The future of Renato Parente as president of the Benevento City Council dominated the council session of 6 November 2026, turning a routine sitting into an institutional clash over guarantees, political opportunity and where such decisions should be discussed.
At issue is Parente's continuation in the chairmanship after a legal measure reported in connection with the Santamaria investigation, described in local coverage as a guarantee notice. The council did not vote on his removal. Instead, councilors debated whether his earlier offer to resign — and the majority's rejection of that offer — should have been handled in public, in the council chamber.
Miceli: the decision should have been debated in the Council, not in a majority meeting
Councilor Angelo Miceli challenged the way the matter had been managed, arguing that the possible resignation of the council president should not have been discussed in a majority meeting behind closed doors.
For Miceli, the question was institutional rather than personal: a choice concerning the presidency of the entire council, he said, belongs in the council itself, where minority groups can speak and the public record reflects the positions taken.
De Stasio: if he intended to resign, he should have done so in the chamber
Councilor Rosetta De Stasio took a similar position on procedure, while also separating the judicial aspect from a final judgment.
According to the council reporting, De Stasio argued that if Parente intended to step down, he should have formalized that decision in the chamber. At the same time, she distinguished an investigation from a conviction, a distinction shared across the different political positions expressed during the debate.
Her point was therefore twofold: the investigation itself does not settle guilt, but any resignation linked to it should follow a transparent institutional path.
Mastella defends Parente: presumption of innocence
Mayor Clemente Mastella defended Parente, invoking the presumption of innocence and arguing that a guarantee notice does not automatically require resignation.
That position echoed the line already taken by the governing majority in Benevento: the majority had said the investigation did not involve the mayor and assessors, and that the administration's political work should continue.
Mastella's intervention framed the case as a matter where legal guarantees must prevail over immediate political consequences.
Parente: I offered my resignation for political opportunity, and it was rejected
Parente himself told the chamber that he had offered his resignation to the majority for reasons of political opportunity and that the resignation had been rejected.
The account is consistent with what the majority had communicated on 26 September 2026, when it said it had unanimously rejected the resignation offered by Parente, citing the presumption of innocence.
Parente described the matter as not political in nature. He also said he was disappointed by what he characterized as a lack of garantismo — a failure, in his view, to apply the principle that a person under investigation remains innocent until proven otherwise — toward him in the public debate.
What this clarifies: a two-step timeline
To understand the 6 November clash, two dates matter.
On 26 September 2026, the majority announced that it had unanimously rejected the resignation offered by Parente, presenting itself as united and arguing that the investigation did not touch the mayor and assessors.
On 6 November 2026, the issue returned to the council chamber at Palazzo Mosti, but in a different form: no longer only whether Parente should stay, but whether the earlier decision had followed the right institutional process.
That shift explains why Miceli and De Stasio focused less on guilt or innocence and more on where and how the resignation question was handled.
What else was on the agenda
The 6 November sitting was not called solely for the Parente case. According to the published agenda for the 9:30 session in the council hall of Palazzo Mosti, the order of business also included the 2025 consolidated budget, budget variations and the status of several PNRR construction sites.
That context matters for residents: the presidency dispute unfolded alongside financial and infrastructure items with direct effects on city administration.
What remains unclear
Several limits should be kept in mind. The available reporting does not include direct verification of the judicial documentation relating to the guarantee notice and the specific allegations concerning Parente.
No full official transcript of the 6 November session was available in the sources reviewed; the positions reported reflect political reconstructions that remain opposed on procedure.
It is also not clear from the sources what the current procedural status of the investigation is, or whether subsequent measures by the judicial authority have intervened.
For now, the institutional outcome stands: Parente remains president after offering a resignation that the majority rejected, while the opposition continues to contest the method — not in a majority room, they argue, but in the chamber.
