Since taking office in January, Pittsfield, Massachusetts city councilor Charles Kronick has made waves. In addition to his meeting-to-meeting arguments with other councilors, community members and city leaders accused Kronick of making transphobic remarks during budget hearings this spring . The Ward 2 representative’s efforts to block the appointment of the city’s first Chief Diversity Officer in February and use of a charter objection to protest the 2023 budget in June also led to condemnation from fellow councilors and Mayor Linda Tyer. Kronick made the rare move for a sitting councilor by using the open mic portion of the body’s June 28th meeting to offer a defense of his behavior, but ultimately raised more questions by referencing the Holocaust and refusing to apologize. To get a better sense of Pittsfield’s most controversial civic leader in his own words, WAMC got him on the phone.
KRONICK: I'll tell you what- It's been a huge amount of work. It's a very challenging job, and it's very rewarding. And of course, it comes with it all sorts of its – what do you call it – frustrations.
WAMC: Well, let's take a look at some successes first, and then I'll ask about the frustrations. What so far do you think you can point to and say, well, this is something that I'm happy I've done with my time in office?
Well, I'll tell you what- I've helped a lot of people thus far. These are not the most exciting things to report on, but getting roads fixed, getting potholes filled, getting traction on resolving some real infrastructure-like problems in various neighborhoods, like flooding streets that have been hard to address for many, many years. Just things that have been real problems for a number of people and getting them help, getting their parking signs rearranged to clean up their streets. It's very, very rewarding especially when you put out- Somebody gets in touch with you, they say, I need my parking, you know, I can't, people are parking all over the place and they are congesting the streets, and there's no, signs were removed, but they're not there anymore. And you called the city, you talked to the traffic superintendent, and within a week, they get it all fixed for you. There's nothing more rewarding than that. That's what I would say.
So let's turn to the frustrations. What are the harder parts of the job been so far?
On the small level, you know, that's very rewarding, like getting things, getting the things done for people that need to be done, helping them out. It’s the, but the sort of macro level of government, the budgeting, the deliberating on large spending packages, for example, whether it's a budget, or if it's a loan appropriation of several million dollars for a project, to the most recent issue of the baseball stadium which is coming before us, there is no debate. And that is a great frustration for me. In other words, these are big projects, they are going to cost us a lot of money and taxpayers a lot of money, and they should be taken seriously. We should be, the city council should be looking at that with a great deal of concern and looking for the best option that will leave future generations in a position where they can look back and say that didn’t hurt so bad or even appreciate what was done. And that my frustration is the inability of the city council to work together to really explore the depth of the situations that we're looking at.
So, I wanted to speak to that, because, you know, I can tell from you know, the way that you bring your presence to the council that you're trying to stoke that conversation. Some would say that the approach you've taken- You know, there has been an aggressiveness to it that doesn't foster that sense of camaraderie with your colleagues. Like, you know, we've seen a number of outbursts at some of the things that you've chosen to undertake in the council chambers. Can you speak to that strategy? Did you think it's working toward that ultimate goal of more teamwork and more conversation?
Well, I'll tell you what- I'm not sure whether it’s, whether it's the teamwork that we're talking about. It is the voicing of the problem that has to happen first. I mean, we can't- The problem is not so much that we don't have a team approach on city council. I mean, from that standpoint, there's a very strong team working there, which is usually the 10 to 2 vote or the 10 to 4 vote, or the, you know, whatever, split 4 vote. That's a, you know, it's very strong consistency there. What the problem is that the minority voice, the voice that runs against the dictates of this majority is, has been for a very long time – It's not just me coming on board – but generally squelched. And so, my strategy has to be aggressive, because coming in and sort of saying, well, you know, I just wanted to point this out to you, needless to say, that's not going to get you a lot of attention, a lot of traction on city council. I think that the, I don't think it's an- I do not take an aggressive approach. I think a lot of people feel affronted sometimes by my suggestions, but actually, if you look back on everything I have said, not in one case have I actually made a very strong accusatory sort of remark. What I simply state is simply that we need to consider the cost and the legitimacy of this spending. So, that said, I think that the city council as a whole, working from an interpersonal, I think we do rather well. And there's a good deal- You know, don't forget about there’s a good deal of humor that goes on that city council that I share with the public, you know. I have no problem admitting my mistakes. I have no problem, you know, just sort of saying, you know, cracking a joke at something I may have done, something, a stumble, or whatever.
Well, I wanted to ask you about that sense of a stumble or the sense of occasionally causing affront. You know, obviously, along the way, so far, you have attracted some negative feedback from the community. And I wanted to sort of just ask you a couple questions associated with that.
Sure, go for it.
Your comments about gender identity and your religious background- I think there was a perception from those comments that there is maybe not a full understanding in the community about the way you interpret ideas around say, separation of church and state, and the idea of someone's personal religious feelings infringing on their role as a politician, and- Can you speak to that? And do you understand why maybe people can hear that and say, well, that's a red flag for us?
Well, I- I'm not going to try to justify that position of the perception. The perception is false. It's not a red flag for anybody. I'm very, I am actually speaking very much in line with the First Amendment of the Constitution, understand. The Constitution, that Amendment states that the government shall not write law that pays that respects one religion or another, nor shall it restrict one's free right to practice one's religion, observe one’s faith. So what I'm saying in the argument about the gender pronouns is that the government of Pittsfield is instituting training instead in an overt pressure on its employees to speak to their fellow coworkers in a way that will invariably contradict their religious faith, understand. It is not a discriminatory position on my part. I'm not saying that, for example, that one shouldn't, an employee shouldn't ask to be referred, spoken to in a specific fashion, they're not- In other words, if a person is transgender, identifies as a gender that's not immediately apparent to the person, they can certainly make that request. That's absolutely within their rights as an individual. But what I, my objection is to the city government mandating an employee, how they speak to their fellow employees. So in other words, that's the objection.
So, you've referred to your religious beliefs in the past and in council chambers. Can you tell me what exactly, how you identify religiously, what religious doctrine you are committed to?
Well, I am committed to the Jewish faith.
Now, that raises my next question. You made a pretty direct reference to the Holocaust in your remarks where you took to the public mic to sort of defend your actions concerning the charter objection about the budget.
Yes.
Can you sort of extrapolate a bit on that? You know, I myself am also Jewish, Charles, and that sort of took me off guard to hear the phrase “six million murdered Jews” spoken in relation to that situation.
Well, it's not that long ago, don't forget, the Holocaust. And it was a outcropping of many centuries of abuse, you know, anti-Semitism and hate and just- But the point here, Josh, is that anti-Semitism is entrenched hatred that is been around for a very long time. And throughout the centuries, it sort of cropped up in varying degrees, right? We have the Inquisition, you've had pogroms all throughout Europe, in, especially, Russia, where my family came from, way before the German experiment in human abuse, rights abuse, in murder. However, my point is that anti-Semitism is entrenched. And it survives throughout the generations by cloaking itself in the contemporary ethical constructs. So when I bought up anti-Semitism, I wasn't really talking about the Holocaust and saying that we're on the verge of a Holocaust, certainly not making any comparisons such as that. The point is that, I mentioned it bringing up the fact that I've been singled out in these debates from the very get-go of my campaign, and the result of which has been retaliatory. Such as, my constituents lost out on the entire, just about, Chapter 90 roadwork. I don't know the exact number. I think it was a tens of millions of dollars. We got only 3%-
Well, I just want to-
Hold on, no, no. Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt. I just have, I just wanted to go through and explain what I was talking about there. I have made, endured rebukes and insults from the council president. I've been slandered in the press- Not directly by WAMC but Berkshire Eagle and the iBerkshires. I've been accused of abusing power, and all that really came to a head when I had raised my opposition to the excessive hiring and spending and having the courage to cite religious principle as one of the reasons why I opposed it. So-
Well, I’ve got to jump in. So are you-
I yield there. [laughs] Like we’re on the city council floor here, right?
I appreciate it. So are you saying all of that, you perceive that as an expression of anti-Semitism directed at you?
I think so. Yes, I have to say so. And I'll tell you what- If a different councilor, and you can choose any one of them, were to object, say, for example, to the hiring of a prospective employee that is being paid way beyond the average pay scale that exists in this commonwealth, let’s say by a factor of two, to be paid for on taxpayer dollars, would Councilor Marchetti have rebuked them publicly and insulted them? And I suggest that the President Marchetti really ought to ask himself that question.
When asked by WAMC if he treated Kronick differently because of his Jewish identity, Pittsfield City Council President Peter Marchetti denied the accusation and said he didn’t know Kronick was Jewish until last month.
