CommonWealth Magazine's new editor, Bruce Mohl -- who knows a thing or two about investigative reporting -- writes in the new issue about the Inspector General's report on my Therese Murray/tourism marketing story. He titles his piece: "Murray uses IG as ombudsman for Phoenix story." (Sorry for not linking; subscription required for online version.) Mohl cites the executive director of the New England Press Association, which gave me an award for the story, saying that she has never seen this type of investigation of a press report in her 10 years at the association.

[Update: Here is a direct link to the CommonWealth story.]

Mohl faults me on what he calls "two key factual errors," involving the specifics of Murray's trips, and whether overseas visits to Massachusetts declined or rose while William MacDougall had the state contract.

Mohl interviewed IG Sullivan, who says that Murray's actions directing $11 million in contracts to MacDougall must be seen in the "context of a fight with the administration of former governor Mitt Romney." I agree, and explained that context in the article. Sullivan, I might add, did not mention in his report another crucial context: that MacDougall had previously been forced to resign from state government when the state auditor caught him bilking the state for improper (or nonexistent) expenses.

Speaking of the state auditor -- at the time we ran the article in February 2007, that office was conducting an audit of the Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism, including the oversight of the MacDougall contract. In fact, they had been conducting that audit for quite some time, and there was an expectation that the report would be soon forthcoming, with a discussion of how MacDougall was able to spend huge amounts of state money without explanation or accounting. (As Mohl points out, although the IG's report claims to have accounted for all of MacDougall's expenditures, that is only in the broadest strokes: "For example, there's no breakdown of how $926,000 was spent by a public relations firm....")

That auditors report has still not been released, 14 months later, and last time I enquired about it I was told it was still in the works.

"Wes" writes:

How are the two new city councilors - Mark Ciommo of A/B and John Connolly of WR - fitting in to their new seats? Are either making any waves? Where would they fall in the impending Flaherty/Menino showdown (exactly how close are they to the mayor)?

And is there any chance Tobin would throw in for the 09 race? Would Tobin ally with Flaherty for the 09 race?

Too early for me to have much to say about Ciommo and Connolly, but my sense is that the Council has so many newbies -- five of the 13 joined within the last two years and change, right? -- that the newest newbies aren't feeling too odd. I spoke with Connolly fairly recently, and he seemed to realize how much he has to learn, and how quickly, about the way things work in City Hall. He was still putting together his staff, learning the rules and procedures, and of course figuring out who you need to know to get things done. I imagine it's similar for Ciommo, although with the added burden of the nitty-gritty demands of his district constituents. Plus, both have significant committee assignments -- Connolly (a former teacher) is education chair, and Ciommo (whose district has BC and Harvard expanding) chairs institutional relations. AND both are on Ways & Means, and it's time for budget hearings. Wisely, both seem to be keeping their heads down for the moment.

Ciommo is considered a Menino ally; Connolly not so much. Tobin was a huge help to Connolly in his election campaign, so if Tobin runs it puts JC in a tough spot -- he'd certainly want to be with Tobin, but is he willing to alienate himself from the mayor so early in his public career?

I think Tobin is unlikely to run this time, because the circumstances just aren't going to look right. But, if circumstances change, he'll jump. Let's put it this way: If he thinks there's a serious chance that someone other than Menino will be taking the oath in January 2010, he won't want it to be somebody else -- because then it's another 12 or 16 years before there's another chance.

Oh, and I don't think any of the current city councilors will endorse Flaherty if he runs, but I could be wrong.

"Rick Ross" asks:

How many sitting City Councilors are in favor of term limits or do they believe like the Mayor that it is a ten to twenty year appointment ?

I'm not aware of anyone other than John Tobin -- who is actively pushing term limits -- coming out in favor of it. As you suggest, Menino is openly opposed to the idea. I know Rob Consalvo is opposed, and I imagine that most of the district councilors (many of whom were elected with Menino's help) would be unwilling to back it even if they kinda like the idea, which I suspect most do not. Steve Murphy has suggested that term limits should be a ballot-referendum issue, not a council vote, and I think that's a pretty good line that the rest of them will use to waffle around the topic. Incidentally, it's worth recalling that Maura Hennigan came out for term limits just before she ran for Mayor. It's a pretty good tactic for getting people thinking about how long is too long for the Mayor to remain in office. At the time, as I recall, Tobin was against it....

In response to my invitation for questions, "Benny" writes:

Last time you told me State Senator Walsh was vacating her seat... What exactly happened there? Didn't she lobby hard for the judge position?

Also, what's the story with Councilor Feeney's "civic summit"? What role will Flaherty play in this activist forum, and where does the mayor stand? Is Feeney closer to Menino or Flaherty?

And finally, when does this Mayor 09 showdown actually kick off? Is Flaherty even definitely running?

On Marian Walsh -- yes, I did say that my vaunted inside sources believed it to be a done deal. I led you astray, is exactly what happened there. Her spin on it (and it was spun hard to me) is that she decided that the bench isn't really right for her, and so she decided to withdraw her name from consideration rather than embarrass Patrick by declining after he nominated her. The conventional wisdom disagrees, and says that she was going to have a difficult, and potentially unpleasant, confirmation process: her appointment -- coming not long after her husband got one -- would be portrayed as gifts in payment for her support of Patrick during his campaign. Note that some members of the Governors Council, which does the confirmation, showed some teeth during the recent Cheryl Jacques confirmation, making the very same allegation.

On Feeney's summit -- it's a well-played gambit on her part, and possibly even a useful idea. (Although that remains to be seen.) Menino made the tactical mistake of publicly coming out against it without being able to stop it. When he saw it was going to happen anyway, he had to agree to participate -- otherwise, you've got a big gathering of disgruntled civic leaders coming together at the feet of a potential rival politician (and probably spending the day grousing about the Mayor and/or his agencies). Menino gave in and agreed to participate -- which made Feeney look like the true leader, forcing the Mayor to engage, against his will, with the city. Well played, Maureen. That said, she is still considered close to Menino -- and very far from close to Flaherty.

On Mayor showdown 2009 -- my assumption is that, unless circumstances change his mind, Michael Flaherty will announce his candidacy late this year. I think he will run; I think he would prefer to announce after the '08 elections in early November (because otherwise he'll get lost in the political noise), but in time to hold some big fundraisers before the end of the calendar year.

Thanks for the questions, and I hope I don't lead you astray this time!

As you might recall, last year Jim Ogonowski's Congressional campaign ran aground when he refused to say how he would vote on the SCHIP veto override; Niki Tsongas pounded him mercilessly for it. Is he doing it again?

Two days ago, Senate Republicans blocked the Fair Pay Act from a vote -- it came three votes shy of the 60 needed to end a filibuster. The Democrats will surely try again next year, and clearly every vote will matter. John Kerry was a co-sponsor of the bill. Late Wednesday, I contacted the campaigns of both Republicans seeking to replace Kerry this fall, and asked how they would vote on it.

Jeff Beatty's campaign has provided me with a statement from the candidate. Although he does not specifically say how he would vote, he makes clear that he sides with his party: "I owned a small business for many years.... New regulations like these are exactly what we don't need right now.... [M]y experience tells me this bill would end up hurting the very businesses and people it's trying to help."

Ogonowski's campaign, on the other hand, has not given me a response, despite several follow-up attempts.

The Fair Pay Act is in response to a Supreme Court ruling last year, which essentially changed the longstanding interpretation of the 180-day statute of limitations on pay discrimination lawsuits. The clock now starts ticking at the onset of the imbalance, rather than the most recent paycheck. The ruling will eliminate the ability of many, if not most, workers to bring such suits against their employers -- for instance, when a woman discovers after several years that she's being paid less than her equally experienced male co-workers for the same work. The current bill would bring the law in line with what everyone thought the law meant prior to the SC ruling.

Republicans in the Senate argue that it would unleash a torrent of unnecessary litigation. But that's a tough sell to much of the public, to whom it looks like the GOP is protecting employers' ability to screw their female employees. It's no coincidence that of the six Republicans who defected and voted for the Fair Pay Act Wednesday, four are facing tough re-election challenges this year: Collins (Maine), Coleman (Minnesota), Smith (Oregon), and Sununu (New Hampshire). (Snowe of Maine and Specter of Pennsylvania are the others).

Last year's SCHIP bill, which sought to extend health benefits to more children, posed a similar dilemma to Republicans -- which is why Ogonowski looked so craven in refusing to take a side. I am hoping that Ogo is not making the same mistake again, so I am awaiting his answer and will pass it along when I get it.

It's Friday, so I will once again invite anyone and everyone to ask any questions you might have for me. Leave your question in a comment to this post, and I will post a response with my best information, opinion, or thoughts on the subject. Fire away!

In this week's Boston Phoenix -- out tomorrow, online now -- I have a small item catching up with Barry Scott, who was allegedly beaten up by police in Provincetown last summer. His friends and supporters held a fundraiser for him last week, to help with his legal costs; believe it or not, he is still facing charges for allegedly resisting arrest, among other charges.

Check it out here. Scott's Honor: Fearful return to P-Town.

If you want to hear my thoughts on the Obama/Clinton contest, I'll be on Jim Braude's show on NECN tonight yakking about it. Who knows? I might say something worth hearing.

It's questionable as to how the [Obama] campaign is spending this money. Surely not on volunteers or a field organization. EVERY communication I've received from the campaign has included a money beg, not one of time or input. It's definitely not a poor people's campaign. perhaps it's going to the Axelrod entity.... A closer look at the Obama campaign spending may well provide an introspective into how the junior Senator drives the bus -- or at least, like a child in a parent's lap, sits at the wheel. Where's the money goin' David. Who's gettin' paid?

If Menino and Flaherty square off in '09, who runs for the open council seat?

New WBZ/SurveyUSA poll shows Clinton whipping McCain in Massachusetts head-to-head 56%-41%, but Obama technically tied, with a 48%-46% lead.

Unlikely that Obama doesn't win the state in November, and likely by a wide margin. But some state Republicans have been tentatively saying that Obama/McCain won't be the drag on the rest of the ballot that Kerry/Bush was for the GOP in '04. They might be onto something.

Interestingly, one big difference comes from Hispanics, who poll 3-1 Hillary over McCain, but 3-1 McCain over Obama. But here in Mass., many local GOP candidates have been awfully willing to antagonize Hispanics (see: Ogonowski).

I'll open up the floor today to any and all questions: local, state, national, international; politics, policy, campaigns; fact, opinion, scandal, rumor; justice, economy, healthcare; whatever you want. Ask and I'll do my best to answer.

Ask in the comments to this post, and I'll answer in separate posts over the course of the day. 

--The dime-dropping at the Massachusetts house of representatives is trickling downward through the ranks; now Charlie Murphy has been publicly humiliated for, apparently, giving someone permission to cast his votes while he lolled on a tropical isle. (Of course, given what I reported recently about the infrequency of disssenting votes in that chamber, does it really matter?) If this ratting-out keeps up, house members are going to have to start acting by that sage credo: don't do anything you wouldn't want to see written up in the papers. And what fun would that be?

--When one person steals from the company, you've got a rogue employee. When several of them do it, in the same way, you've got copycats and you need to inform your managers and supervisers to watch out for it. When dozens of them do it -- as appears to be the case at the Boston Fire Department -- odds are pretty good that your managers are part of the problem. That almost has to be the case in this current scandal. And make no mistake, this pension/disability scam is just a form of theft. If, and I repeat IF, the allegations turn out to be true, and as widespread as it seems, then it seems impossible that high-ranking folks were unaware. Which means that they either allowed it, encouraged it, or made personal gain off of it. Which could explain why the feds are so interested.

--And by the way, has Donovan Slack (who's been breaking the BFD stories) been carrying the downsized Globe on her back or what?

--The talent at ABC News made jackasses of themselves in the other night's debate. (I can't find video of the opening montage, but I swear it was more like the intro for a Ultimate Fighting match than a Presidential forum.) But let's not forget that the bulk of the press has been focusing on these inane, idiotic questions and accusations and gotcha-no-got-you! exchanges -- and so have the candidates themselves. It's not just Charles and George, although they really should have treated the occasion as a time to rise above the Chris Matthewsization of political discourse, not dive down into it.

--How can you not love a guy who's trying to establish a regulatory framework for the financial-services industry, AND introduces a bill to decriminalize pot? Go get 'em, barney Frank!

What you may not know is that one of Merck’s most effective allies in marketing Vioxx was Marvin A. Konstam, a professor of medicine at Tufts University, chief of cardiology at Tufts-affiliated New England Medical Center (NEMC), and a paid consultant for Merck. In 2001 — a year after serious questions about Vioxx’s safety came to light — Konstam was the lead author of an article in the journal Circulation that found “no evidence” that Vioxx caused more cardiovascular problems than alternative pain medicines or placebos. The article was cited in dozens of other articles.

It also offered evidence, some say, of how Boston’s prestigious medical institutions — one of the area’s biggest assets — are being used and abused by pharmaceutical and medical-device companies to market their products.

Why? Because Konstam himself did not actually conduct or oversee any clinical trials for the 2001 article: the data was all provided to him by Merck from the company’s own trials. Nor did Konstam decide which trial results were included in the study: that, too, was handled by Merck, and critics allege that its findings were flawed. (The article, however, is not implicated in current lawsuits.) Five Merck employees were listed as co-authors of the study. The article’s acknowledgments cited Qinfen Yu for doing the data analysis, without mentioning that Yu was also a Merck employee. It also thanked Diana Rogers for “preparation of the manuscript,” omitting that she was a ghostwriter hired by Merck. Despite all this, the first author you see on the article is Marvin A. Konstam, and the first institutional name is NEMC. Only in the fine print do you find the co-authors’ Merck affiliation.

In this week's issue of the Boston Phoenix, out tomorrow, I take a look at the House Democrats under the leadership of Speaker Sal DiMasi. I suggest that there is a remarkable absence of dissent and debate, which I blame on several factors, including the leadership style of DiMasi and his core team; the willing acquiescence of most members; and the timidity of other members.

One of my findings is that heading into the casino vote, House Democrats had cast a TOTAL of just 567 votes in opposition to DiMasi on floor votes in the 2007-'08 legislative session. That's an average of four dissenting votes apiece over the course of some 15 months.

Nearly 3000 such dissenting votes were cast by Democrats in the '05-'06 session -- the first under DiMasi -- and more than 5000 in Tom Finneran's last session as Speaker, in '03-'04. That's only one way to judge these things, but it's pretty telling.

The article is online now:

DiMasi's Sheep: How Stepford Politics rule Beacon Hill

It is not too extreme to suggest that, if we are going to be serious about protecting people from death by bullets, then District Attorney Dan Conley should seriously consider bringing charges of negligent manslaughter — or at least child endangerment — against those who allowed this to happen.

Perhaps that will get the message through to the people who casually tote handguns around the city, stashing them in communally accessible hiding places, tossing them onto coffee tables, and tucking them under mattresses.