The Berkshire Beacon sponsors 4th Berkshire District debate

LENOX – While Rep. William “Smitty” Pignatelli (D-Lenox) and Lee Scott Laugenour (of the Green-Rainbow Party) might agree on some things, their differences became apparent at a debate put on by The Berkshire Beacon.

On a blustery, post-hurricane Halloween night, more than 70 people gathered in the Sedgwick Reading Room of the Lenox Library to see the candidates for the 4th Berkshire District discuss the issues ahead of Tuesday’s election.

During the debate, the incumbent and his opponent were asked questions by three panel members, Berkshire Beacon reporter Bera B. Dunau, Lenox Selectman Edward P. Lane and Monument Mountain Regional High School Principal Marianne R. Young.

One of the sharpest disputes between Rep. Pignatelli and Mr. Laugenour came when Berkshire Beacon Editorial Assistant Kameron Z. Spaulding, who served as the debate moderator, posed an audience question about the clean-up of PCBs in the Housatonic River.

Mr. Laugenour clearly stated he wanted to get rid of all of the PCBs.

“We need to restore the river so it’s fishable and swimmable, and remove the PCBs,” he said. “This is a priority to me.”

Rep. Pignatelli did not specifically indicate what percentage of remaining PCBs he thought would be acceptable.

“Science comes into play,” he said. “I’m not going to put a percentage on it.”

Collective bargaining

When first asked about collective bargaining by Mr. Dunau, Rep. Pignatelli simply said, “I see no reason to change whatsoever.”

Mr. Laugenour’s response to the question: “We do have a problem with collective bargaining.”

He cited his endorsement from the United Auto Workers (UAW), who were upset over Rep. Pignatelli’s vote for legislation regarding collective bargaining on healthcare.

“I’m proud of the UAW for standing up to that,” Mr. Laugenour said.

The incumbent responded by citing his own endorsement from the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) and indicating his contested vote was about underperforming schools, not collective bargaining.

“We didn’t take anyone’s collective bargaining rights away,” Rep. Pignatelli said. “We gave towns and select boards options.”

He added, “To say I took away collective bargaining, that is a joke – I got the endorsement from the Massachusetts Teachers Association.”

Other issues

Another divisive issue for the candidates involved Question 3 on the Nov. 6 ballot, which would legalize marijuana use for medicinal purposes. Mr. Laugenour supports the question, while Rep. Pignatelli is against it, mainly due to the language and its lack of an age restriction.

Areas where they seemed to be more-or-less in agreement include getting more money back to The Berkshires to support the infrastructure, specifically bridges, roads and dams; increasing the cap on school choice; lowering the cost of higher education; and supporting a push for single-payer healthcare.

While they are both in support of single-payer healthcare, Mr. Laugenour would like to see more immediate action on the issue.

“I’ll be effective because we have grassroots [organization],” he said, further citing Vermont Governor Peter E. Shumlin’s push for single-payer healthcare there. “It’s critical, and the people demand it.”

Rep. Pignatelli, who has co-sponsored single-payer healthcare legislation for six years, indicated the push for this change can’t happen overnight in Massachusetts.

“Give it some time to work its way through the system,” he said.

Experience vs. opposition voice

The race for the district has evolved to weigh experience (on Rep. Pignatelli’s side) against providing an opposition voice on Beacon Hill (Mr. Laugenour), the touchstones of each candidate’s campaign.

In the debate’s closing statements, Rep. Pignatelli made his stance on his experience very clear.

“In 10 years, I’ve worked my way into very important places for The Berkshires,” Rep. Pignatelli said, referring to his positions on the joint committees on higher education; ways and means; and tourism, arts and cultural development.

“Not once in 10 years has my opponent been in my district office,” he added.

Mr. Laugenour later responded by saying that claim was false. A release on his website indicates he visited the district office once (in October of this year) and Rep. Pignatelli’s Boston office once (in 2007), in addition to other written and verbal communication.

He ended his debate remarks by focusing on how he would bring a fresh perspective to the district.

“Solutions are not being debated on Beacon Hill,” Mr. Laugenour said. “It’s time for an opposition party.”

Thoughts on the debate

Following the debate, the people involved all seemed to share the sentiment The Berkshire Beacon used to promote the event: “There’s nothing scarier than an uninformed voter.”

“Each one has a point,” Berkshire Beacon Editor and Publisher George C. Jordan III said of the candidates.

“It was a great debate,” Selectman Lane said. “I enjoy these kind of things – it was a fun opportunity to be involved.”

“I thought I could do my part,” added Ms. Young.

The panelists and candidates all indicated gratitude to The Berkshire Beacon and its staff for organizing the debate.

“I was beginning to wonder if any groups in The Berkshires were willing to step up,” Mr. Laugenour said. “I applaud The Beacon.”

“I think any time we have the opportunity and vision to exchange ideas…it’s healthy,” Mr. Pignatelli said. “It’s great to see this little newspaper…protecting democracy.”

The candidates and fellow panelists were particularly grateful to Mr. Dunau, who had a key role in getting everyone there.

“We did it,” he said after the debate. “The Berkshire Beacon did it.”

Posted by Catherine M. Krummey on November 1, 2012. Filed under Community Events,Community News,Featured,News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry