any relevant experience who was under consideration.

Reilly, who along with Governor Jane Swift and Auditor Joe DeNucci must pick the new inspector general, wants to reopen the search, saying he is uncomfortable with the remaining field of three Beacon Hill insiders: Representatives Maryanne Lewis (D-Dedham) and Joseph Sullivan (D-Braintree), and Michael Sullivan, director of the state's Office of Campaign and Political Finance. DeNucci, who had wanted the job himself only to run into opposition from Reilly, is disparaging Reilly's concerns, telling the Boston Herald, " Now the out-of-stater is out, and he needs a new nationwide, worldwide search? I'm sick and tired of this 'you have to be from someplace else to be good.' "

The next inspector general doesn't have to be from someplace else, but Reilly's concerns are well founded. The last thing some elected officials and state agencies want is tough, independent scrutiny. Weld, for example, tried to get rid of the inspector general's office in 1991, and Cellucci tried to strip it of funding earlier this year. The final choice is one we will have to live with for five or 10 years. Getting it right should take precedence over getting it done quickly - never mind the June 30 deadline. Even if Reilly, Swift, and DeNucci ultimately choose one of the insiders, they should at least have the option of naming an outsider with strong credentials.

" It should be free and totally separated from politics, " Reilly told the Herald. Well, it never is, and Reilly, a savvy pol, is no more immune to political grandstanding than anyone else. But in this case he is absolutely correct. Contact Swift (617-727-6250; e-mail GOffice@state.ma.us) and DeNucci (617-727-2075; e-mail Auditor@SAO.state.ma.us) and tell them to reopen the search for an inspector general.

    ***************

Senate president Tom Birmingham deserves praise for his innovative plan not only to fund the Clean Elections Law this year with a $20 million line item in the budget, but to fund it every year by mandating the automatic appropriation of $10 million from the state's general funds. The move would ensure that the controversial law gets funded outside the highly charged budget negotiations that take place each spring.

Though the Clean Elections Law was passed by two-thirds of voters in 1998, it has yet to be implemented. (There is about $22.4 million in the Clean Elections trust fund; advocates estimate that it will cost between $30 million and $40 million to fully implement the law in the upcoming election cycle.) Last month, under House Speaker Tom Finneran's guidance, the House voted not to provide funding for the law this year. Instead, taxpayers will be given the option of adding up to $100 to their taxes to pay for it. The move, which would effectively kill the measure, was contemptuous of the voters who passed the law in the first place. (Indeed, there was so much voter outrage that at least one representative, Concord's Cory Atkins, has publicly changed her position and now says she supports full funding of the law.)

Though nothing is guaranteed, the Senate is likely to approve Birmingham's proposal. The real test, however, will come in conference- committee negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the budget.

Contact Birmingham's office (617-722-1500; e-mail tbirming@sen.state.ma.us) to let him know you support his proposal. More important, call your local senator; you can find a complete listing on the Web at www.state.ma.us/legis/legis.htm.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com.