Voter ID Laws Just Another Political Ploy

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on September 3, 2012.

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

As Americans prepare to cast their ballots this November, there has been a lot of talk about voter identification laws.  Some states have adopted regulations requiring every voter to show a picture ID before being allowed to participate in this most democratic and important process.

Here in Massachusetts, an effort to establish a similar law was ruled unconstitutional by the state attorney general’s office.  Spearheaded by Mansfield selectman Olivier Kozlowski, the proposed law would have required all citizens to show a government-issued photo identification before being allowed to vote.

Kozlwoski said he was concerned the system here in Massachusetts is vulnerable to fraud.  The local republican admitted in an interview last year that he was unaware of any actual and specific voter fraud problems in the state, but added “Every election you hear stories”. 

This is a difficult issue.  No one (well, almost no one) is in favor of voter fraud.  It is pretty much a given that most people firmly believe only those actually eligible to vote should do so.  It is a cherished right, a valued privilege, and a sacred duty.  It should not be abused.

And statistics show it is not.  Cases of actual voter fraud – we are talking proven cases here, not “stories” – are few and far between.  The prosecution rate is extremely low, and some point to that as proof that current laws are insufficient to address the alleged issue.  Others claim the voter ID law sponsors are seeking to solve a problem that does not exist in order to gain political advantage.  Of course, the sponsors claim those folks are actually realizing a political advantage by gaining fraudulent votes.

And therein lays the real problem.  This is about politics much more than anything else.  It is about Democrats worrying they will lose votes among the more urban voters, and Republicans hoping that will be the case.  It is about wanting to make sure our individual vote really counts, even at the expense of costing someone else their rightful opportunity.

At first glance, requiring a picture ID in order to vote seems very reasonable – especially here in our largely suburban setting.  After all, we provide an ID for so many other things.  When we buy alcohol, use our credit cards, open bank accounts, even when picking up certain cold medications in the supermarket or pharmacy.  Asking for photographic identification in exchange for a ballot does not initially seem like much of a burden.

But out here, most people have driver’s licenses.  They can’t rely on the subway or buses to get them everywhere.  In many of our cities, that is not the case.  While a good argument can be made that forcing folks to spend $25 or more to obtain a government-issued card which then allows them to vote is no big deal, the truth is it can be.  It actually and actively gives people yet another reason to not vote – and that should be the last thing we do in this country.

Imagine the poor elderly woman or man in a nursing home who is denied a vote because their relatives failed to get them an ID.  Or the young man or woman on their own at a tender age, who can’t cast a ballot because they don’t have the means to pay for an ID.  Poll taxes and tests were used in the south generations ago to keep certain people from voting.  This is nothing more than an attempt at the same thing.

We have so many real and pressing problems to address in this country, this state, and our local communities.  We need to solve the tough ones, not the politically advantageous ones.

My personal belief is that depriving someone of their right to vote – accidentally or on purpose – is among the worst things you can do to them.  There is no doubt fraud involved in many of our elections.  However, the vast majority of it is committed by the candidates and their campaigns.  We should be making things harder on them, not on voters.

When our legislatures and local officials correct the obvious campaign finance problems in this country, then we can focus on the small percentage of people who vote when they should not.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Fantasy Football is Family Football Here

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on August 31, 2012.

AN INSIDE LOOK
by Bill Gouveia

As we enter the Labor Day weekend, people across the area and the country are gearing up for the upcoming months of stress, pressure and enjoyment.  No, I’m not talking about kids heading off to college or back to school.  I’m also not referring to the upcoming election, the World Series, or the winter holidays.

Hold on boys and girls, it’s about to get rough out there.  This is no time for the timid or weak.  Warm up your laptops, print out your cheatsheets, and grab a cold one.  It’s fantasy football time.

Once the domain of geeks and nerds, fantasy football has crossed over into the mainstream.  It is now played not only by true sports fans, but by everyone from motivated moms to disinterested dads.  The family and friends that play together, stay together.  And although there are many extremely competitive fantasy leagues where “experts” battle for big bucks, bragging rights are often the most treasured prize fought for each Sunday (and Monday – and a few Thursdays).

There are many different variations of this computer-based hobby.  Some involve simply picking the winners of each game.  But most require the fantasy “owners” to choose players who earn points for their “team” based upon their individual performance.  That requires participation in what is often the best part of the fantasy process – the live fantasy draft.

My two sons are in their 30’s (sorry boys, I know you hate it when I say that) and they have some great friends.  They have had a fantasy football league for many years now, and over the last several have kindly allowed me to participate.  The name of my team – Old Guys Rule – is largely indicative of the fact I am the league’s oldest member (by a lot). 

That is never more evident than the night of the annual draft.  We gather at the home of one of the members.  There is a lot of beer, pizza and busting of you-know-what.  Every pick is scrutinized by the group as a whole, and appropriate praise or ridicule is heaped upon the person making the selection.  Watching the process is almost more fun than the season itself.

Some of the individuals make a nominal effort to be informed on the personnel available.  They might have the latest fantasy football magazine, or print out a list from one of the many helpful websites.  Others resort to far more extreme measures such as color-coded charts and fancy excel spreadsheets with an incredible amount of statistical information.  My own draft style is much more the former than the latter.

My draft preparation consists primarily of scouring a few web sites and using a canned drafting program to keep track of the selections.  That’s in addition to utilizing my tremendous personal knowledge of the sport and decades of experience as a football fan, of course.  This has led to mixed results over the years.

But last season it all paid off.  After being consistently told how horrible my draft was and that my team would be lucky to even make the playoffs, I had an incredible late season rush.  I defeated the top two regular-season finishers and won the championship.  That may not seem like a tremendous accomplishment, but neither of my sons has ever managed to pull it off.  Not that I ever remind them.

This year’s draft was last weekend.  I was unhappy I wound up with absolutely no Patriots on my fantasy squad, but otherwise reasonably satisfied with the results.  I did raise a few eyebrows when I took a certain Bengal’s wide receiver with the 10^th overall pick, and endured quite a bit of harassment for that and several other selections.  But we’ll see who’s laughing when the season draws to a close.

There is a monetary reward for the champion at the end of the year, but frankly the bragging rights are worth a whole lot more – particularly in my case.  And if I start getting a bit too confident, I have only to remember that both my wife and daughter-in-law beat me in our family league where we pick winners only.  Gee, I guess that’s how my sons must feel. 

Let the battle begin…

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Foxboro Parking Solution Lacks Common Sense

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on August 28, 2012.

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

If you are going to propose a law and get it adopted, common sense says you should have a plan to enforce it.  But when it comes to the newly-instituted Foxboro parking bylaw, common sense is in very short supply.

The law bans residents from parking cars on their private property during Gillette Stadium events, which means it is almost exclusively aimed at homeowners in the North Street area near Patriot Place.  The police chief and the building inspector pushed and supported the bylaw along with selectmen.  They said the parking of cars in the highly residential neighborhood posed a safety threat to pedestrians, motorists, and neighbors and impeded the safe flow of traffic.

But in their haste to implement this misguided policy, they failed to properly plan just how they would make it work.  They can go around and look for cars parked in driveways and on lawns, and even hand out $100 fines to those they believe in violation.  But they have yet to come up with a sensible answer or a workable plan for how people can hold simple family gatherings without worrying about police possibly towing Grandma’s car during dinner.

Of course, officials have no intention of actually doing such a thing to Grandma.  But how are they planning to apply this law fairly?  There is no doubt some North Street area residents abused their homeowner rights and created a nuisance by jamming their property with game-day parkers.  But the overwhelming majority either parked no cars, parked friends and relatives, or parked a few people safely on their land for a fee.  In many cases, they have been parking the same acquaintances for decades.

Did this new bylaw strip homeowners of their right to hold family gatherings when they involve more than three cars?  Do you now have to get permission for Grandma to visit?  Will she need a permit or a placard to guarantee she is not a scofflaw?  Many of the games are held on or around holidays.  Must residents now give up their right to celebrate the holidays at home?

Here’s an idea.  How about cracking down on the people who actually create a parking or traffic hazard, and leaving the ones who don’t alone?  If this is really a safety issue, why must the people who are not creating safety problems be stopped from parking cars? 

The current bylaw tries to solve the problem around the stadium in a heavy-handed and uneven manner.  It is like trying to kill flies with dynamite.  It makes little sense, creates a lot of peripheral damage, and is simply unfair and discriminatory.

Think about it for a minute.  The town and the Patriots agree to funnel a lot of traffic down North Street so they can have a private entrance to the expensive club seat parking lot for VIPs.  They create traffic the residents must endure.  Then when the residents try and use their property to park the cars of friends and relatives, or make a couple of bucks, the town blames them for creating traffic problems.

The homeowners are not causing the vast majority of the issues.  The traffic itself is to blame.  If town officials are truly worried about the safe flow of traffic in the residential neighborhood, then they should reduce that traffic – not further punish or inconvenience the people who just happen to live along the route.  Those neighbors are not creating traffic problems, but rather are the victims of them.

Safety is always first.  No one should be hurt just so residents can make a few extra bucks.  Town officials have to create a safe situation for everyone.  But frankly – this ain’t how to do it.

They rushed this law without thinking it through.  They changed the implementation date of it several times in a way that was unfair and unreasonable.  They did not clearly present the impact of it at Town Meeting.  They created a committee to discuss the law with area residents after it was passed rather than before.  They did not think this through.

Foxboro voters should repeal this law at the next Town Meeting and tell officials to come up with a complete plan and resubmit.  Hopefully, this time they will get it right.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Boards and Officials All Need to Speak

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on Monday, August 20, 2012.

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

Recent events in Mansfield brought forth an issue that could be classified as an “oldie-but-goodie”.  It is the question of how individual board or committee members speak out on issues that involve them, and how that colors and affects the government entity’s ability to conduct business objectively, efficiently and effectively.

At one of their meetings, selectmen had an agenda item concerning establishing protocols for speaking to the media.  The stated intent was to have a policy which would avoid confusion between the opinions and goals of individual selectmen and those of the majority of the board.  It followed a flurry of activity after recent events concerning the Comcast Center which placed great public scrutiny on the town and the venue. 

But leaving aside for a moment the specifics of the Mansfield situation, this is a topic that is often discussed in local government.  The people who populate boards of selectmen and school committees are generally not professional politicians.  They are usually dedicated townspeople who have chosen to step up and offer their services to their community, often with no compensation.   That is in no way offset by the fact they also receive all the aggravation they could possibly imagine.

As a result, many local officials and boards are far from expert at communicating with the media and the public.  With all the emphasis on local news coverage these days, city and town officials are under a brighter spotlight than ever before.  Local newspapers, websites, blogs, and local cable access television have all made being a local official a more visible and arguably more difficult job.  Getting the message of the board across rather than each individual’s message can be a problem.

Having chaired a local board of selectmen, let me be clear on one important point.  No public official should ever give up the right to express their opinion on any issue.  In fact, they have an obligation to let the citizens they serve know where they stand and what they think. 

At the same time, each individual board or committee member has an obligation and a duty to the whole.  They were elected to be a part of the governing body, and should always remember they are just a part of that public institution.  Their job is to bring their individual perspective and ideas to the table, argue as strenuously as necessary to try and convince a majority to agree with them, then accept and work towards the goals their committee eventually adopts.

That does not eliminate dissent or individuality – in fact it makes both those things more critical to the process.  But there are ways to do certain things, and ways to not do them.  The line that divides right and wrong in these instances is a very fine one, and where to draw it is often a topic of intense local debate.

The ultimate goal of every official should be to work towards solutions to the problems their board faces.  They cannot do that alone.  Those who constantly “perform” at meetings and outside them are often – though not always – trying harder to look like they are working hard than actually working hard.

When a selectman asks questions of his/her fellow members or town manager at a public meeting, they might be looking for answers.  Or they might be trying to upstage them and look good at their expense.  If their real goal is to simply gather information, effective officials often ask the questions beforehand and give their colleagues the chance to prepare.  But posturing and politics is often easier.

When one member of a board speaks to the press, they have to understand how their comments will reflect on their board.  Even when you begin with the famous “I’m only speaking for myself” it can influence the ability of your board to perform their duties.  It makes sense to have policies in effect allowing individual freedom and flexibility, yet making sure the rights and positions of the majority are properly and fairly expressed.

That’s not easy.  As someone often accused of being too much of an “individual” while serving on committees, I am sensitive to the issue.  But the best committees or boards are the ones that in the end speak with one voice blended voice.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

War Strikes Home in Norton

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on August 13, 2012.

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

War is an awful thing, and in war people die.  Those people have homes, families, friends and neighbors who care about them.  They all come from somewhere, both originally and lately.  We read about them in the newspapers and see and hear their stories on radio and television.  We appreciate the grim sacrifice they have made for us, and we mourn their loss.

But Master Sgt. Gregory R. Trent didn’t come from just anywhere.  He came from Norton, the small town I have called home for almost all my 56 years on this planet.  He was one of our kids – one of Norton’s boys – and he gave his life in defense of his country.  And that has affected me in a far greater way than I anticipated.

I didn’t know Master Sgt. Trent, or at least I never remember meeting him.  He graduated from Norton High School in 1992.  That’s the same school my late father graduated from, where my wife and I graduated from in 1974, and where my two sons graduated in 1997 and 2000 respectively. 

Master Sgt. Trent learned in the same classrooms where I was taught.  He ate lunch in the same cafeteria, exercised in the same gymnasium, and received his diploma on the same stage.  His parents lived in town, he probably watched or marched in some of the local parades, and he no doubt knew people I knew and shared many of the same local experiences.

But he went on to greater service than I ever have or will.  He enlisted in 1998 and volunteered for Special Services in 2006.  He earned the Bronze Star Medal and the Purple Heart, as well other impressive awards.  He had been stationed not only in Afghanistan, but also previously in Iraq. 

Since I did not know him, I find it a little strange that news of his untimely death has struck me in this manner.  There is little I am aware of that separates this fine young man from thousands of others I have read about over the last several years with sorrow and pain.  Why should I feel more for him than any of them?  They all gave their lives trying to make sure I and others like me can continue to enjoy the freedoms we so take for granted.

But Master Sgt. Gregory Trent was from Norton, and to me and so many others here that will make him different.  It places this War on Terror in a different light and perspective than just yesterday.  Now maybe that’s wrong.  Maybe I should have felt this way about all the other young lives tragically ended on far away battlefields since that fateful day of September 11, 2001.  But I didn’t, and though I regret it I can’t change that now.

I wonder if I ever stood behind Master Sgt. Trent in line at Roche Brothers.  Maybe I sat across from him at a picnic table at the Norton Hot Dog Stand.  Did I ever bump into him coming in or out of Haskins Pharmacy?  Was he one of the thousands of kids I saw on the Norton Youth Baseball fields over the years?  Did I ever knock on his family’s door when I was running for office?

I can’t help but notice he is not that much older than my own children.  That could have been them mortally wounded in some far away land, being transferred home and dying in a military hospital.  Master Sgt. Trent is survived by a daughter, and I cannot even fathom my grandson or granddaughter growing up without their father. 

Norton will always be a small town in my mind, even though it is now a community of about 20,000 people.  It is a great place to live and raise a family.  It produces great citizens who go on to do great things in life.  Master Sgt. Gregory Trent will forever be one of those most remembered.

The horror of war has come to Norton in a big way.  Our thoughts, prayers and hearts go out to the family of Master Sgt. Trent.  He will forever be a son of Norton, and an entire town leads a grateful nation in honoring his life and his memory.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and lifelong Norton resident.  He can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Kraft Not Being Shy in Foxboro Negotiations

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on August 10, 2012.

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

No one has ever accused Bob Kraft of being shy.


In the opening round of talks between the Kraft Group and the new unnamed Foxboro committee formed for the purpose of drawing fire – er, I mean negotiating on behalf of the selectmen, planning board and water board – the Kraft organization presented an aggressive proposal. They are seeking eight new liquor licenses for Patriot Place, which would bring the total number between the development and the stadium to 25.


The Kraft Group is also seeking to reduce the town’s share of revenue from ticket sales to stadium events (not including Patriot and Revolution games). They are looking for a guarantee of support from some town boards and officials on revising certain zoning laws, state funds to help build a pedestrian bridge across Route 1, and advocacy for a permanent MBTA rail station near Patriot Place and the stadium.

In return they offer to continue (in part) the infamous “billboard deal” which could net the town $100,000 per year, as well as pay $300,000 towards increased sewer costs involved with a proposed regional deal with Mansfield and Foxboro. They also offered to help fund alcohol education efforts in the schools and throughout town.


No one should be shocked by the proposal. It represents a sound negotiating strategy on behalf of the Kraft Group. After all, if you don’t ask – you don’t get. The fact negotiations must take place in public makes it particularly difficult in the early stages, but that’s the price you pay when you operate a franchise of this type. Transparency is a strange but wonderful (and in town government necessary) thing.


It will be interesting to see how the process moves forward from here. The Committee-To-Be-Named-Later has a tough task ahead, though they will not have the final say on any ultimate deal. There are those already complaining that Bob Kraft is trying to buy additional liquor licenses in order to increase development and line his pockets with profits. And you know what? That’s pretty much exactly what he’s doing.


But is there really anything wrong with that? After all, the idea of being in business is to make money. Large businesses apply for tax breaks from the state and local communities all the time, promising in return to supply jobs and other ancillary benefits. There might not be liquor licenses involved, but the premise here is the same.


Having said that, it seems pretty clear Foxboro needs eight more liquor licenses about as much as I need eight more sandwiches. Like my sandwiches, it sounds good and would no doubt be enjoyable for a while. But what you are left with afterwards is not always a pretty sight.


The current economic times make running a successful business very difficult. They call for extraordinary measures, which is why Massachusetts has finally allowed casino gambling (oops, I’m not supposed to say that in Foxboro – sorry). But though I am no expert, I have to wonder about the wisdom of 25 individual liquor licenses in single development. That sounds more like New Orleans than Foxboro.


But it pays to listen and weigh the options. Foxboro town officials have learned the hard way that refusing to listen to proposals from reputable parties can bring about division, resentment and distrust. They appear to be making a good faith effort to avoid doing that again (darn, another veiled casino reference) and that is wise.


But clearly, the committee in question needs a name. Perhaps it could be the “You’re Being Punished Committee”. The “Take A Bullet For Us Committee” has a nice ring to it. Calling it “The Political Suicide Committee” might be a bit harsh. I heard someone suggest “The We-Ought-To-Be-Committed Committee”, but that’s a bit long.


The fact one of the unnamed committee’s first official acts was to go into an unscheduled executive session at the request of former and new town counsel Richard Gelerman has not helped get them off to the positive start they might have liked. But as Gelerman told the committee as they prepared to meet in secret: “Foxboro’s a lot of fun these days.”


The “Let’s Have Fun Committee?” Well, they’ll come up with something. Let’s hope they do it in open session.


Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and can be reached at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @BillInsideLook.

Olympics Just Not the Same Anymore

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

I've tried to watch the Olympics these past two weeks. And I can't deny that some of it has been enjoyable, exciting and inspiring. But overall, I find the modern Olympics to be an over-blown theatrical style experience that has far more economic impact than anything else.


Perhaps that is a jaded, skeptical view worthy of newspaper columnists (damn them!). But the Olympics today are so much more about politics and money than they are about sports and competition that you might as well be watching an NFL football game or a MLB baseball game. I enjoy those things, but they don't pretend to be what they are not.

The Olympics want us to think they are about national pride and competing for your country - and for many athletes and spectators that is exactly the role they fill. In past years I have been absorbed by them, especially when I was younger. And no, contrary to popular belief, I was not there for the first Modern Olympic Games back in 1896.

Some of the greatest sporting moments in my lifetime occurred during the games. Nothing can ever match the excitement and patriotic pride of watching the 1980 US Men's Hockey team defeat the heavily-favored Russians en route to the gold medal at Lake Placid. Watching Mark Spitz and now Michael Phelps become the greatest competitive swimmers of their generations was something to behold. And who among us did not cheer for Shawn Johnson to bring Olympic gold back home?


But when I was growing up the Olympics were a battle between the true amateurs of the United States and the semi-professionals of the Soviet Union and East Germany. We were proud that we sent real amateurs in what we considered the true Olympic spirit, while the Soviets and Eastern Bloc countries trained pre-teens away from their families for years in order to produce medal winners.



Today the Soviet Union no longer exists and East Germans live in a unified Germany. And the new female Olympic gymnastics champion is 16-year-old American Gabby Douglas, who left her parents to train for her attempt at winning a gold medal - and has not spent a single day at home in the last two years. Isn't that the very kind of thing we lamented when those on the "other side" did it?


We have enthusiastically accepted and endorsed everything we previously complained about when it comes to international competition. We have adopted many of the long-abhorred training techniques, and even hired away many of the foreign coaches so they could institute their programs here. And there is a very good reason for that. It wins medals.


The Olympics has always been largely commercial, though usually that was more about making money for the host venue. Now that professional athletes are allowed to compete, being an Olympic medalist is a much more profitable proposition. While it was always possible for an Olympic champion to make money via endorsements and exposure after their Olympic careers were over, they no longer have to wait. It is a huge change.

And truth be told, most prefer it this way. Americans love to compete and love to win. More people will watch LeBron James and Kobe Bryant than will watch even the best college and amateur players. While we love the underdogs who come from nowhere to win it all, we have an insatiable desire to see the very best.


If NBC is going to pay billions for the right to broadcast each Olympiad into our living rooms, they want the participants to be as familiar as possible to us. They don’t care if our figure skaters are making money on ice shows across the country between Olympic Games – and neither does most of the rest of the world.

But while that may make the Olympics more popular, it also makes them less watchable for fans like yours truly. The “Dream Team” may be great, but it doesn’t help make me want to watch springboard diving or team handball. And who knew there was even such a thing as team handball?

I still do love watching beach volleyball though. But that’s strictly because of my great love for the game.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and the current holder of the gold medal for couch-sitting. He can be reached at aninsidelook@aol.com.

Cooperation is Key to Changes at Comcast Center

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on August 3, 2012

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

I recently wrote of the ongoing feud between one Mansfield selectman and the general manager of the Comcast Center. I said they needed to work together to solve what problems exist at the popular concert venue, and to understand people were tuning them out.

Now two people have died from substance abuse while attending a “rave” concert, and that changes the way people look at the facility and the way the Comcast Center must look at itself. Fair or unfair, right or wrong, town officials and Comcast Center authorities no have no choice but to set aside past differences and concentrate on what needs to be done going forward.


This is no time for political posturing. The deaths of these two young people are horrific tragedies, made even more so by the fact they appear to have been the result of personal behavior. It would be wrong to use these deaths as a means to achieve political goals. It would be equally wrong if the Comcast Center ignored the circumstances surrounding the situation and offered no changes on their own.


The Comcast Center did not supply the drugs that killed these patrons. They did not force them to take them. They should not be held responsible for the bad choices these individuals may have made. But as the holder of an entertainment license they have a responsibility to provide as safe and secure an environment as possible. They clearly need to make stronger efforts in that regard.


What is perhaps most clear is that the “rave” type of concerts simply can no longer be held at this venue. The physical layout of the Comcast Center does not allow for proper security for this type of event. You can call that unfair and discriminatory to the mostly younger crowd that attends – most of whom behave in a responsible manner – but it is clearly the truth. In addition, the noise generated by these concerts is much more a problem than any other type of event and neighbors far and wide have complained regularly.


Mansfield’s Chief of Police has weighed in expressing severe reservations about this type of show, and his concerns should be addressed. Not only would selectmen be wise to refuse to license any further concerts of this particular type, but the Comcast Center should voluntarily step forward and announce they will no longer host them.

But this awful situation involving two deaths should not be used as a reason to institute such security measures as searching vehicles on the way into the parking lot, or placing drug-sniffing dogs at entrances to the center. There is no indication they would be effective in solving the problem of a small percentage of patrons who abuse substances while there. If someone is determined to get drunk or take pills, they most likely will find a way.

But there are measures which have been suggested that can and should be considered and put in place. Checking tickets as patrons enter the parking lot seems reasonable. There is no reason for those without tickets to be in the lot. That may put a crimp in those who like to hang out at Jimmy Buffet concerts, but that’s a small price to pay.


Increasing security personnel may also be necessary, but that is more difficult to judge. When that has been increased, there have been more people arrested. Some see that as an indication it has worked. Others see it as justifying the need for even more security. For some, no level of security may be enough to satisfy them.

The shooting at a cinema in Ohio cannot and should not lead us to installing metal detectors and conducting searches at movie theaters. The terrible events of last week at the Comcast Center should not lead us to subjecting all patrons to searches and drug dogs. We simply cannot let the bad behavior of a few rule the lives of the many, at least not in this way.


At the same time, there must be adjustments and a renewed spirit of cooperation between town officials and the Comcast Center. That would be the best way to try and get something good out of the recent sad events.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Politicians Showing Off With National Grid Fine

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on July 30, 2012

AN INSIDE LOOK
By Bill Gouveia

Attorney General Martha Coakley announced last week her office is seeking penalties in excess of $16 million from National Grid for the utility's poor reaction to two storms last year which left hundreds of thousands of people without power for upwards of a week. The Department of Public Utilities will take the recommendation under advisement, and will ultimately decide if the fine is instituted.


The proposed punishment is in response to National Grid's actions in the wake of Tropical Storm Irene last August and a surprise major snowstorm last October. State and local officials complained that National Grid was not prepared, did not communicate with municipal officials properly and promptly, and did not staff their operations well enough to quickly restore power.


Here in this area and across the state, public officials seem to be happy with the action. Attleboro Mayor Kevin Dumas as well as many local managers and selectmen have stated the utility giant needed to be taught a lesson, and they hope the huge fine - which must come from shareholder profits and not charges to customers according to the AG's office - will help prevent future long-term outages. National Grid issued a statement calling the proposed fine "extreme".


There is no doubt the response of National Grid in both instances was simply not acceptable. They made serious errors in both judgment and execution which resulted in some dangerous and uncomfortable situations for citizens. In addition they failed to keep local authorities properly informed, and that forced public safety departments in many municipalities into unsafe and precarious positions. They deserve much blame, criticism, and even punishment.


But quite frankly, the proposed fine is ridiculous on several fronts. It serves much more of a political purpose than a practical or remedial one. It will do little to make things up to those who suffered, and even less to prevent similar situations in the future. What it does accomplish is giving state and local officials the chance to look tough and perhaps protect and improve their image after the beatings they took last August and October. This action is for them, not for the residents and ratepayers.


The money paid in fines would not be returned to the ratepayers - that is not allowed under state law. It would be paid into the state's general fund, and no doubt disappear into the abyss of spending our legislature is famous for creating. And even though National Grid would be legally bound not to pass the expense on to their customers, does anyone really believe that would not eventually be the case? Why should the ratepayers essentially pay once again for what they endured?

That is not to say National Grid should not be held accountable for their actions, or lack of same. But fining them does little to address those problems. Write new regulations, change the rules, impose requirements that will ensure future response will be vastly superior. But don't just pay lip service to the problem and allow local officials to let out some frustration.

As a mayor or a selectman, you can't go wrong criticizing a major utility. They are not very popular, and can't vote for you. So whether your criticism is valid or not (and much if not most of what has been said certainly is), it usually helps you politically at home. That is a fact local leaders understand quite well.

But it has to be remembered that the outages in question were caused by two pretty significant natural disasters. Tropical Storm Irene was as close to a hurricane as we really want to see, and the size and timing of the October storm was certainly a bit surprising. The damage was severe and far beyond what storms normally cause. National Grid called in crews from all over, but the area affected by the storms ranged far and wide. These were not your usual storms.


It is very tempting to cheer the fine assessed National Grid, especially if you are a local leader they let down last year. But punishment is not what citizens really want to see. They want to know that when their power goes out again - and it will - their utility company will fix it faster and more efficiently.


Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

The Famous Columnist Brain Dump

This column originally appeared int he Sun Chronicle on July 23, 2012

AN INSIDE LOOK
By Bill Gouveia


It’s the last week of July, the time newspaper columnists traditionally perform the mind-clearing process known as “The Brain Dump”. For those not familiar with this highly technical journalistic term, it refers to the practice of emptying the chamber of our meager minds that collects stray facts and thoughts in order to make room for more useless and disconnected information and opinions.


Well actually, it may only be this columnist who uses this complicated technique. Okay, it may not really be all that complex. And yes, it is usually performed at a time when the local news may be a bit slow and this particular space needs to be filled with fascinating and inspiring prose. But that’s all just coincidental.



So without further ado, please allow me to open the floodgates and begin my own personal “Brain Dump”:

Michelle Bachman is a member of the House Intelligence Committee. No other single piece of information has ever simultaneously amused and frightened me as much as this.

Is there some big secret going on in Seekonk’s town government? Members of the board of selectmen seem to be governing amid tension so thick you can get stuck in it just walking through town hall.


The story of the Attleboro Redevelopment Authority is really nothing more than a tale of politics as old as the hills. Mayor Dumas knew what the cost would be to seize control of the board and fire the director when he did it. He knew he would lose in court. He just decided it was worth it.

I am totally hooked on the new HBO series “Newsroom”. The writing is the best on television since “West Wing” finished its run.

Until Sally Ride died this past week, I never knew she had a same-sex partner for the last 27 years. Neither did most of America. Isn’t that the way things are supposed to be? Imagine – the first American woman in space, who dedicated her later life to bringing science to kids – could not have been a Boy Scout leader. What a country.

If Norton residents can’t come together to support an adventure camp on an uninhabited island in the middle of the Reservoir, how will they feel if someone builds a house or other business there?


The shooting this past week in Colorado has absolutely nothing to do with gun control laws, and anyone who tries to make it about that controversial issue – on either side – should be ashamed of themselves.


I have an iPhone. My wife has a Droid. I think she’s doing this just to spite me.


The new building going up near the Route 106 railroad underpass in Mansfield very much changes the view when you approach coming from Route 140.


It is difficult to believe the parking bylaw passed by Foxboro’s Town Meeting for the neighborhood around the stadium is actually constitutional. It will be interesting to see if the state attorney general’s office allows it to stand.

The Plainridge Race Track in Plainville just seems like the perfect place to put one of the state’s slot parlors. The location, the infrastructure, it all makes sense – which is probably why here in Massachusetts it won’t happen.


Why is it I just can’t watch a whole Red Sox game this season? This is the most unlikeable local team I can remember.


If you insist on continuing to refuse to raise taxes on wealthy Americans because you want them to create jobs, you need to understand they are looking to employ fewer people, not more. That doesn’t make them bad – just savvy. Any tax breaks you give them will go into their pockets, not into the economy. Can you blame them?


My wife has gotten me to watch a few of those “fixing up the house” shows on HGTV. Someone please help me.


They told me I could lose weight if I joined a gym. Now they tell me I actually have to go to the gym. This doesn’t seem fair.


I was out of town for a week – did North Attleboro have another vote on an old charter proposal while I was gone? Just checking…


Who has the best tasting chocolate ice cream locally? I’m on a mission to find out.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Comcast Center and Selectman Need to Stop

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on July 23, 2012

AN INSIDE LOOK
By Bill Gouveia

This is just a suggestion, but one Mansfield selectman George Dentino and Comcast Center General Manager Bruce Montgomery might be wise to actually entertain:


Stop taking cheap political shots at each other. It doesn’t serve any constructive purpose, doesn’t help the people and/or organizations you seek to serve, and makes each of you look like bullies on the playground more concerned with marking your territory than solving your problems.

While each of these fine gentlemen may agree with at least half of that strong statement (the half pertaining to the other guy), they no doubt don’t agree with all of it. Each has serious responsibilities as well as a difficult and important job to perform.

But frankly, most of Mansfield as well as the surrounding area has started tuning both parties out. They are tired of listening to Dentino attack the concert venue on pretty much every possible front, and equally bored with Montgomery’s efforts to portray the selectman as a puppet of local businessman/political activist and Comcast Center abutter Karl Clemmey.

For his part, Dentino has been nothing if not consistent in his constant criticism of the venue over the years. He lives close to it, and thus knows better than most the impact it has on the surrounding neighborhood. He has been a proponent of reducing noise levels, fining management for running even a few minutes over show curfews, and even went on a media campaign to get all vehicles entering the establishment searched for illegal substances.


Montgomery has been around pretty much as long as the venue itself, through all its various names and identities. He has spent decades as the public face of the organization, interfacing with town officials and local residents as issues have arisen. He has long been active in trying to develop the area surrounding Comcast Center in a manner which will benefit them as well as the town. This has often put him at odds with Clemmey and his family, who own large plots of land and have been feuding with the entertainment giant almost constantly.

Dentino has been long linked politically with the Clemmeys – fairly or unfairly. He has done work for various Clemmey family members or organizations, which hardly puts him in any type of exclusive group in Mansfield. But despite protests by Montgomery and the Comcast Center, there has been no evidence Dentino has been unduly influenced through his “connections” with the Clemmey family.


At the same time, Dentino’s relentless attacks on the virtually everything Comcast Center related have become old. That is not to say none of his concerns are valid. But the rest of Mansfield seems to have recognized the fact they host a major concert venue within their borders, and with that comes issues that can at times be controversial. There is no need for the veteran selectman to constantly be making them more so.


As difficult as it may be for Montgomery and Comcast Center officials to hear their integrity and abilities questioned and denigrated at times during open public meetings, they must resist lowering the level of the debate any further. They cannot win and will not benefit by attacking Dentino’s credibility on the topic via his personal relationship with any abutter. It might make them feel better, but in the long run has zero public relations value and makes the contract negotiations with selectmen more awkward.


The simple fact of the matter is Mansfield has a jewel of an asset with the Comcast Center located within its borders at the edge of town. The benefits to the community are many, the problems are relatively few, and most citizens understand this.


It is reasonable to expect selectmen and Montgomery to work together to keep noise levels down, traffic issues under control, and make sure security is always a top priority. While there is always room for improvement, the record shows both Selectman Dentino and the Comcast Center take this obligation very seriously. They share common goals an objectives.

If Dentino and Montgomery agree to work cooperatively on the problems at hand instead of aiming at each other – they, Mansfield and the Comcast Center will all be a lot better off.


Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Boy Scouts Keep Rights - But Are Wrong

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on July 20, 2012

AN INSIDE LOOK
By Bill Gouveia

The Boy Scouts of America this week reaffirmed their policy of denying membership in their private organization to those who are “open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA”.

Well, good for them. It’s nice to see a group of morally motivated individuals band together for the purpose of teaching young men how to exclude and disregard those not just like them. After all, somebody has to do it. Can we really expect they will learn to judge people before knowing them without being shown how by adults?

For the record, I believe the stated and rededicated policy of the Boy Scouts is one of the worst examples of nurturing and leadership I have ever witnessed. I could not disagree with it more, and the fact it comes from such well-intentioned people with so much influence over impressionable youngsters is one of the scariest things I can imagine for our country.

At the same time, I support their legal right to have and keep that policy. The US Supreme Court said it was okay, and while I disagree with their 5-4 decision, it is currently the settled law of the land. As such, the scouting organization is perfectly entitled to it whether I or anyone else believes it’s a good idea.


Unless you respect the rights of others you have no reasonable expectation of having that respect returned. You can’t just pick and choose who has rights and who doesn’t. Well, that’s not really true. People do it all the time. The Boy Scouts are doing it with their bigoted and self-righteous policy, and then asking not to be discriminated against just because they discriminate against others. It’s kind of like taking Advanced Citizenship 101, and being graded on the curve.

I was a Boy Scout in my traditional and local past, though not for a very long time. As a charter member of Troop 61 in Norton, I was the proud assistant patrol leader of the Swamp Fox Patrol. I was a Den Chief for a group of Cub Scouts, proudly marched in local parades carrying the American and scouting flags, and came under the influence of many fine and upstanding scout leaders.


There was never much talk back then about excluding anyone. The whole idea was to get young men involved so scouting could help make them better. But somewhere along the way, the national organization seems to have lost track of that admirable goal. Now it seems the Boy Scouts can only accept those who fit the mold the organization wants and needs. If you do not reflect the image the institution wants to put forth, you must be avoided like a disease.

But don’t worry, it’s not personal. The Boy Scouts have nothing against gay people, as they are quick to point out. They just have a higher mission that they want protected, views they want clearly expressed. As then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote back in 2000 in the decision that affirmed that right: "Forcing a group to accept certain members may impair the ability of the group to express those views, and only those views, that it intends to express."


Of course, the Boy Scouts are not really your typical “private” organization. They have a long history of enjoying tremendous support from local communities and governments, both in the form of use of facilities as well as monetarily. They really like that part of being a “cherished public institution”. It’s only the part concerning those pesky discrimination laws and other technical stuff that drives them into the private sector.


The BSA reaffirmed their policy after a rather interesting “study process”. They formed an anonymous and secret 11-member committee which they claim reflected “a diversity of perspectives and opinions”. After two years of study, that handpicked group unanimously decided to keep the policy. No great surprise there.

In the end, their policy works. It allows the BSA to perfectly reflect the goals and vision of those who control it. It enables them to express those views that Chief Justice Rehnquist and his court sought to protect.

And in the end, that seems to be what the scouting leadership truly cares about most.


Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Tradition is Good - Ineffectiveness is Bad

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on July 16, 2012

AN INSIDE LOOK
By Bill Gouveia


As is often the case in our society, what makes us great can also be among our biggest weaknesses. In the case of local government in Massachusetts and specifically this area, that strength/weakness is our local independence and determination to keep our municipal governmental structures unique to the towns they serve.


What do I mean by that complicated sentence? Just that our local area governments sometimes place more value on being different than on being representative and efficient. It appears being unique and having our own local customs and traditions is much important than streamlining, standardizing and regionalizing local governments to adapt to the present day fiscal and social realities.


If you have lived all of your life in this region like I have, you may not know how most local governments outside of Massachusetts differ from ours. Heck, judging by the voting records and levels of participation in some towns, you may not know much about the structure in the town where you reside. But suffice to say the New England region in general has a very different idea of local government than most of the rest of the country.

Across most of America, county government is the rule. The counties all vary at least somewhat in structure, but generally consist of collections of communities that share resources and spread out costs. They jointly fund things like school districts, public safety departments, medical care facilities, sewer districts, prisons and other basic services which are pretty much the responsibility of individual communities or the state here. They operate as real counties, not the few phony “faux counties” that exist locally.


Here in Massachusetts we rightfully take great pride in our individual city and town governments, and we cling to keeping them fully independent. Unlike communities across the Midwest, we don’t have “county executive directors” who oversee the combined financial affairs of the communities. Instead we have a wide variety of individual professional positions guiding our local governments, each with somewhat different duties and responsibilities.

For example, Norton and Mansfield have strong town manager positions. While there are differences in their responsibilities, they are somewhat similar. Both are in charge of formulating and presenting the town budget. Both hire and fire key town positions such as police and fire chief. Both play an active and leading role in negotiating contracts with town employees.


But in North Attleboro and Rehoboth there are no town managers. Instead there are town administrators, positions which are weaker by design so as to allow more control for elected selectmen and other part-time officials. They lack the authority of town managers. These positions remain today largely because those controlling the government – and often the people they serve – believe it is better to concentrate power in the hands of “ordinary citizens”.


Throughout most of the country towns are run by some version of a town council, which serves as the legislative body. They represent the citizenry and pass local laws and ordinances.

In New England, there are relatively few town councils. Instead we have Town Meeting, our most cherished and revered form of true democratic government. Town Meeting gives citizens a direct voice, although in this day and age that is sometimes more of a handicap. The fact fewer and fewer people seem to understand it and participate in it over time has not diminished our passion for it.

And each community’s Town Meeting is different, with different rules, customs and traditions. It is part of what makes this area so interesting and unique. It is also directly connected to the fact Massachusetts has some of the highest property taxes in the nation. We pay a price for our municipal individuality, one many consider worth it.

But the time has come to face the fact we may just not be smarter than the rest of the country. Maybe it is we who need to consider some basic changes to our 18th century form of government, rather than stubbornly clinging to the very New England attitude that there is our way, and then the wrong way.

We do not have to sell our souls to improve our town governments. But we do need to open our eyes and our minds to the possibility of logical change.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Trying To Get ON the Island!

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on Friday, July 13, 2012.

AN INSIDE LOOK
By Bill Gouveia

“Just sit right back and you’ll hear a tale…” – the theme song from Gilligan’s Island.

While the growing legend of Pheeny’s Island in the Norton Reservoir does not involve a shipwreck, Ginger, the Professor, or a millionaire and his wife – it may end up have a longer run than the vintage 1960’s comedy. The major difference thus far is unlike the uncharted desert isle where those reluctant residents were trapped, Pheeny’s Island seems well known. But some seem intent on keeping specific folks – and maybe everyone – off the small and uninhabited patch of land.

For those unfamiliar, developer Kenneth Leavitt has proposed an adventure camp for the six square mile island. To be known as Norton Adventure and Teambuilding Camp, the business would feature rope and zip lines where attendees would be guided by trained instructors through the various activities. They would access the island by boat or canoe-type watercraft from a parking lot off Route 140 over or near the Mansfield line. The business would allegedly employ about 30 people.

In order for the concept to ever come to fruition, it will require approval from a string of town boards and committees. The toughest of those may be the planning board and possibly the zoning board of appeals, since the zoning would apparently need to be changed to allow for a use such. But before that could begin, the proposal had to gain the approval of the local conservation commission.

That approval was received in late June with a list of no less than 62 conditions attached. That all came after several public sessions including the first, where over 100 residents turned out to be heard, most of them in opposition. The conservation committee appeared to give the matter considerable thought and study, and made clear it was not taking a position on the advisability of the project but rather just the conditions that would have to be met if it were opened .


That does not appear to be enough for at least three neighbors living near the island. They have filed an appeal with the state Department of Environmental Protection claiming their fellow citizens on the conservation committee did not properly weigh the impact the project would have on the environment. That seems a bit strange, since that would appear to be the local committee’s one and only job.


However, the residents are well within their rights to appeal on any basis they wish. From their letter it would appear their major objections are possible pollution of the reservoir by boat motors, possible wetland and flooding issues, and that the project might disturb a bald eagle allegedly seen in the area. Thus far there has been no official comment from the eagle.


All kidding aside, this project highlights the reasons why any new and different type of business faces serious problems these days in this part of the state. The Sun Chronicle area was formerly a rather under-developed section of Massachusetts commercially, with the ratio of residential areas far outweighing the commercial/industrial ones. We became a great place to live, and many of those residents worked at places located outside of their home area.


As that has changed, we have become even more protective of our homes. We react immediately and radically to any threat – real or perceived - to our rural or suburban homestead. This is understandable, but too often the strategy is to bog the prospective business down in legalese so it never even gets to the actual final permitting stage. And the objections are often more personal than for the good of the community.


That doesn’t necessarily mean this particular proposal is a winner for Norton, though many believe it is well-suited to the community. It does mean that the project – which has been the target of vandals already – deserves the chance to have it plans scrutinized by the proper local authorities just as much as those who live around it deserve the chance to have their legitimate concerns addressed.


The Town of Norton purchased the Norton Reservoir in part with the idea of restoring it to the recreational use it provided in years past. That goal may prove to be a lot more difficult than just cleaning up the water.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and longtime Norton resident. He can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Trust A Big Issue In Foxboro

This column originally appeared in the Su Chronicle on July 9, 2012.

A now-retired town manager once told me, “I never forget that I work for the selectmen. It’s my job to carry out the policies they establish and maintain a respectful relationship built on trust. If that’s lost, then none of us can do our jobs well.”

Nowhere is the wisdom of that statement clearer than in Foxboro, where Town Manager Kevin Paicos and selectmen appear to be locked in a power struggle. But the majority of selectmen are making it known they – not the veteran manager – will be shaping the town’s policies and goals in the future.

Over the last two years selectmen have found themselves reacting to Paicos far more than guiding him. With an aggressive leadership style sometimes bordering on insubordinate, Paicos has been a strong presence in Foxboro. He has been unafraid to make important decisions on his own, and has displayed what some interpret as a bemused indifference to those responsible for his employment.

The most recent example of problems between the board and Paicos surfaced last week after it was announced selectmen gave the town manager a raise retroactive to last year. In October they had evaluated Paicos’s performance and publicly announced he would receive no increase in salary. So it was a bit of a shock when it became known – nearly eight months later - they had in fact handed him a lump-sum three percent increase retroactively.

Newly released minutes from a closed executive session in January show the raise was first discussed then. According to selectman chairman Jim Devellis, Paicos was allegedly considering suing them for not giving him a raise even though his contract contained no language requiring one. Devellis said Paicos believed he was entitled to a cost of living increase because the previous town manager had received them even though they were not called for in his contract.

Devellis said the town incurred over $4000 in legal costs on the matter, and selectmen ultimately decided to “compromise” and give Paicos the increase. In return both sides signed a new agreement where it allegedly became clear such future increases were not guaranteed. In summary, selectmen “compromised” by caving in to the threat of a lawsuit and gave Paicos the increase they had previously publicly refused him.

Selectmen last week voted – again – to give Paicos no increase for the coming year following yet another evaluation. They want people to believe they really mean it this time, though their credibility on the issue is pretty weak. Paicos took a conciliatory position after the vote, saying he now trusts the board will do the right thing by him with regard to compensation.

“I didn’t sign that (the new agreement) because I intended to complain after you made your decision,” he told members. “I signed it because I decided to trust you.” He claims his negotiations with selectmen were conducted “amicably and without any acrimony whatsoever.”

That sounds all warm and fuzzy, but the fact this “trust” was apparently achieved via the possibility of litigation lends a sense of irony to the entire situation. Paicos has toned down his public persona since the end of the casino issue in no small part because some of his selectmen made it clear they were tiring of his act. Even selectman Mark Sullivan, generally a Paicos supporter, wrote in his evaluation, “The town’s people have not embraced him (Paicos) and feel slighted.”

Paicos acknowledged the criticism and said "What this community wants in the coming year is a bit less of me and a lot more of you speaking.” That is a wise revelation for the veteran administrator, who has had many successes during his two-year stay thus far in Foxboro. But it is hard to believe Paicos will undergo a metamorphosis of style at this stage of his career.

For all the new talk of trust, it appears little of that precious commodity truly exists between the town manager and his bosses. Paicos has been politically playing his selectmen quite well for the last two years. The damage done during that time will be difficult to repair.

Both the town manager and the selectmen need to regain the confidence of Foxboro citizens. There needs to be less talk of trust, and more evidence of it.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

No Excuse For Rehoboth Officials Behavior

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on Friday, July 6, 2012

AN INSIDE LOOK


By Bill Gouveia


It is way past time for some serious political housecleaning in Rehoboth, where selectmen and others have turned the weekly board meetings into what more closely resembles a really awful reality television show. The behavior of some at these gatherings has gone past rude and ignorant, now bordering on just plain stupid.


But more than that, it is hurting Rehoboth. Forget about how it is making this rural community and its government the laughingstock of the area. Now the pettiness and personal political attacks are affecting the town’s ability to do business and serve the best interests of the taxpayers.


Things came to a head recently when an anonymous flier was mailed to residents ahead of a vote on a Proposition 2-1/2 debt exclusion for a new town hall. The flier made many claims about the project and town officials, few if any of them documented. It warned voters “Your taxes will be raised without limitation”, which no doubt frightened more than a few citizens. The problem was – it simply wasn’t true.

Not knowing who sent it, voters had to decide for themselves if the flier was credible. It is impossible to tell how much impact the mailing had, but the project which had passed at town meeting was handily defeated at the polls.


At the last selectmen’s meeting, finance committee member and former selectman Christopher Morra revealed he and current selectman Don Leffort were in fact co-authors of the political mailing. That precipitated some intense criticism which quickly degenerated into the immature, unprofessional behavior that has come to be a symbol of Rehoboth politics.

Selectman Mike Costello accused Leffort and Morra of lying to the public, and told Leffort “You do not do anything for this board”. Leffort responded with personal attacks against Costello, which were returned in kind. Leffort went on to use profanity several times, Costello threatened to have Morra removed from the room, and one resident told selectmen they looked like a bunch of clowns.


The clown statement may have been the most accurate one of the night.


Let’s get a few things straight. There is no excuse for town officials sending out anonymous political fliers. If you believe what you are saying, you should have the courage to put your name on it. You have to wonder if Morra and Leffort would have taken credit for the mailing had the vote had gone the other way. This was an example of trying to make the end justify the means. It brings the credibility of both gentlemen into question.


Morra continues to appear to be more interested in political advantage than solving problems. Some people benefit when Rehoboth politics are at their tumultuous worst, and thus it is to their advantage to create turmoil. The former selectman has a colorful and controversial history. Whether he is a master of politics or a victim of them depends on just who and what you believe.


Leffort has been more of an obstructionist than a leader during his time on the board. He and Costello have gone head-to-head numerous times, with each exchange seemingly more personal and nasty in nature. Costello has had his own share of controversial issues, including a state report claiming he used false information to obtain an affordable home.


The saddest part of all this is it really no longer matters who is right and who is wrong. Rehoboth’s entire town government is now damaged goods. That may well be the plan of those who keep perpetuating this foolishness. When they keep the focus on all the drama and stupidity, it diverts attention from the way the system is really operating.

Dead goats on a selectman’s lawn, a police chief crying in a bar parking lot, a cable TV organization that runs away with equipment, abuse of state housing laws, bringing the wives and mothers of selectmen into meeting conversations – this is what government has become in Rehoboth. It is a disgrace, and unfair to the town officials who do act responsibly and maturely.

Rehoboth voters need to clean house, and do it soon. Fair or not, town officials like Leffort, Morra and Costello must go and be replaced by people who will act like adults. Please – stop the madness.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

"Constructive Possesion" Policy Not Good for Schools

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on July 2, 2012

AN INSIDE LOOK
By Bill Gouveia

“Constructive possession” is a term that should be used in reference to courtrooms and criminals rather than classrooms and students. But in Mansfield, the school committee has made these stern-sounding words part of the town’s educational policy with regard to student athletes. That is unfortunate, unwise, and unfair.


For those unfamiliar with the term, constructive possession refers to the general idea that those present in a place where there are illegal substances can be held responsible whether they used those substances or not. In Mansfield’s situation it means student athletes who are said in a police report to have been at parties where drugs or alcohol were being used are subject to punishment, even if there is no evidence they actually knew about or used the illegal substances themselves.


The policy applies only to those students participating in athletics. If found in violation student athletes may have their eligibility to play interscholastic sports limited or eliminated. “What we’re looking to do is to stop our students from going to illegal underage drinking parties, period,” MHS assistant principal Dawn Stockwell said recently. “We feel as though it is a dangerous situation and we do not want our students partaking in these events.”

That is certainly an admirable goal, and one no doubt shared by everyone. Underage drinking and illegal drug use are major problems in our society. But they are not limited to those youngsters participating in organized athletics. In fact, that group may not exhibit any more of that behavior than the rest of the student body. The very idea of increasing the opportunity to punish one particular class of student in this manner goes against what should be the very core of the educational philosophy of the Mansfield school system.


This new policy is allegedly designed to be a deterrent and help keep student athletes out of trouble. But it appears to be more about looking tough, punishing the athletes, and making the job of adjudication in these matters easier on administrators and other personnel. It sounds nice in theory, but the practical application of this misguided measure undermines the principle of personal responsibility schools should be reinforcing.


Everyone agrees kids should avoid parties where they know drugs and alcohol are present and being used. But taking the opportunity to specifically increase the chance of punishment for those who choose to play sports just doesn’t make any sense. Most parents try and get their children involved in high school sports to help keep them busy and occupy their spare time. This helps eliminate the idleness that can often lead to experimentation with illegal substances.


So why would you specifically target these student athletes? Punishing them in this manner for nothing more than being in the vicinity seems a bit counter-productive. And taking away an activity which may well be helping discourage them from participating in the illegal parties that worry us all – when there is no proof they actually did anything illegal – also seems to run counter to the concept of protecting them.


No one is saying kids should not be punished for being at a party where illegal activity is taking place. But that punishment should come from their parents/ guardians or the police, not the school administration. Athletes should not be held to a different standard of this type. Sure, you agree to a code of conduct when you sign on to a team. But why athletes, and not students who participate in other activities such as band or the math club?


Punishing student athletes for merely being near other kids drinking illegally may initially sound like a good idea, but it truly is not. One school official noted that fully processing the names of who participated in these parties can put a strain on administrative and staff resources. That is understandable, but deciding to punish any athlete who may have been present is not the way to relieve staff of that burden.

Mansfield school committee members would better serve their students and their community by repealing this unfair policy. Tougher punishments for athletes won’t solve the problem of teenage parties. That can only be done by educating students on the dangers, and involving their parents in the process.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Public Promoting From Within Both Good and Bad

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on June 29th, 2012

The difficult situation currently existing in the Attleboro Police Department highlights a problem with a common practice utilized in most local Civil Service public safety departments – hiring upper management strictly from within.

The Civil Service system, established in the days before strong unions and labor laws, continues to be in force in many communities. Today it primarily covers practices in police and fire departments, although it can apply to other positions. It affects hiring, firing, discipline and promotions involving department personnel.

When it comes to hiring chiefs and superior officers, Civil Service all but guarantees those spots will be filled via internal promotion rather than from outside. It does allow participating communities to fill positions such as chief with outside individuals, but places so many restrictions on doing so that it is virtually impossible. It is also a system that has become corrupt and obsolete, but that is a different discussion for a different day.

Former Attleboro Police Chief Richard Pierce was forced to resign almost two years ago after 32 years in the department. His departure was directly linked with his actions regarding an investigation of his police officer son, who was fired shortly thereafter. He was replaced by Kyle Heagney, a veteran lieutenant in the city squad. There was no search beyond the department or any attempt to bring in anyone else. Heagney had passed the Civil Service exam and became the 16th chief in the department’s history.

This is the process individuals inside the department obviously prefer. When you promote from within, a great number of people benefit at the same time. If a lieutenant moves up to be chief, a sergeant usually becomes a lieutenant. Then a patrol officer usually moves up to sergeant. Everyone gets a bump in pay, career advancement, and some important job security.


And there are definite advantages to the municipality by promoting from within. You get to keep a lot of the institutional knowledge the advancing candidates possess. The department and taxpayers benefit from the training they have invested in the officers over the years. And many believe it is simply the right and fair thing to do.

But there are also some serious problems. It often means change comes very slowly. You tend to get a continuation of the same general policies and attitudes, and the comfort level employees enjoy with their new boss can be an issue. Even with the best of professional leaders, it can sometimes difficult to suddenly be in charge of people you have worked alongside for years.

Sometimes complete change is a good thing. Infusing a workplace with new ideas, a fresh outlook, and a different set of career experiences can often transform a department. But it can also cause resentment because there is no corresponding series of internal promotions. In addition, many employees are not happy if the routine and rules they have followed for years are suddenly changed by someone from outside their tight-knit circle.

This is not to say or imply that Chief Heagney is not doing a good job. He inherited a mess, and is doing his best to clean it up. As expected, he is running into problems with his former union brothers who don’t appreciate the way some issues are being handled.

Those who stand to benefit personally always point out that it is in fact the public who benefits when trained local officers stay within the department. Then taxpayers recover the money they spent training them, and you get that extra level of caring that comes from living for a long time in the city or town you serve.

But at the same time, those employees maintain their perfectly acceptable right to go and apply for jobs in other departments when they become available. Applying for a chief position in another department is just considered taking care of yourself and your family. But why is it a good thing when one of “our people” takes a leadership role in another department, but a bad thing when a thorough search brings in a professional from another community?

When you never bring in new people to fill leadership positions, you can’t be surprised when the culture doesn’t change. It’s the fault of the system, not just the individuals.




Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Keep The Room Empty- Kids Come Back

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on October 8, 2011.

Those of you “experienced parents” who believe things will get easier and simpler once your kids grow up and leave the family home - forget it. The situations change, the needs differ, but your kids can be like the swallows from Capistrano: They keep coming back.

That is merely an observation, and not a complaint. My wife and I have two sons and at various points in their lives they have moved out and then moved back in. Each time we welcomed them completely, and they know our home is always open to them. But that does not mean there aren’t adjustments to be made on both sides.

Our oldest has undertaken a career change and brought his family to live with us while they seek to get established in a new place closer to work. We love our terrific daughter-in-law dearly, and of course having our brilliant and handsome three-year-old grandson (did I mention his name is William?) stay with us is an absolute blessing. Our house is large, so there is plenty of room.

But moving in with your parents is something generally done out of necessity, not choice. As wonderful as we are (and we are truly wonderful – just ask us) we may not be the easiest people in the world to live with. Well, I’m pretty easy, but my wife can sometimes be difficult. You guys know how it is.

My son and I are a lot alike, so that makes things reasonably easy. But having two of us (three if you count young Will) with many of the same annoying habits can be a bit much for the two ladies of the house. And in this case, we are talking about two extremely strong-willed women who are used to getting their own way. Having to train both of us all over again can be quite a chore – never mind having to adjust to another adult woman in their household.

Having “guests” has necessitated some cleaning of our home and some rearranging of the rooms. This has highlighted one of the biggest differences between me and my beloved life partner. I like to throw stuff out. My wife likes to keep everything. This is a source of much debate and conflict, most of which I (naturally) find myself losing.


My trips to the trash are monitored more closely than the Iraqi nuclear program. My wife lives in constant fear I may be sneaking out some important artifact of our lives or something that could conceivably be of use to someone in some far corner of the globe. And truth be told – she has good reason to fear this. She has caught me on numerous occasions. She does not appreciate my kind of “cleaning”.

Our basement resembles a Salvation Army supply depot, with things strewn everywhere in a manner that makes sense to us but probably not to anyone else. A lot of it was left by our children when they moved out – then back in – then back out again. But we have generated the bulk of it, and must bear the responsibility for the clutter it has created.


While my oldest has no problem throwing things out, my youngest is much more like his mom in that regard. Though he and his wife live in Baltimore, much of his “stuff” still lives with us. We had to pack up a lot of his belongings as grandson Will is staying in his room, and my wife (on his behalf) guards his collection of personal goods as though it were the gold at Fort Knox.

We are dedicated to making sure that each bedroom our boys grew up in remains “their room” even in adulthood. When Nate does come home to visit and brings his beautiful doctor wife (and someday possibly a child) we want him to stay in the room that has always been his. It is as important to us as we believe it is to him.

So the lesson here is: Don’t think that empty bedroom will be housing a hot tub any time soon. Your kids tend to come back. And honestly, we wouldn’t want it any other way. At least on most days.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and proud husband, father and grandfather. You may ridicule him at aninsidelook@aol.com.