Di Santi, a Democrat, has called questions raised by his Republican opponent about a state financial form "dirty politicis 101."
State Rep. Nicholas Boldyga, R-Southwick, and challenger Samuel Di Santi, a Democrat from Agawam
AGAWAM – State Rep. Nicholas A. Boldyga and the leader of a fiscally conservative government watchdog group have accused Democratic state representative candidate Samuel S. Di Santi of not properly filling out information about his former hot-dog concession on a state financial disclosure form.
And for his part, Di Santi has countered that he has provided information as required on his 2011 Statement of Financial Interest and has called the accusations nothing more than “dirty politics 101.” The accusation was made by Boldyga during a recent forum sponsored by the West of the River Chamber of Commerce. In addition, Paul D. Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, has contacted The Republican several times recently making the same allegation.
A first-term Republican representing the Third Hampden District, Boldyga is facing a challenge from Di Santi in the Nov. 6 election.
Meanwhile, David Giannotti, spokesman for the state Ethics Commission, released a copy of the form complete with redactions required by privacy rules of for the spaces for Di Santi’s home address and names of any relatives.
Di Santi wrote on the form that he was the sole proprietor of a business, which he told a reporter he operated from a concession trailer he used to store at his home. Under the heading of gross business income, Di Santi said he wrote “NA” for not applicable.
The candidate said he listed that because he had a business loss in 2011. Di Santi said rules allow him not to disclose income if he has taken a loss. The candidate said he sold the business in June.
Craney said he has asked the Ethics Commission to investigate the matter and that it will likely not finish a probe until after the election. Contacted by the newspaper, Giannotti pointed out that the Ethics Commission has a policy of neither confirming nor denying the existence of an investigation.
“I could not confirm or deny that we are investigating anyone,” the Ethics Commission spokesman said, citing confidentiality rules.
“We have his completed form on record,” Giannotti said of Di Santi’s Statement of Financial Interest paperwork.
Craney said the Ethics Commission form that Di Santi filled out is required to provide information to parties like journalists and government watchdog groups.
Boldyga could not be reached for comment about the issue.
Craney said while information was blacked out to provide privacy, Di Santi still did not supply the name of his business or list anything for income.
“If Mr. DiSanti wants to become a state representative, his first order of business should be to provide straight answers. The fact that Mr. DiSanti left answers to very important questions at very best, vaguely written, should be a concern for voters who care about good government in their candidates,” Craney stated in an email about the matter to The Republican.
Boldyga said Di Santi has campaigned on a platform of offering transparency and should have provided more information on the form.
Di Santi has said he has contacted the state Ethics Commission and has been told he is not under investigation.
The website for the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance describes itself as an independent, non-partisan, non-profit organization. “As residents of Massachusetts, we are concerned for our Fiscal future. Please join us, an Alliance of concerned fiscally responsible individuals to put our state government back on track,” information on the web site states.
In a related matter, Michael J. Sullivan, director of the state Office of Campaign & Political Finance, wrote a June 28, 2012 letter to Boldyga about its review of a column he wrote in May for “Southwoods Magazine.”
Sullivan wrote that Boldyga’s May column focused solely on the collecting of signatures on his nomination papers and as such “appears to be a campaign related announcement and, therefore, it would be considered a contribution.”
Because the owner of the publication, Nelson Caron, planned to consider the column as an in-kind campaign donation of $301.14, Sullivan wrote that no further action would be required and that the matter would be closed.