AN INSIDE LOOK - Commentary and opinions on local politics and life in general in Southeastern Massachusetts! Featuring the writings of Bill Gouveia, newspaper columnist for the Sun Chronicle and local cable TV talk show host. Feel free to read, comment and enjoy!
This column was originally published in the Sun Chronicle on Tuesday, August 8, 2017.
GOUVEIA: Trump's against immigration, legal and otherwise
For years now, Donald Trump and others have rightfully railed about the dangers of illegal immigration, pointing out the harm it does and how unfair it is to the people who went through the difficult process to come here legally.
But now it has become clear Trump and certain “leaders” in Washington are not just against illegal immigration, but any kind of immigration.
President Trump recently endorsed a bill filed by two senators that would cut in half the number of people allowed to legally immigrate to the United States each year. The bill would introduce a “points system” that would control who is allowed in, and who is kept out.
In short, it would require those seeking to come here to already speak English. It would greatly favor those with skills and special distinctions. It would greatly reduce the number of family members those already here could bring over on visas.
For example, the spouse of someone here on a “Green Card” would still be allowed to join their partner along with their minor children. But grown children, siblings, even grandparents? They would be severely restricted.
It is the most anti-immigrant, anti-people, anti-family piece of legislation favored by a US President in my lifetime. It spits in the face of the America I was brought up to know and love, as well the families of those immigrants who built this country.
The President says the proposed bill will prevent legal immigrants from collecting welfare for the first five years. He apparently does not know that is already the case under the existing law. But let’s not allow facts to override politics, right?
My grandfather came to this country from Madeira. He did not speak English. He had no particular skill set other than a desire to support his family, better their lives, and become an American. If the rules President Trump favors were in existence then, it is unlikely he could have accomplished any of those things.
He worked here for years to afford to bring his family over. Several of his children eventually served in the US military. One grew up to run a successful neighborhood store for decades.
Another – my father – did not speak English when he started school in Norton. But he completed four years of high school in three years, joined the army, served in Korea, put himself through college, started a family, and became a CPA and senior vice president for the largest bank in New England.
Not bad for people who came here unable to speak the language, with no special skills. But President Trump would have kept them out.
When we needed immigrants in America to do jobs we could not or would not do, we portrayed ourselves as the shining beacon of freedom in the world. They helped us fill the “low-skilled” labor jobs which to this day remain critical to the success of this nation. In return, we gave them the freedom to be themselves and become Americans.
Now we accuse them of “taking” jobs from Americans. We blame them for low wages. That “shining beacon” of freedom is more like the blinking light of a motion detector alarm, warning us someone is where we don’t want them to be.
This pompous, arrogant, ignorant President is harnessing hatred for political purposes. He only wants immigrants if they conform to what he and those like him think they should be.
The people who immigrate here legally are an asset Mr. President, not a liability. We need more like them, and quite frankly — fewer with your prejudice and hatred and narrow-minded view of the world.
I write this to honor my grandparents, my uncles and aunts, and my father. They never stepped away from their Portuguese heritage, but still became true Americans. Donald Trump and those sponsoring this awful bill cannot seem to understand that. Or even worse — just don’t give a damn.
But those words on the Statue of Liberty still speak to us today:
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me … Perhaps President Trump will add to the plaque: “But only if they are highly-skilled and speak English”.
Kind of gives you goosebumps, doesn’t it?
Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and proud son of a legal immigrant. He can be emailed at firstname.lastname@example.org and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.
State representative and mayoral candidate Paul Heroux has a tough fight coming up this fall when he takes on three strong candidates vying to become the next mayor of Attleboro. One happens to be seven-term incumbent Mayor Kevin Dumas, and some are hoping for an exciting final election between these two proven politicians.
But so far in the very early stages of what some believe will be a particularly intense and nasty campaign, Heroux’s biggest problem has not been the mayor or his other worthy opponents. It has been himself.
Unless he starts concentrating a bit more on not figuratively shooting himself in the foot, Heroux, D-Attleboro, might just find himself continuing to hold on to his current job, where he has been a solid representative for his district.
Running for mayor in Attleboro is a bit different than running for the state Legislature. In fact, running for local office is a whole different ballgame than seeking a state legislative seat. While in this case the constituency is largely the same, the attention paid and the expectations demanded from the two positions are much different.
Heroux is particularly good at constituent service, and gets high marks from most for quickly responding to issues and problems brought to him by voters and citizens in his district. But the spotlight fixed on the mayor’s office is brighter and more intense locally than that focused on the person representing the Second Bristol District on Beacon Hill.
Heroux has already had an unfortunate personal situation come up during the campaign, an inadvertent posting he made on Facebook. It was an innocent error, and should not make anyone less likely to vote for him. But you have to be careful in the age of social media.
Now Heroux has made headlines by walking out of an appearance with local radio talk host Dave Kane. After apparently accepting an invitation to appear with the often controversial Kane, Heroux stormed out in anger before the interview was complete.
Kane was tough on the candidate, referring to him as a “genius” and constantly interrupting him. At one point Heroux warned that if the interruptions continued, he would walk out. Kane replied that the silence would be an improvement. So Heroux did exit, and allegedly called Kane a “jerk” while doing so.
In today’s national political climate, this is small potatoes. President Trump dishes out worse than that before breakfast, and has it returned before lunch.
But the standards are different on the local level. With few exceptions, if you can’t take the heat – well, you have to find another room to inhabit.
Heroux had to know, or should have known, the type of environment he was walking into. And he had to be – or should have been – totally prepared to deal with the situation.
Was Kane out of line? Most would agree he was. It certainly wouldn’t have been the first time, by his own admission. But the radio host is not a candidate. He is not seeking to represent the people who listen to him. They are free to turn the dial (do people still actually “turn” dials anymore?) or shut him off.
Local officials meet with frustrated and angry constituents almost every day. They must deal with a skeptical press and aggressive media types. When they accept the burden of office, they quickly learn one thing they cannot do (without resigning) is walk away in anger. It is their job to deal with problems, not storm away from them.
Kane threw out the bait, and Heroux bit hard. While his “toughness” may have made some supporters happy, it did little to help win over undecided voters. It was unprofessional, especially coming from someone who generally personifies professionalism.
Had he simply said “Mr. Kane, you are not letting me answer your questions. Thanks for the opportunity, but I prefer an actual conversation” and left without making the “jerk” comment, it would have been a much different situation.
Heroux deserves credit just for going on the show. But losing your cool on a radio talk show is not a great start to a possible mayoral tenure.
It was exactly the kind of attention a radio host loves, but a potential mayor doesn’t need.
Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and longtime local official. He can be emailed at email@example.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook
Regardless of what you think of President Donald Trump and the accomplishments (or lack of same) of his administration during his short time in office, one thing is undeniably true and evident: Donald Trump has changed the way government and a free press relate with one another and with the American people.
Whether the changes are good or bad, constructive or destructive, helpful or hurtful to the country — there is no doubt whatsoever they have occurred. And they may still only be the beginning, with deeper and more fundamental changes possibly still ahead.
Yeah, I know — that sounds like a lot of scary talk for political purposes. But it’s not.
It is instead a clear truth Americans see for themselves every day. Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this situation is that as we are exposed to it more and more on a daily basis, we may be starting to accept it as normal. It is becoming the new standard for both journalism and government.
What am I talking about? It’s pretty simple.
The traditional role of the media in general has been challenged by government at the highest level. With considerable help from the media itself, the Trump administration has in just six months managed to weaken and limit the American ideal of a free and independent press in an unprecedented manner.
Forget the fact Trump has had exactly one — one — individual press conference during his first six months. That is unusual when you consider he has held at least two actual campaign rallies for the 2020 election in that same time. But it is only part of a bigger problem.
Trump’s White House has severely limited the daily press briefing, where much of the news about our government comes from. They have held fewer of them, refused to allow cameras at many of them, and limited access with threats to completely cut off various media and newspapers who offend them.
They have elevated the status of friendly websites and bloggers at the expense of actual journalistic entities. They have “punished” various media by diminishing their access and ability to ask questions.
And of course, the president in particular has branded everything he does not like or agree with as “Fake News.” There has been a clear strategy of winning the day by damaging the people who — in his mind — can harm him. He doesn’t bother with facts. He and his administration are always in attack mode.
This has caused a similar reaction in the media itself. Facing a government that seemingly has no shame and no need to back up what it says, television and newspapers are having to change their ways. In doing so, they are simultaneously strengthening and weakening their adherence to the fundamentals of reporting and opining. And frankly, I don’t think they have yet figured out exactly what to do.
While the government and the presidency certainly have rules that should be followed, this is different. This administration doesn’t play by rules — it makes new ones. And in the ongoing battle between the Trump administration and the American media, one thing is clear — the Trump administration is winning.
Donald Trump has used the media like no other candidate in our history. He sucked them into covering his every breath as a candidate, when frankly the attention was not deserved. He used them when he needed them, and cast them out when he did not.
When the press points out some of the crazy things he does or says (sorry folks, he does say and do crazy things), he claims he is being attacked. He finds those who will curry his favor and elevates their status. He can do this because, in his own words, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.”
The government is now effectively bypassing the American public by pretending they are only bypassing the press and the media. And they are doing it in such a way that a sizable segment of the public is praising them for it.
The pure genius of it would be quite admirable, if not for the fact it threatens the very principles upon which this country was built.
Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and longtime local official. He can be emailed at firstname.lastname@example.org and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.
A short time ago, the entire Norton Recreation Committee resigned.
It was not sudden. It was not unexpected. In fact, they told people well in advance it could happen. Yet somehow, in a weird kind of reverse logic, many are blaming them for “abandoning” the program and the community most of them had worked tirelessly for many years to serve, without compensation.
To put it bluntly – that criticism is a giant load of crap.
As with most things governmental in Norton, the politics of this goes back to the dreaded “O” word – the failed overrides of the last two years. Norton is one of the few towns across the state that has never passed a general override of Proposition 2 1/2. And not surprisingly, that has resulted in cuts across the broad spectrum of municipal services.
Norton has no municipal trash pick-up. It has the same number of police officers it did in 1991. It has gone from five fire stations to one. And the recreation budget has been slashed so often and so deeply that the department itself virtually does not exist outside the small core of volunteers that selflessly kept it going with an embarrassingly small amount of financial support from the town.
For years, they gave of their time and themselves to provide programs for kids and adults. In addition to the recreation department, many of them became guiding forces behind the town’s Tricentennial celebration. That eventually turned into the annual Founder’s Day event. And boy, does everyone love Founder’s Day.
That’s when the town celebrates as a community. We have picnics. We have fireworks. We eat pies and cotton candy and sing lovely songs. It’s nice. It’s comfortable. It’s reflective of a community coming together.
But there was no Founder’s Day this year. That’s because before the last override, after years of waiting for the town to step up and take some of the burden it should rightfully bear, these volunteers warned residents and officials they were not going to keep doing it.
They helped get behind an override effort that supported schools, police, fire, senior citizens, and recreation. They believed in it, they fought for it. And they told people plainly, clearly, and without malice – if this plan failed, they were going back to their families. They were not going to continue enabling the town to run a professional program without professionals.
The override failed. They were disappointed. But they accepted the decision of the townspeople, and fully expected their decision would be extended the same courtesy. They stepped down.
And the whispering started. It turned into newspaper articles, letters to the editor, and postings on Facebook pages. And the blame for canceled programs and celebrations was pinned on them.
There was an attempt to save Founder’s Day this year. Ralph Stefanelli, the self-proclaimed “spokesman for voting No”, leader of the anti-override efforts, and part of the original Tri-Centennial planning group, volunteered to help oversee the new organizing effort. That is to his credit. But time and resources were scarce, and now the focus has shifted to next year.
In a video presentation on local cable access earlier this year, Mr. Stefanelli made a statement revealing his general philosophy on local government, and explaining in part why he opposed the override seeking to provide improved local services, stating:
“Because most of us don’t believe in community, we believe in individualism.”
Founder’s Day is great. It is a wonderful, fun celebration of community. And it is a shame it got canceled this year.
Of course, community is more than a single celebration. It is good schools, good public safety, good services and yes – a properly-funded recreation department. Fighting for those things is not always fun. It is not glamorous. It is not easy.
The recreation and Founder’s Day volunteers who stopped volunteering were not punishing the town. They were not sore losers concerning the override. They did not abandon their community.
They merely tired of enabling the town to claim it provided recreational services without paying its share for them. They sacrificed their individualism without getting much community support in return. They just wish the value of the Recreation Department was deemed as important as keeping Founder’s Day. Because to them, true community is important.
Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and longtime Norton official. He can be emailed at email@example.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook
Gouveia: A lot of blame to go around on "BudgetGate"
By BILL GOUVEIA / For The Sun Chronicle
Now a full week removed from Attleboro’s “BudgetGate” incident, reaction throughout the city is trending in a fairly predictable manner.
Some opponents in the upcoming mayoral election, as well as a fair number of citizens, are blaming the mayor and his administration. A lot of experienced observers are blaming the budget director. Virtually everyone is blaming the city councilors.
And to various degrees, they are all correct.
Let’s start with the obvious. Without exception, every single individual involved in any way with the annual budget process should have known about the 45-day deadline for acting on the mayor’s proposed spending plan. There is no valid excuse for not knowing.
It is akin to running off third base and directly into the dugout in the bottom of the 9th inning of a baseball game with your team down a run, after the batter flew out to the outfield – for the second out. Maybe no one specifically told you there are three outs in every inning, but you should know it. It is part of your job.
Was this a bonehead play to end all bonehead plays, or was it an effort to throw the game? Did someone have a bet on the outcome, and stage the whole thing for their personal advantage? Conspiracy theories are always popular.
When the owner comes in after that monstrosity, he or she may have trouble deciding who to fire first. The runner who screwed up? The third-base coach? The manager? Or maybe he/she just sells the whole team and looks for one that can actually count?
As someone with decades of municipal budget and political experience (though thankfully not in Attleboro), I have a pretty straightforward take on all this I’d like to share with you.
I absolutely believe this was a total systematic failure of city government. I do not think it was the result of any plan, conspiracy, or political scheme. Quite frankly, to believe otherwise would be giving those involved too much credit for their political acumen.
The fact absolutely no current city councilor says they knew this basic rule is disgraceful, but ultimately believable. If they wanted to take a pass on this year’s budget, there are a lot simpler ways to do it that would not make them all look ignorantly uniformed — which is exactly what they look like right now.
Council President Frank Cook did not equivocate in accepting blame, taking responsibility for not being aware of the rule. As well he should. More than anyone else in this sad scenario, Cook bears the responsibility for this huge error. It is not totally his fault, but when he accepted the position he accepted the responsibility.
As a result, Cook should immediately resign as council president. No other action can adequately reflect the lack of informed leadership that led to this situation.
Every other councilor is just one small notch down the blame marker. This is their failure, and any attempt to shift blame or responsibility in any way just makes it worse. There is no political advantage for them to gain here.
The budget director certainly should have known, and as a well-paid city employee had a responsibility to stay on top of the situation. His slice of the blame pie is plenty large.
The mayor also gets a heaping portion, although it is nowhere near as big as that belonging to the council members. Dumas should have known this rule, but his responsibility for it is slightly less than the legislative body. Remember, he fulfilled his part of the budget process by submitting it on time. But in the earlier analogy, he is the baseball manager – ultimately responsible for everything.
In the long run, this is far from the end of the world.
The budget submitted is not greatly different from the last one.
The damage to the city’s finances will be far, far less than the serious blow dealt to the credibility, competence, and commitment of city government.
This is not a conspiracy, but merely incompetence. That certainly doesn’t make it any easier for voters to accept.
But given most of those involved were elected by those same voters – who really made the bigger mistake?
Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and longtime local official. He can be emailed at firstname.lastname@example.org and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.