Candidates squabble amidst debate
Date: 10/24/2012
By Carley Dangona
carley@thereminder.comAGAWAM — Republican incumbent State Rep. Nicholas Boldyga and Democrat Samuel Di Santi faced off in a debate, at the Roberta G. Doering School on Oct. 18.
The two candidates partook in a two-part debate where the latter part of the program was a Lincoln-Douglas debate. The two are vying for the House's 3rd Hampden District seat, which represents Agawam, Granville, Russell and Southwick. Many topics were discussed, few were agreed upon and much squabbling took place.
The potential of a casino in Springfield was one of the first subjects in question.
"Committees were already established with the gaming legislation to look at these initiatives and to make sure the funding mechanisms were in place to fund tourism, infrastructure and public safety," Boldyga said.
He added that a casino would increase job opportunities within the district.
"I am in favor of a casino," Di Santi stated. He added that his main concern is the impact such a venue would create on surrounding communities and their resources. He supported the formation of a committee to assess the impact and subsequent funding options the district has.
The two candidates disagreed on the issue of animal control, specifically in regards to the banning of Pit bulls.
"Pit bulls are, in my assumption, are very dangerous and should always be leashed and muzzled," Di Santi said.
"People should take the necessary precautions [with their animals, to ensure the safety of others]," Boldyga said. "Knee-jerk reactions [referring to Di Santi's response] are never the answer."
Both Boldyga and Di Santi discussed Massachusetts ballot question three, which seeks to legalize marijuana.
"This act, as it appears is in direct conflict with the federal controlled substances act," Boldyga explained. He is awaiting clarification of the act to ensure that under it, Massachusetts's residents cannot be arrested under federal law.
"This is a question that needs more defining," Di Santi stated. He suggested that drug testing be implemented to ensure users are maintaining acceptable medicinal levels, as is done in cases of pain management.
In regards to taxes and revenue, both candidates agreed that the cost of doing business in Massachusetts needs to be refined to entice business owners to move into the district.
The statewide ballot question addressing the prescription of medication to terminate the life of a terminally ill person was discussed.
"I absolutely understand this is a personal issue. As a lawmaker, when we are creating a new law and a new standard that citizens have to abide by, the details are the most important thing," Boldyga said.
His main concerns regarding the initiative were that a doctor is not required to be present when the drug is administered and the fact that notifying family members is not required. His suggestion, "we need to go back to the drawing board."
Di Santi responded by saying, "I have to think long and hard about this, it's not something I can just spell out and say yes or no. There's major issues and major implications with hospice, I'd hate to see that lose any type of funding."
Di Santi, who stated he'd lost multiple family members to cancer, had not yet decided if he was in support of or in opposition to the proposed legislature.
The majority of the Lincoln-Douglas portion was spent on mudslinging, where Di Santi repeatedly questioned Boldyga's voting record and legislative sponsorship. At one point, he called Boldyga a "right wing, Tea Party extremist," accusing him of putting a political agenda before the needs of the residents.
Boldyga responded to Di Santi's criticism calling it "election year rhetoric," adding that his "voting record speaks for itself."
During the discussion of Boldyga's involvement with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Di Santi called the organization "a secret society that passes secret legislation," in the interest of corporations.
Boldyga retorted, stating no such "secret society" exists, and asked his opponent to name one piece of legislature sponsored by ALEC that he'd passed.
Di Santi could not, but responded stating that is the very point of ALEC: "It leaves no fingerprints, there's no way of knowing what bills you have submitted on behalf of ALEC."
Another subject of hostility between the two was Boldyga's questioning of why Di Santi's 2011 statement of financial interest, a document candidates are legally required to complete, is blank.
Di Santi responded that he completed the form and in no way has he "broken the law, or is he being investigated.
