Following the reported Santamaria affair, Benevento city councillor Rosetta De Stasio says local politics has entered what she calls a time of responsibility. Her message is directed at those who represent the city: to pause, reflect, and put transparency and the common good first.
In her words: "È il tempo della responsabilità. Chi rappresenta la città deve interrogarsi."
What De Stasio said
De Stasio links the Santamaria case to political and moral responsibility for Benevento's elected representatives and administrators. According to the reported statement, she argues that anyone holding a public role should ask whether they can continue to represent citizens credibly.
A central point is the distinction between public interest and private ambition. De Stasio says politicians must separate service to the city from personal or factional advantage, and give priority to the common good.
She also calls for broader reflection by citizens, politicians and city administrators. At the same time, she rejects political "justicialism," saying accountability should come through serious institutional reflection rather than trial by politics.
What she did not ask for
De Stasio says she will not directly request resignations.
Her position, as reported, is that resignations should be a voluntary decision: they should be submitted by those who themselves believe such a step is appropriate. The emphasis is therefore on individual conscience and political responsibility, rather than on a list of names or an ultimatum from colleagues.
Transparency and controls at the centre
Transparency, anti-corruption controls and the political responsibility of municipal institutions are central themes in the reported response to the affair.
Separately, opposition councillors in Benevento have requested information on concrete preventive measures, internal checks and the regularity of municipal procedures. That request concerned explanations about anti-corruption safeguards, transparency and internal oversight after a serious judicial matter involving the municipality, and included a protest walkout from a council meeting.
The available reporting does not fully document the relationship between that earlier council episode and De Stasio's September statement, so they should be read as two distinct reported moments rather than as parts of a single sequence.
Why this matters for readers
For residents, the practical question raised by De Stasio is not only judicial. It is institutional: how the municipality explains its controls, answers questions in council, and shows that procedures are regular and verifiable.
For administrators and councillors, the points under discussion are concrete. What preventive measures are in place? How do internal checks work? What information has been provided about transparency and the regularity of municipal acts? Those were the issues raised by opposition councillors seeking clarity on municipal procedures.
What remains unclear
The reporting acquired so far does not independently establish the full facts of the investigation, the alleged offences, or the evidentiary status of the accusations. The report of De Stasio's remarks records a political statement; it does not provide the full prosecutorial communication or a judicial ruling.
Likewise, the identity, formal role and current procedural status of "Santamaria" are not independently detailed in the available material. Until further official information is published, the affair is best understood as a reported judicial matter with political consequences, not as an established finding of wrongdoing.
