E-Mail This Article to a Friend Speaker on the spot (continued)

THE RELUCTANCE of most state representatives contacted for this story to speak on the record points to the respect and fear Finneran still inspires. But according to several legislators, signs that Finneran may be in legal or political jeopardy have been building for some time. There are reports of the Speaker alluding, in passing, to the unpleasantness of his current predicament, of close associates acknowledging that Finneran’s situation is weighing on him. But the surge in activity among his most-likely successors — who, several legislators say, are suddenly going out of their way to make themselves agreeable to their fellow representatives — may be even more significant.

About a month ago, for example, Salvatore DiMasi (D-Boston), Finneran’s majority leader, abruptly began providing his colleagues with ready-made press releases they could use to take credit for legislative achievements. DiMasi has also reportedly been unusually gregarious of late, inviting small groups of legislators out for drinks or dinner. Then there’s House Ways and Means chair John Rogers (D-Norwood), who some legislators say was unusually responsive to his colleagues’ requests during the House budget deliberations last month. And Eugene O’Flaherty, who serves as House chair of the Joint Judiciary Committee and is known as a tightly wound individual, appears to be showing his softer side. "Geno seems to be much more friendly and less intense about things," one rep says of O’Flaherty.

The legislators offering these observations all attach the same disclaimer — namely, that each change they’ve noticed could be motivated by something other than a desire to replace Finneran. For example, maybe DiMasi simply thought the pre-fab press releases would help stave off Mitt Romney’s much-touted legislative push. But given that DiMasi, Rogers, and O’Flaherty have all been identified as front-runners for the Speaker spot when Finneran exits, this convergence of activity seems noteworthy. "The last time there was this level of background noise around was before Charlie Flaherty left," says one rep. (Flaherty, the Cambridge Democrat who preceded Finneran as Speaker, resigned after pleading guilty to a tax felony and admitting state-ethics violations.)

If Finneran steps aside or is forced out, which of the aforementioned trio is best situated to replace him? DiMasi and Rogers are generally viewed as the top two candidates, and each would enjoy certain key advantages. DiMasi is a social liberal who backs gay marriage and abortion access, while the socially conservative Rogers opposes those rights, an ideological contrast that favors DiMasi. However, DiMasi has also played a key role in crushing dissent in the House and is intimately associated with Finneran’s punitive style, a liability Rogers lacks. DiMasi’s ties with Finneran are longstanding: in 1985, when George Keverian unseated Tom McGee Sr. as House Speaker, Finneran and DiMasi belonged to a group of McGee defectors who made Keverian’s victory possible. Then again, at the close of last year’s budget process, Finneran gave an emotional speech in which he lauded Rogers’s work and spoke of him as a surrogate son. Some reps believe DiMasi would be the front-runner if Finneran leaves; others think Rogers would have the edge. (Although he enjoys significant support among Democratic traditionalists, O’Flaherty’s social conservatism and high-strung personality make him a longer shot.)

It’s also possible that none of these legislators will become the next Speaker. The "Rushing 17," a 17-member group comprising the House’s most liberal members, and the House Democratic Council, a comparably sized contingent of liberal-leaning lawmakers more amenable to working with Finneran, might join forces to elect a Speaker unconnected to Finneran’s leadership team. Mike Festa (D-Melrose), one of the leaders of the House Democratic Council, has been a ubiquitous media presence of late and is cited by some reps as a possible contender. So is David Linsky (D-Natick), also of the House Democratic Council.

One thing seems certain: the ferment roiling the House does not bode well for the incumbent. If DiMasi, Rogers, and O’Flaherty are quietly campaigning with Finneran’s blessing, this suggests the Speaker may be preparing to step aside. If they’re courting supporters without his imprimatur, however, Finneran’s situation may be even bleaker. Three years ago, the notion that a succession campaign might catch Finneran by surprise would have seemed laughable. But that’s no longer the case.

"In the past, I would have said this was happening with his approval," says one House member. "But I’m not so sure now. And they need to be ready to move in case something happens quickly." (Charles Rasmussen, Finneran’s spokesman, did not return a call for comment. But Howell disputes the notion that the political tea leaves bode ill for his client. "Last week’s House budget deliberations were probably the most efficient, workmanlike, and effective budget deliberations by the institution in anyone’s memory," he says. Howell also cites Finneran’s upcoming legislative agenda — which includes major policy issues like housing and school-building-assistance reform — as proof his client remains active and involved.)

AS A MATTER of policy, the US Attorney’s Office won’t discuss details of a grand-jury investigation — or even confirm its existence — until charges are brought. But according to Jeanne Kempthorne, former head of the public-corruption unit in the US Attorney’s Office and a Common Cause board member, Sullivan’s office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation will probably remain in the information-gathering stage — issuing subpoenas, obtaining e-mails and meeting notes, interviewing legislators — for some time. This could take even longer than usual: the FBI, which handles investigatory legwork for the US Attorney’s Office, may put the matter on the back burner as it focuses on security for this July’s Democratic National Convention. After all relevant materials have been obtained, the prosecutor handling the case — reportedly assistant US attorney John McNeil — will evaluate the evidence and recommend whether or not to present it to a grand jury. If McNeil’s superiors sign off on a recommendation to proceed, a jury will then weigh whether to indict. If an indictment is ultimately issued, the trial could take a year or more to run its course.

Given the charges Finneran would likely face if indicted, Kempthorne says, a conviction probably wouldn’t send Finneran to prison; instead, he could expect a mild sentence of 10 to 20 months’ home confinement, during which he would be allowed to continue working. But convicting Finneran of perjury could prove extremely difficult; catching the Speaker knowingly uttering a flat-out, material untruth (i.e., central to the outcome of the case — Finneran wouldn’t be convicted for lying in a redistricting proceeding about the color of his car) is no simple matter. Take Finneran’s trial testimony that he did not know the contents of the redistricting plan unveiled on October 18, 2001, before that date. At trial, Finneran’s attorneys would almost certainly focus on the ambiguity of the word "know." Does it mean to possess comprehensive knowledge? To have absolute certainty? Like Bill Clinton haggling over the meaning of the word "is," Finneran might well use fine verbal hair-splitting to avoid conviction.

Or he might not. While conviction appears difficult based on the current publicly known evidence, something more damning — say, a Finneran aide recalling that he put a tentative redistricting map on the Speaker’s desk in early October — could emerge during the discovery process. Last week, Carol Cleven, the former legislator who has said Finneran briefed her on changes to her district on October 17, expanded her account in an interview with the Phoenix. She said that on October 18, North Reading state Representative Brad Jones — now the House minority leader — told her "the Speaker" had given him the software used in the redistricting process and that he would use it in an effort to make the redrawn district slightly more favorable to Cleven. Jones did not return repeated calls for comment for this story. But this is precisely the kind of detail that could generate new revelations about the extent of Finneran’s involvement, thus belying his trial testimony.

Some observers have speculated that Finneran will step down after winning election as Speaker in early 2005, so he can help pick his successor. An earlier exit this summer would deny Finneran the prestige of being elected Speaker for a sixth time, but it would also keep the Massachusetts Republican Party from using the current investigation as a campaign issue. If Finneran wins a major legislative victory in the next few months — if, for example, his proposal for a constitutional amendment establishing mandatory contributions to a state rainy-day fund gets preliminary approval when the constitutional convention reconvenes this week — he may decide to leave sooner rather than later. Doing so would allow Finneran to retain a measure of control over his own fate and deny his legions of detractors a chance to see him make a more humbling exit. But Finneran has proven to be a tough and wily combatant in his 25 years in the legislature. Those who underestimate his tenacity — however dire his current situation seems — may find they do so at their peril.

Adam Reilly can be reached at areilly[a]phx.com