September 6, 2006

Attorney General Thomas Reilly, who wants to be elected governor, is a proven master at chasing — and capturing — headlines. He nosed his way into the Catholic Church’s sex-abuse scandal, the sale of the Red Sox, and the outrage that ensued when local radio slime-masters engaged in racially offensive banter. Never mind that Reilly’s office had no jurisdiction. That’s politics, Massachusetts-style: so much hot hair so much of the time.

Time, of course, wounds all heels. Reilly paid the piper in spades with his flip-flops on the death penalty and same-sex marriage. More painful still were the well-deserved black eyes he received for inappropriately meddling in a Worcester County drunk-driving investigation and ineptly naming the admirable but nevertheless income-tax delinquent state representative Marie St. Fleur as his running mate. But hey, at least the dailies spelled his name correctly.

Now comes a case that is a bit more difficult to get one’s mind around, but shows — in all its hollowness — how Reilly as a leader tackles a particularly difficult and philosophically challenging issue. If you are wondering what we’re talking about, don’t feel bad. Trying to follow a shell game is no easy matter. In this instance the shell game concerns the number of people wrongfully convicted of serious crimes.

Two-and-a-half years after he garnered headlines statewide by promising action in 90 days (oops), Attorney General Reilly and the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association (MDAA) last week proudly released their “Justice Initiative” report. Well, perhaps not proudly. They released it at 4:45 pm on the Friday of Labor Day weekend, without a press conference, press release, or comment. And they did not post the report on the MDAA or Attorney General’s office’s Web sites.

If they are ashamed of the report, they should be. It sheds no light on the causes of known wrongful convictions; concludes that the problems lie in the past, rejects almost every reform that has been suggested — including those of the New England Innocence Project, which was the only outside entity asked to provide input; and spends much of its meager 25 pages praising the state’s current prosecutorial offices.

Rather than pressing for change at local police stations, it tells them to adopt reforms only when “practical” — including those called for by the courts, like taping interrogations. Many of the scant calls for change are for pet AG projects that are almost wholly irrelevant to the issue of why people are wrongfully convicted, such as expansion of the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner program and eliminating the statute of limitations for child molestation. Now those particular recommendations may have some merit, but coming as they do on the eve of a closely fought Democratic primary (in which Reilly trails), they smack of political opportunism that is base — even by the elastic standards that prevail on Beacon Hill.

If Reilly had kept to his own self-proclaimed 90-day timetable, his report would have been ready sometime in August of 2004. When he launched the initiative, he acted as though he knew what he wanted to do. The press release and accompanying materials suggested as much. Reilly made clear that he rejected out of hand all calls for an independent “innocence commission,” as well as mandatory tape-recording of police interrogations. And while that might have been a bad start, even cynics expected some sort of progress after the show Reilly staged.

The cynics, it turns out, were not cynical enough. The report starts off emphasizing that most of the wrongful convictions in Massachusetts “were investigated and tried 10, 15 and 20 years ago . . . before DNA came into general usage. . . . [T]his handful of high-profile cases from the 1980s and early 1990s did not suggest a present systems failure.” To which a reasonable person might ask: if there’s no problem, then why should the taxpayers spend the money you ask for in the report’s recommendations? And why did you waste your valuable time for more than two years studying the nonexistent problem? And, if there was a problem back then, why oppose a commission to identify other wrongful cases from the past?

The so-called Justice Initiative reached its conclusions based on its examination of 15 exonerations, 11 of which were from Boston. Several wrongful convictions from other counties were not examined. There was no attempt to look at other overturned cases, dismissed cases, or cases that strongly suggested wrongful conviction. There also is no apology for anything the prosecutors’ offices might have done wrong.

Anyone who doubts that wrongful convictions are a serious problem should consider these facts:

• The Suffolk County DA and Boston Police Department adopted an entirely new system for obtaining eyewitness evidence, released in July 2004, and trained all BPD detectives over the following six months or so on the new methods.

• The Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2004 that any police interrogation not tape-recorded in full will only be admitted into trial with a strong warning to the jury questioning the credibility of the police testimony.

• The state’s courts adopted new rules mandating that police fully document identification procedures.

• Two Federal District Court judges severely limited the testimony of BPD and state-police ballistics experts, because their expertise and methodology are a joke.

• Governor Romney and the state legislature expanded the State Crime Lab from a $3.9m budget and four DNA chemists in 2003 to a $12.6m budget and 34 DNA chemists in 2006.

• Romney cleaned out the Chief Medical Examiner’s office and hired a new CME from outside the state, who is well on his way to rebuilding the office.

• The legislature passed a wrongful-conviction -compensation bill in 2004.

• The legislature increased compensation for court-assigned defense attorneys, as well as budgets for DAs’ offices.

• Two wrongfully convicted men were paid $3.2 million settlements (each) by the city of Boston to resolve claims of civil-rights violations.

The “Justice Initiative” report is vintage Reilly. It’s the worst sort of go-along-to-get-along politics. Voters should beware.

September 4, 2006

By Jack Spillane, Standard-Times staff writer

A week ago Friday, Tom Reilly made his way into Angelo's Orchid Diner in New Bedford's West End to do one of those meet-and-greets that are every political campaign's favorite photo opportunity.
The first two women the attorney general met were ardent pro-lifers and all they wanted to talk about was where he stands on the most controversial of issues.
"I'm pro-choice," he said quietly in his reserved, understated manner, and then moved on quickly to diners who were, he must have hoped, focused on other matters.
Mr. Reilly's initial encounter at Angelo's — during an event at which he was being accompanied by The Standard-Times — was a good metaphor for his campaign.
Plagued by a series of unexpected events and unflattering missteps in the early going, the best known candidate in the Democratic primary race for governor has lost his early frontrunner status.
Still, the attorney general has continued to scrap for votes and begun targeting his message at specific audiences (senior citizens and New Bedford fishermen are two of the constituencies he has focused on).
He has gotten his message out early through a series of mostly upbeat television ads. And several recent polls have him in a dead heat with Deval Patrick and Chris Gabrieli.
Thomas F. Reilly, 64, is the son of Irish immigrant parents. His mother was a maid and his father a laborer. Mr. Reilly admits to being a troubled youth — two brothers and his father died before he graduated from high school. He credits school officials and friends with seeing potential in him, and he went on to graduate from American International College and Boston College Law School.
Along with former U.S. Attorney Wayne Budd (his best friend as a youth), Mr. Reilly founded Budd & Reilly, which grew to be the largest minority-dominated law firm in New England.
Mr. Reilly was Scott Harshbarger's first assistant district attorney in Middlesex County and later followed in his mentor's footsteps, becoming district attorney and attorney general himself.

A SLOW STARTER

Mr. Reilly says he's always been a slow starter and that this is the period of the race he's been waiting for — the Labor Day period when average people begin paying attention to politics.
"They'll start kicking the tires," he said of the voters. "They'll start asking, you know, 'We know everything about Reilly. But who are these (other) guys?' "
Mr. Reilly may intend to help the voters get better acquainted with the other candidates, neither of whom has ever served in elected office.
When asked whether he will honor the request of party leaders to avoid running negative ads against fellow Democrats, he is noncommittal.
His opponents have criticized his own record, he noted. "Someone's record is fair comment, it's fair game," he said.
One area that seems ripe for Mr. Reilly to focus on in negative ads is the refusal of Mr. Patrick and Mr. Gabrieli — both multi-millionaires — to release their tax returns. Mr. Reilly, a career prosecutor who has lived in the same two-family home in Watertown for 30 years, raised the issue with The Standard-Times and he has talked regularly about it on the campaign trail.
"It's about being open, and it's about being candid and forthright with the public, and anyone who'd run for governor should be prepared to do that," he said.
He feels "very strongly" that when candidates collect campaign contributions from others, they need to disclose their own tax returns, he said.
"We need to know more, not less about the candidates, particularly in campaigns that are privately financed, personally financed.
"Where does that money come from? Are there contacts?" he asked.
Mr. Gabrieli, a successful venture capitalist, has poured some $7 million of his own money into his campaign; Mr. Patrick, a former corporate lawyer, has given his campaign almost $350,000.
Peter Ubertaccio, a political scientist at Stonehill College, said he is not sure Mr. Reilly is in a position to successfully advertise about his opponents' records.
When voters begin to focus on the race after Labor Day, they may already be disinclined to vote for the attorney general, Mr. Ubertaccio said.
"What they see is that from the beginning he's been in third place," he said.
And he described the attorney general's initial television commercials — some of which featured newspaper clips of Reilly achievements — as "not particularly interesting or well done."
The tragic death of a Boston woman in a Big Dig tunnel in July didn't help Mr. Reilly, Mr. Ubertaccio said. The attorney general, because he is an incumbent state officeholder, is associated with the costly and flawed Central Artery project, whether he deserves to be or not, he said.
"He may start to be viewed as one of the same old politicians from Beacon Hill," Mr. Ubertaccio said.

THE MEDIA SCRUTINY

The 2006 gubernatorial campaign has been an abrupt departure from Mr. Reilly's mostly positive experiences with the media during his tenure as Middlesex district attorney and two, four-year terms as attorney general.
"Ever since I announced for governor, it's been different. No question about it," he said.
Riding to Angelo's in Dartmouth state Rep. John Quinn's car, Mr. Reilly talked about some of his accomplishments as attorney general: his role in the rescue of the state's largest HMO — Harvard Pilgrim — from bankruptcy and his subpoena of Cardinal Bernard Law during the priest sexual abuse crisis.
"I had seven straight years of pretty much saying, 'You're doing a hell of a job,' " he said.
Mr. Reilly said he is not sure why he has experienced bad publicity this year.
"I know the level of scrutiny has been intense," he said.
He avoids in-depth discussions of controversial stories from earlier in the campaign, including his call to Worcester District Attorney John Conte about not releasing the blood-alcohol results of a contributor's teenage daughters who died in a tragic car crash and his failure to research the financial background of state Rep. Marie St. Fleur, his abrupt and aborted choice to be his lieutenant governor running mate (it was discovered she had myriad financial problems, including $40,000 worth of delinquent student loans and a lien placed on her home for unpaid federal taxes.)
"That was a mistake," he said of the LaFleur choice. "I've admitted that."
He had known the state representative for almost two decades and she had worked for him as a prosecutor, he said.
"I've a career and a (public) life now that goes back 20 years," he said. "People won't find many mistakes."
Mr. Reilly said the public begins to focus on politics around Labor Day, and his competitive position in the polls puts him exactly where he wants to be to get out his message.
"I don't let it get to me," he said of early stumbles, noting that he had strong competitors (Lois Pines and Joseph Mackey) in other ultimately successful campaigns. "I keep my eye on the ball, which is to win this election."
Mr. Reilly said he is surprised some have painted him as the old-style politician in the race.
"It's pretty amazing because both my opponents, and they're fine people, but they are more insiders than I am, in terms of being involved with party politics, Democratic Party politics," he said.
Mr. Patrick was chairman of Scott Harshbarger's 1998 gubernatorial campaign, and Mr. Gabrieli has spent the past four years leading, and financially backing, think tanks on issues important to the Democratic Party.
Mr. Reilly is campaigning as a moderate and a professional prosecutor whose life in politics has been about job performance and not about ideology.
"I'm focused on doing the job. I always have been," he said.
"That's what politics is all about for me and campaigns are all about for me. It's a means to an end."
He's never been one to march to the beat of his party's left wing, he said.
Mr. Reilly has taken positions against the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm and in favor of reducing the state income tax to 5 percent. The wind farm is popular with environmentalists and the higher income tax with supporters of government programs, both important parts of the Democratic Party's base.
The attorney general initially opposed gay marriage but changed course later saying he was "moved" by the marriages that took place when the Supreme Judicial Court decision was implemented.
"My politics are moderate. They've always been. I haven't changed at all."

August 23, 2006

Records: Reilly accepted money from Big Dig company

By Rebecca Fater Sentinel & Enterprise Statehouse Bureau

BOSTON -- Attorney General Tom Reilly, one of several gubernatorial candidates who have criticized the relationship between state government and Big Dig contractors, accepted a $500 campaign contribution from a former employee of a Big Dig company as recently as June 30.

Charles Madden of Melrose, a retired executive vice president for Modern Continental, signed over a $500 check to Reilly dated June 30, according to the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance Web site.

The cash was recorded as being given only 10 days before ceiling tiles in the I-90 connector tunnel collapsed and killed Milena Del Valle of Boston.

Madden is one of several employees or former employees of Modern Continental who have contributed a total of $4,000 to Reilly since 2003, records show.

Gubernatorial candidates Chris Gabrieli, a Democrat, and Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, the Republican nominee, have also accepted cash from donors with strong ties to Modern Continental, one of several contractor companies that worked on the Big Dig.

Reilly, who launched a criminal probe into Del Valle's death immediately after the collapse, called the state's overly-friendly relationship with Big Dig contractors "problematic" at a July 27 press conference.

Madden, one of a handful of Reilly donors with ties to Modern Continental, also gave to the attorney general in 2005 and 2003.

State records indicate he retired from his job at Modern Continental in 2004.

Reilly spokesman Corey Welford defended the candidate's record on Tuesday.

"Tom Reilly has been extremely aggressive, taking on Bechtel and the management of this project," he said. "His investigation led to the most significant criminal indictments in the history of the project."

Campaign contributions, Welford added, "have nothing to do with the work of the office."

Gabrieli, a Democrat and wealthy venture capitalist, collected $1,400 from current and former Modern Continental employees in 2002, when he ran for lieutenant governor alongside gubernatorial candidate Shannon O'Brien.

His donors include John Pastore, president of Modern Continental who gave $250, and Michael McNally, a former Modern Continental executive who gave $500.

Cheryl Cronin, one of Gabrieli's top campaign advisors, is also an attorney for Big Dig project manager Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, the company which state critics have called the root of mismanagement at the project site.

A spokeswoman for Gabrieli said the campaign is unconcerned about the donations, given they were made for a different race.

Healey accepted a total of $1,000 in 2004 and 2005, including $500 from the late Lelio Marino, who founded Modern Continental in 1967, according to the company's Web site.

Spokesman Nate Little said the campaign has returned contributions from Big Dig contractors when problems with their work arose, such as donations from Aggregate Industries. Authorities accused the international company of using faulty concrete in May, leading to the arrest of six Aggregate employees. The campaign, however, is unable to return Marino's donation, given his death in late 2004, Little said.

Rebecca Fater's e-mail address is rfater@lowellsun.com.

August 12, 2006

For Reilly, things go better with Coke

This week, the New York-based Campaign to Stop Killer Coke announced plans to dog Deval Patrick on the campaign trail about his tenure as Coca-Cola's general counsel.

The week before, top Reilly campaign operatives discussed, via e-mail, how to ``map out shadow plans for our friend at Killer Coke." The ``friend" is a reference to Ray Rogers, the labor leader who runs a campaign aimed at exposing Coke's alleged misdeeds around the world.

On Aug. 3, David Guarino, communications director for Reilly for Massachusetts, e-mailed two top Reilly advisers -- Will Keyser at Hill Holiday and John Stefanini, a lawyer at Greenberg Traurig:

``Subject: Re: `Killer coke'

``Per Will's suggestion, I called [consultant] Geri Denterlein to begin to map out shadow plans for our friend at Killer Coke. She says she can't do it because her clients are on the management side of union/management strife and Killer Coke is obviously on the union side. She is going to continue to try to think of suggestions but came up with the following: Scott Ferson, Steve Crawford or Ernie Corrigan. They are all good guys but not sure their involvement in campaign . . . Other ideas?"

The e-mail continues: ``I think in addition to the labor we've secured, they just need a semi-savvy person to execute a schedule."

Guarino then proposes a detailed media calendar for the week ahead. For Sunday: ``interview with Globe, talk about week ahead, stops to make, issues to raise, give them flier, pose for pic." For Tuesday/Wednesday, among other things: ``columnist pitches" to ``Bailey, Vennochi, Lehigh, Buckingham, Brett Arends, McGrory." The proposal for Thursday refers to ``Evening Deval fundraiser in Boston -- hit it hard with standout/rally/labor handing out fliers. Push TV to go back." (On Thursday night, Rogers and a few protesters picketed a Patrick fund-raiser in the South End, according to Doug Rubin of the Patrick campaign.)

Subsequent e-mail correspondence from Guarino embraces a wider circle of Reilly advisers: Sean Sinclair at the Reilly campaign; Robert A. Sherman, at Greenberg Traurig; and Reilly chief of staff Stephen Kerrigan. They consider various PR consultants and end with Guarino's proposal to ask consultant Kimberly Hinden for help: ``She is a close friend, huge Tom supporter (although worked as Registrar of Motor Vehicles under Swift and Romney), runs PR consulting company, was deputy communications director in AG's office and prior to that at Channels 4 and 5. No question about her loyalty, savvy, skills and discretion."

On Aug. 4, Guarino e-mails Sherman at Greenberg Traurig and asks: ``Bob Any update?" Sherman's response: ``Yes. Spoke to her. She is on board assuming he checks out okay after she meets him."

When first asked whether the Reilly campaign had any involvement with Killer Coke, Guarino said, ``Our campaign got a call from Ray Rogers to let us know he is coming to town. My understanding is that he called other campaigns." Said Guarino: ``Our campaign has had no involvement with him, that's the truth." (A spokesman for candidate Christopher Gabrieli said Rogers ``never called here and nobody here has spoken to him.")

Pressed with specifics about the e-mail exchange, Guarino later responded with this, via e-mail: ``Given the seriousness of the charges raised by Mr. Rogers, of course we had discussions -- which are reflected in the e-mails you've been given. In the end, allies of ours spoke with Mr. Rogers to discuss his charges but the campaign decided to keep him at arm's length. Our campaign decided not to get directly involved in Mr. Rogers' efforts because we didn't want him to be seen as a tool of a rival campaign. . . . We believe Mr. Rogers offers a legitimate point of view and raises important questions that Mr. Patrick, as a candidate for Governor, should answer."

The Reilly campaign certainly has an interesting definition of what it means to keep someone ``at arm's length." In this campaign, it apparently means setting up a rival's enemy with PR help and media contacts, and then hiding behind him.

To get the picture: envision Reilly standing in the shadow of his friend from Killer Coke.

Joan Vennochi's e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com.  

August 11, 2006

Ex-prosecutor complains about campaign ad

Former deputy to Reilly says OK not given to use her likeness

By Shaun Sutner TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

May 25, 2006

Gubernatorial candidates do battle in third debate
Patrick, Gabrieli spar with Reilly on gay marriage

April 11, 2006

Reilly role in abuse crisis is debated

He takes partial credit for Law's departure

By Brian C. Mooney, Globe Staff   

Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly is highlighting his investigation of the clergy sex abuse scandal in his campaign for governor, and last week all but took credit for forcing Cardinal Bernard F. Law to resign in late 2002.

The remarks, at a Democratic candidates' forum in Newburyport on Saturday, are prompting a debate among some longtime observers of the scandal, one of whom suggests that Reilly overstated his role. Others said they saw another sign that politicians in the Bay State are willing to take on the church, a step that once would have been political suicide in heavily Catholic Massachusetts.

At the forum, Reilly touted his work on several issues and cited the clergy sexual abuse investigation as an example of his ''guts" and ''leadership." He later said his remarks should not be interpreted as an attempt to take sole credit for Law's exit.

''There weren't many other people in politics that were willing to stand up to the Archdiocese of Boston in the sexual abuse of children," Reilly said at the forum. ''You're looking at someone who did, and changed things forever. It changed things forever. With the guts to send state troopers into that chancery. And two days later, [Law] was in Rome, and he never came back. He never came back. That's what a difference leadership can make."

Reilly was referring to state troopers, on Dec. 6, 2002, delivering grand jury subpoenas to the cardinal's residence in Brighton hours after Law had departed for Washington to meet the pope's representative in the United States. Two days later, Law went to Rome for secret meetings at the Vatican, and on Dec. 13, Pope John Paul II accepted his resignation. Eight months earlier, as the scandal engulfed him, Law had offered to resign but was told by Vatican officials to stay in his post.

Reilly's campaign website highlights his investigation and he often brings it up at campaign stops. But his remarks last weekend appear to be his strongest public suggestion that he precipitated Law's departure.

Maurice T. Cunningham, a professor of government and politics at the University of Massachusetts at Boston who has written about the scandal, said that ''so many other forces were at work" that it was a ''vast overstatement" by Reilly to suggest his actions forced Law out.

''He deserves credit for taking on the church, but he was not the only Catholic politician who got tough on the Catholic Church in those years," Cunningham said. Reilly faces little risk by criticizing the church today, he said.

In an interview, Reilly said it was ''too fine" a reading to interpret his remarks as taking sole credit. ''It was one of a series of factors, first and foremost the victims who were willing to come forward with tremendous courage," he said, and the voluminous reporting of the Globe.

''The point of what I was saying was that your actions, not words, define who you are and whether or not you're willing to stand up for what you believe in, and I have done that for the protection of children," Reilly said.

As for the political implications, Reilly, an observant Catholic, said: ''This isn't about my faith. This is about people who abused children. That's not a political issue."

Of the effect of the subpoenas, Reilly said, they ended the archdiocese's practice of ''playing games with the records" of priests accused of sexual misconduct. ''Everything changed from that day on," he said.

In February 2003, Law testified before the grand jury. That July, Reilly's office issued a blistering 76-page report of the findings of its 16-month probe that concluded that Law and his top bishops in the archdiocese were guilty of covering up and protecting abusive priests. But Reilly and his office concluded there was no basis for indictments because of weak state laws and the absence of sufficient evidence of criminal intent.

A bill sponsored by Reilly to add clergy to the list of professionals required to report credible suspicions of abuse was enacted by the Legislature.

Ann Hagan Webb of Wellesley, an abuse victim, said yesterday that Reilly's effort ''was unprecedented, but we were very disappointed at the time that he could not indict anyone in the hierarchy."

But Webb, the New England coordinator of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said she accepted his explanation.

Kevin M. Burke, a Reilly ally who was Essex district attorney at the height of the scandal and a vocal critic of the archdiocese, said Reilly surprised him with his determination.

''I thought he would be more moderate, but he was very aggressive," said Burke, who is now in private practice.

That Reilly talks about it in his campaign reflects a change in the political culture, said Nancy Ammerman, a Boston University professor of the sociology of religion. ''It's an interesting reflection of the degree to which lay Catholics in Massachusetts are perceived as willing to take on the official church." she said.

Thomas H. O'Connor, university historian at Boston College, said: ''This is a transitional stage in the relationship between the political system and the Roman Catholic Church. It's moving from what had been an automatic subservience on the part of political leaders to church leaders and teachings to raising the question of whether ecclesiastical authorities are responsible to civil authorities.

''These are questions I would have thought impossible 25 years ago," O'Connor said.

Reilly ''could be an interesting test case, a Catholic political figure taking the positions he has," he said. ''Before, it would have been considered political death." 

March 18, 2006

By Sean P. Murphy, Globe Staff   

The office of Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly has demanded $108 million in refunds from Big Dig contractors, the first time his office has stated an amount it believes taxpayers are owed because of shoddy work.

The demand was made in a Feb. 7 letter to the lawyer representing Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, the private sector manager of the project, and the two-dozen smaller design firms supervised by the consortium.

The state will file a lawsuit against Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff and the other firms if the two sides do not reach a settlement, Stephanie S. Lovell, the first assistant attorney general said in an interview yesterday.

Still, Lovell held out the possibility of a settlement. ''We should put some effort into figuring out if this can be drawn to a conclusion," she said. ''I'm pushing to know what we are doing, one way or the other."

Since Feb. 7, Lovell said, she and the lawyer for the design and management contractors have talked a half-dozen times, even though ''we haven't gotten into full-scale negotiations."

David Hatem, the lawyer for Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, declined comment. A statement issued last night by the management consortium said: ''We firmly disagree with the attorney general's view of his claim on both the facts and the law. Both before and since receipt of the letter we have had continuous discussions with the attorney general. We remain committed to trying to reach a fair and fact-based settlement."

Lovell said the state has evidence of more than 200 instances of serious lapses by Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff or its subcontractors, including putting a sewer manhole in the wrong place, building a leaky roof, and paving an uneven section of roadway. Some 600 other potential claims submitted to the attorney general's office last year lacked enough evidence to go forward, she said.

The demand letter, obtained by the Globe, seeks $67 million from Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff and $41 million from the design firms.

The state's settlement claim is based on tort and contract legal theories that the contractors failed to meet the ordinary standard of performance of their industries and that they failed to deliver the services they contracted to provide to the state.

There is another legal theory under consideration, one with potentially very expensive consequences for the contractors. The state could sue under the state's false claims act, which can make a government contractor who accepts payment for substandard work liable for triple damages.

''It is something we are actively considering," Lovell said.

The demand letter was sent about four months before the Democratic State Convention in June, at which Reilly is seeking the nomination for governor. The demand letter may blunt possible criticism of Reilly that he has taken too long to resolve the refund issue, even if the claim results in a lawsuit that would be years away from being litigated.

In the past, settlement figures mentioned by people involved in the project have ranged from $50 million to $250 million.

Since the late 1980s, the Big Dig's cost ballooned from under $3 billion to the current estimate of $14.6 billion, and it has experienced years of delay. The project, which put Interstate 93 in Boston underground and dug the Ted Williams Tunnel from the old terminus of Interstate 90 to Logan International Airport, is now substantially complete.

Efforts to gain refunds for shoddy work, often called cost recovery, had an inauspicious start. In the 1990s, Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, as the overall project manager, was responsible for cost recovery, in essence policing itself as well as the firms it managed.

In 2002, after the estimated cost of the project increased from $10 billion to $14 billion, Peter R. Pendergast, then the general counsel of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, which manages the project, sought $250 million from Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, a demand that was refused.

The Globe reported in 2003 that cost recovery to that date had produced only $35,707 in refunds and found that cost-recovery efforts were neglected to the point of files being lost.

''It admittedly wasn't a front-burner issue for me," Michael P. Lewis, the state's top project official, said at the time.

At that point, there were only about 100 refund claims, most of them already closed. The Turnpike Authority then hired a retired judge, Edward M. Ginsburg, to lead a new team of lawyers and engineers on cost recovery.

Ginsburg's team said in a $150 million lawsuit against Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff in 2004 that the consortium for years hid the true cost of the project from state officials. Ginsburg negotiated a $4 million settlement with one design firm and filed suits against about a dozen others.

But Ginsburg and his team were swept out of the cost-recovery process last year after revealing that the tunnels were plagued with hundreds of leaks. The number of cost recovery issues by that time had swelled to almost 500. During the political firestorm over the leaks, Reilly agreed to take over those cases in February 2005.

Ginsburg's $150 million suit was suspended while the attorney general's office delved into a case-by-case review of possible refunds. Lovell said state officials have found little evidence to support Ginsburg's suit.

''We have not found evidence to support the view that public officials did not know," she said. ''I think the evidence is a mixed bag. I can't put the smoking gun in anyone's hand."

Lovell said she inherited many difficulties. For one, the statute of limitations may have expired on many claims, and a law passed in 2003 to waive the statute retroactively could be challenged as unconstitutional.

Also, on numerous occasions Turnpike Authority officials agreed to pay ''global settlements" of claims made by construction contractors. In those instances, the Turnpike Authority and the construction contractors agreed on a lump sum to settle hundreds of issues, but left few detailed records, Lovell said.

Without those records, the attorney general's office had little basis to pursue a case against the designer or manager of the construction contractors. ''I played the cards I was dealt," Lovell said.

While the demand letter from the attorney general's office cites $20 million to compensate the state for delays due to the leaky roof, it makes no claim for the repair of the roof. Lovell said that's because the contractors are paying for the repairs themselves.

Similarly, there is no cost recovery claim for the breach that spilled tens of thousands of gallons of water into the I-93 tunnel in 2004. That breach prompted the repair not only of that section of the tunnel but almost 100 others found to be deficient. Lovell said the cost of those repairs is also being borne by the contractors.

Sean P. Murphy can be reached at smurphy@globe.com.  

February 11, 2006

State Democratic Party officials have confirmed that reports from both candidates in the Democratic race for governor and their own field reports show political newcomer Deval L. Patrick beat Attorney General Thomas P. Reilly by a 2-to-1 margin in delegates chosen in caucuses last weekend.

The Reilly campaign took solace in gaining a majority of delegates from Worcester and Worcester County, according to party officials.

While more than a dozen caucuses remain to be held this weekend, the vast majority were held in cities and towns across the state last Saturday. Democratic officials were slow to confirm any results earlier this week.

State party spokeswoman Cyndi Roy said initially that the state committee was not going to release any delegate counts from the caucuses, because all delegates are uncommitted going into the convention and are not bound by the caucus polls.

As a result, officials said they had no head count of delegates elected for the candidates at the caucus events already held.

Later, however, Ms. Roy said enough information had come in from the Patrick and Reilly campaigns to show that Mr. Patrick won about two-thirds of the caucuses around the state.

“I would say that Patrick probably took the caucuses by two to one over Reilly, based on what we were told by the campaigns and our own field reports,” she said.

In Worcester, Democrats working on Mr. Reilly’s campaign said support for the attorney general held, despite problems that emerged in his campaign with the failed attempt to choose a running mate for lieutenant governor in January.

While supporters of Worcester Mayor Timothy P. Murray’s bid for lieutenant governor were irked by Mr. Reilly’s decision to choose a running mate, despite earlier assurances he would stay out of that race, other groups of Democrats lost confidence in the Reilly campaign after his lieutenant governor candidate, state Rep. Marie St. Fleur, D-Dorchester, withdrew following disclosures of tax and personal loan debts.

Worcester Democratic Chairman William Eddy, who is working with the Reilly campaign and supporting the attorney general in the contest, said Mr. Reilly won support of 58 caucus delegates to Mr. Patrick’s 40 in the city caucuses.

Slates of delegates in each ward of the city were decided by agreement between supporters in each campaign to designate united slates in each ward for either Mr. Patrick or Mr. Reilly, resulting in no split delegate slates in the wards. As a result, Mr. Eddy said, “There were no slate fights” within the individual caucuses.

Meanwhile, he and representatives of Mr. Reilly’s campaign also said the attorney general did better throughout Worcester County than he did statewide, taking a majority of the delegates chosen in the county.

Cory Welford, spokesman for the Reilly campaign, said the support in Worcester was encouraging. “Tom always has had great support in Worcester and Worcester County,” in elections for attorney general.

Moreover, with the caucuses coming while Mr. Reilly’s support waned among party activists, the Reilly campaign could take some solace in holding the line in Central Massachusetts. Mr. Welford said, however, that the campaign remains focused on gaining support among independent voters who will play a larger role in the primary elections in September and final election in November.

“What’s important is that Tom has strong support from Democratic activists, but also has support among a much broader group of Democrats and independents and Republicans.”

The Patrick campaign, meanwhile, said the overwhelming support statewide for its candidate grew out of months of work developing local networks of support among party activists across the state, and shows the energy developing for his candidacy.

“The campaign made investments in grass roots all along the way,” said Kahlil Byrd, spokesman for the Patrick campaign. “The caucuses are not just about the mechanics, but about the opportunity for people to engage and re-engage with the process.

“What we are happiest about is that so many new people and people who had checked out of the process made a decision to come back and get involved in the campaign and to run as delegates,” during the caucuses.

While Mr. Reilly did well in Worcester and Worcester County, he said Patrick supporters, with support from key leaders such as U.S. Rep. James P. McGovern, D-Worcester, and state Sen. Edward M. Augustus Jr., D-Worcester, has generated keen interest in the governor’s race and Mr. Patrick’s quest.

February 3, 2006

By Scott S. Greenberger, Globe Staff   

A day after unpaid taxes and loans ended his running mate's day-old candidacy, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Thomas F. Reilly took responsibility yesterday for failing to closely examine state Representative Marie St. Fleur's finances and said that ''politics are not my strong suit."

''I have to work and improve on the politics of this campaign," said Reilly, 63, who was first elected Middlesex district attorney in 1990 and is in his second term as attorney general. ''This is a whole different level of politics, and it's never been my strong suit, and I have to improve on that. I acknowledge and take responsibility for the process that was not as complete and as thorough as it can be."

Reilly conceded that he needed to improve his campaign for governor, as many Democratic strategists and supporters were saying that he had damaged himself by stumbling in his efforts to find a running mate.

Many critics are focusing on his failure to ask questions about St. Fleur's financial background before announcing her as his running mate on Tuesday. His supporters predict he will probably have a poor showing in Democratic caucuses this weekend against rival Deval Patrick.

Reilly looked wan yesterday morning as he faced reporters for the first time since St. Fleur's withdrawal Wednesday night. He set aside time to speak to the media after an event on the state's economy at the Westin Copley Place. ''I'm here this morning," he said, ''to answer your questions and then get on with my campaign. So who's first?"

He dismissed the idea that the St. Fleur episode has done serious damage to his campaign.

''I think people measure you," he said. ''Voters are fair. They don't expect me to be perfect, and they know that I'm not perfect. They do expect you to learn from your set of experiences.

''They don't care about the politics. They care about what's going on in their lives: Do you understand what's going on in their lives? Do you understand how they're struggling? Are you going to work with others to make their lives better on the issues that are important to them: jobs and this economy, healthcare, the education of their children, public safety? On those issues, I'm solid."

St. Fleur ended her brief candidacy for lieutenant governor on the day the Globe disclosed that she had three delinquent tax debts in the last four years, including an April 2005 federal tax lien of $12,711 against her and her husband. The Boston Democrat also said she owes $40,000 in delinquent federally backed student loans and is barred from renewing her driver's license because she failed to pay excise taxes to the city of Boston last year.

St. Fleur told the Globe that she mentioned to Reilly that she had ''some financial issues," but that he didn't ask her to provide any numbers and only sought assurances from her that she was dealing with the problems.

Yesterday, Reilly refused to answer when asked by a reporter whether he regretted choosing St. Fleur. He said that he has known her for 17 years, since he was the Middlesex district attorney and he hired her as an assistant prosecutor, and he described her as ''a wonderful person." St. Fleur, 43, worked for Reilly again as a lawyer after he was elected attorney general in 1998. She was elected to the House in a special election to represent parts of Dorchester and Roxbury in July 1999.

Reilly had been planning for a month to choose businessman Chris Gabrieli as his running mate, several Democrats have told the Globe. But last weekend he abruptly changed course, stunning some of his campaign advisers and other Democrats.

''Chris Gabrieli is a wonderful, wonderful person, absolutely committed to Massachusetts, someone I like very much," Reilly said yesterday. ''At the end of the day, this was less about the politics than it was about a personal relationship that goes back 17 years to when Marie St. Fleur was just a young prosecutor. I felt that she was the best choice for me in this campaign."

The attorney general's demeanor, one of dejection, contrasted sharply with his mood two days ago, when he appeared with St. Fleur at a Dorchester youth center and ebulliently introduced her as ''my candidate, my teammate, my partner."

At that event, Reilly said that he and St. Fleur were in touch with the concerns of ''regular, ordinary people of Massachusetts."

''We understand how they struggle to pay their bills and make ends meet, put their kids through college," he said. ''We understand all of that."

Reilly tapped St. Fleur, a Haitian immigrant known as an eloquent speaker, partly to inject some pizazz into his campaign and because he identified with her hardscrabble background. She was viewed as a rising star in Massachusetts politics before this week's disclosures.

State Representative David P. Linsky, who came to the Dorchester youth center Tuesday to watch Reilly introduce St. Fleur, said yesterday that the controversy probably will hurt Reilly in this weekend's Democratic caucuses, which select delegates for the June convention. But the Natick Democrat said Reilly will rebound.

''He can recover because he has a strong message that he is independent of politics and he really does represent the values of most Massachusetts citizens," Linsky said. ''It clearly wasn't the best political move.

''But Tom is very much guided by his heart and what he thinks is truly best," he said. ''That's part of Tom's charm."

Jeffrey Berg, a political science professor at Tufts University, said he was flabbergasted by Reilly's failure to delve deeper into St. Fleur's finances.

''His failure to follow up on St. Fleur's acknowledgement that she had some financial issues was an egregious lack of judgment," Berg said. ''It's inexplicable. Even somebody relatively inexperienced in politics would have seen that as a red flag."

Berg said Reilly's misstep might prompt some Democrats to reconsider their support, but that the St. Fleur episode probably won't be fatal to the attorney general's campaign.

''Politicians often make a mistake, particularly early on in the campaign," Berg said. ''He's down a little bit, but he's far from out."

The flap over St. Fleur's finances is the second controversy Reilly has had to contend with this year.

Last month, Republicans blasted him for calling Worcester District Attorney John J. Conte to discuss an October 2005 car crash that killed two teenage girls. Reilly said he spoke to Conte to confirm that state law barred the release of the girls' autopsy reports; his phone call, however, left him vulnerable to charges that he was interfering in the crash investigation.

Yesterday, Reilly's chief Republican rival, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, declined to comment on the St. Fleur situation.

February 1, 2006

Boy oh boy, AG Reilly's campaign for governor gets  each day, First there was the the whole brohaha over his calls to Worcester County DA John Conte to keep the wraps on details of a fatal car crash involving the daughters of one of Reilly's friends. Then Reilly surprised everyone yesterday by jilting Chris Gabrieli and Worcester Mayor Tim Murray and choosing Dorchester State Rep. Marie St. Fleur as his running mate. This morning, Bostonist learns from the papers (well, the Globe, anyway; we would have figured the Herald would be all over this) that St. Fleur is in a whole mess of financial trouble - she owes back taxes and student loans. This last revelation, though, might not be so bad for team Reilly as it first appears.

The savvy folks over at Blue Mass. Group feel like Reilly's failure to find out ahead of time about St. Fleur's issues is indicative of a less-than-stellar leadership style, especially since St. Fleur's selection was, itself, done without much tact. And notwithstanding Reilly's suggestion to the Globe that he intends to stick with St. Fleur, some people are already waiting for a replacement candidate for Lieutenant Gov. But St. Fleur and Reilly clearly think there's something to be gained from this revelation, or at least not much to be lost, and Bostonist is inclined to agree.