Finneran's rules

FOR MORE than a quarter of a century, Tom Finneran was the gamecock of the Massachusetts House -- a brash competitor who nearly always won. From the time he became chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in 1991, through his grasp of the speakership in 1996, until his retirement to a private biotech job in 2004, he was the strongest political power on Beacon Hill, for both good and ill.

But if he pleads guilty today, as expected, to a federal obstruction of justice charge, that reputation for power will be forever tainted. Finneran's chronic propensity for interpreting the rules to his own benefit, when he wasn't skirting them altogether, finally caught up with him.

The examples are myriad. Once, Finneran unilaterally changed a legislative pay raise measure from a regular bill to an appropriations bill, making it exempt from repeal by the voters in a referendum. It was a blatant violation of the rules, but most of the members were ignorant of the move, and the ones who knew didn't object. It went through.

In the speakership campaign of 1996, House majority leader Richard Voke was the choice of most House Democrats. By tradition, this should have given him the job, as the Democrats usually rally around their caucus choice, while the small band of Republicans vote for their own leader. But Finneran and his partisans rejected tradition; they made a deal with the Republicans, elevating him over Voke.

Finneran adamantly opposed the public financing of campaigns, especially for the Legislature. When voters overwhelmingly approved such a system with the Clean Elections Act of 1998, Finneran refused to fund it, in open defiance of the electorate and the Supreme Judicial Court.

In the case at issue today, Finneran's House drew a new legislative district map in 2001, portions of which were later found by a federal court to be unfair to minorities. Finneran was then charged with obstruction of justice essentially for understating his knowledge of the process.

Finneran was a strong leader who wielded power largely because he was smarter and worked harder than others, and because he relished it.

The positive achievements for which he deserves to be remembered are mostly fiscal: the building of a rainy day fund, the effort to designate some tobacco settlement money for long-term goals, and the decision to halt the scheduled decline in the income tax rate at 5.3 percent when the promise that no program cuts would ensue proved empty. Some of this took courage. Finneran, growing increasingly cocky, was willing to take the heat.

But over time, his credibility slumped, and people felt they could not longer trust his word. Lack of candor with members was damaging; with federal judges it was fatal.