Welcome

I read with interest Dan Valenti's column, "Two for Ward Three." Once again we are seeing a dizzying amount of money being spent on a local political office. ($15,000 combined total). Without doubt, Dan hit on the nose when he said, "If a candidate doesn't privately fund all of a campaign, he or she becomes beholden to those who do." I know there is a problem with attorney's or businessman donating money to campaigns who also have direct dealings with Pittsfield government-zoning issues, licensing issues, etc. Even if there is actually no impropriety, it does give the appearance that there are improper influences at work, which is in itself an injury.

I would quibble with Dan's assertion that "money serves as a qualifier, a measure of political seriousness." Many men and women, intellectually gifted, advanced in education, and otherwise accomplished may be very serious about serving as city councilor or being on the school committee but do not want to raise money for lawn signs, radio ads and mailings. To be fair, Dan does point this out and says, "Qualified candidates may not wish to play the money game."

But I think something is being glossed over. Most serious professionals, be they doctors, lawyers, or business executives of a substantial business, or others of similar accomplishment, would find it unseemly to pester friends and neighbors for donations to a political campaign; City Council President Gerry Lee, for example, is of this mindset. Many would be willing to serve and would undergo great efforts if elected. But that Ph. D. or that ex-police chief that would be willing to serve on several subcommittees, meet with constituents, and study an issue to death (which would ultimately redound to the public good) may very well have great compunction about jumping through a lot of hoops just to run for office.

As much as the public might find this troubling, to the truly accomplished, being a member of the City Council or the School Committee is not an incredible honor (though they may feel they have to say otherwise) and it will hardly aggrandize their resume or somehow increase business.  The super accomplished, who may serve higher office out of sense of ambition, serve for local office, especially a municipality the size of Pittsfield, out of a sense of wanting to contribute and give back to society. [Paul Capitanio is of this mode incidentally - the tremendous amount of charitable work that he does for UNICO and the like is not in the least bit motivated by a need for public recognition or awards (he often shuns this stuff): he truly just cares.]

Of course the poor and disenfranchised will be less likely to run for city council or school committee now that it cost thousands of dollars to run, which is not a good thing.

But oddly enough, the recent unprecedented high cost of running local office will discourage the cream of society: those super-accomplished among us who see it as a duty to serve for local office and to give back, but who do not see election to local office as some type of incredible honor or who would even put it on their resume. Many of these super achievers are willing to work hard for the people if elected because there is a real point behind their labors. But to the super achiever, public service at the local level is more a burden borne out of a sense of duty; it is not the honor of a lifetime. The super achievers may be willing to attend a debate or two to express their viewpoint and stand (not run) for office; but they are not willing to jump through silly and degrading hoops (and pester their friends, neighbors and relatives) for the opportunity to serve.

Rinaldo Del Gallo, III

Note: According to the Pittsfield Gazette as of March 26, 2009, if you totaled the amount of money spent on both campaigns it would be $30,000.  According to the Berkshire Eagle, "4,422 registered voters in Ward 3 cast ballot."