The decision of the city comptroller, William Thompson, to enter the fray over the scandal of the political mailings that the speaker, Gifford Miller, made at taxpayers’ expense is a decidedly positive development. The comptroller told our Jill Gardiner yesterday that he has concerns about the mailing, and, he said, the way the job was divvied out to vendors “sends the wrong message” by giving the appearance of trying to “get around the procurement rules.”

Mr. Thompson, Ms. Gardiner reports, said his office would be looking at the purchase orders related to the council’s mailing during its standard audit of the body, which takes place every four years and is due to commence in October. And we can only say that this is a matter that he has the authority and responsibility to pursue in an aggressive way. He may be criticized for making an issue of this for political reasons, given that he, too, is a potential aspirant for mayor come 2009. But right now, he is the comptroller, and it is his responsibility to protect the taxpayers of the city.

This is becoming a major scandal not only because Mr. Miller is running for mayor but also because this particular raid on the taxpayers was so bald and so cynical. This is not a small amount of money. This is $1.6 million. And there was an effort by the speaker’s operation to hide what he was doing.

Mr. Miller defended himself again yesterday, saying that he hasn’t done anything wrong. “These mailings were entirely legal and appropriate,” Mr. Miller told Ms. Gardiner when she caught up with him on the campaign trail in a supermarket parking lot. And Mr. Miller proffered a deliciously ironical motive for sending out the literature in the first place: “to try to bring pressure on the mayor to negotiate a good $50 billion budget.”

This October, while city taxpayers are still scratching their heads over the question of whether any $50 billion budget can be “good,” Mr. Thompson will consider Mr. Miller’s claim that these mailings were on the up-and-up. The comptroller has good reason to be skeptical, as do city voters, given the inconsistent statements and explanations Mr. Miller has offered on the issue in recent weeks.

Perhaps the audit will disclose a perfectly legitimate explanation for the odd way in which the print job was contracted out, in what otherwise looks like an attempt to avoid attracting public attention to the undertaking. Even so, however, this entire episode raises some awkward questions about whether Mr. Miller is the right man to lead the city. Suddenly, he has been exposed as being, despite his Princeton degree and his youth and silk-stocking background, just like any other tawdry politician.

Mr. Miller’s questionable handling of this matter has threatened not just his own political future but also that of the Democratic Party that he would like to represent on the mayoral ballot. So Mr. Thompson’s intent to study the mailings should come as welcome news to city Democrats too. The way for the party to get past this scandal is to take the lead in exposing it, in getting the facts out, and in letting the chips fall where they may in regard to a speaker in whom so many had once placed their hopes.