When our Politicians Speak Honestly...

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on September 21, 2012


AN INSIDE LOOK
By Bill Gouveia

​Four years ago Barak Obama had an embarrassing moment at a private fundraiser when he was caught on tape making controversial comments. The future president remarked that some voters “cling to their guns and religion”, a line Republicans (including vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan) continue to use against him to this day.

​But open microphones are completely bipartisan. They do not discriminate between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, rich and poor. If you are seeking public office and have something revealing or stupid to say, you can rest assured there is someone out there ready to share it with everyone.

​Just ask Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor was shown in a relatively rare moment of candor recently. He too was recorded at a private fundraising effort, but the impact and scope of his words may affect this presidential race far more than Obama’s influenced the 2004 campaign.
.
​Romney is heard on tape making the following statements: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing”

​The former Massachusetts governor goes on to say his job is not to worry about those people. “I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5% to 10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful."

​Speaking from a strictly political standpoint, Romney is correct in part of his analysis. This election will be determined by the small percentage of people who are as yet undecided on how they will vote. And Mitt would indeed be wasting his time by trying to convince the 47 percent (his number, not mine) he claims will support the president no matter what.

​But it is not because they are “dependent” on government as Romney claims. There are many people who support President Obama, yet still manage to earn their livings and feed their families independent of their local, state or federal government. There are also many voters with limited means across this country who staunchly back the Republican ticket. Both sides tend to base their support on the fact their candidate’s vision for America most closely matches their own.

​When Romney said it was not his job to worry about nearly half the country, he probably meant it in the political sense. It would be hard to believe he just doesn’t care about those who see the world through eyes other than his. But his recent political strategy (and that is a charitable description of what he has been doing) is reflective of what our electoral process has become, nationally and locally.

​Elections today are all about dividing us, chopping us up like so many parts on a stolen car. Candidates make us afraid. They instill fear of the opposition rather than confidence in themselves. They ask for your vote not because of what they will do to help you, but because of what the other person will allegedly do to hurt you. And this is not unique to any one party or group.

​That’s why you are told Americans are wrong to think they should be “entitled” to decent health care. It’s why you constantly hear parents are overly obsessed with providing their children with a good education. It’s why your local selectman candidate tells you he or she needs to “save our town” from those who would bring change you fear.

​We demand so little of our leaders these days in terms of what they will do for us. We choose them as the least objectionable alternative. Maybe that’s what elections have always been about, and it is just more obvious in this modern world of high-tech communications. Either way, it stinks.

​It is a sad commentary that the only time our politicians seem to be completely forthright about their views is when they think we aren’t listening. Or in some cases, maybe it’s better that way.
​
Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Selectmen are Hurting Foxboro's Future

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on September 17, 2012.

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

            If you can, try and imagine this admittedly farfetched scenario:

            Your next-door neighbor needs a zoning variance to build an addition to his house.  He asks you to support his efforts, in exchange offering to pay for a fence built along your property line.  The agreement is put in writing with a provision clearly stating if you do not build the fence by a certain date, your neighbor will no longer foot the bill.  The addition is constructed, and it increases property values in the neighborhood.

            But you and your family can’t agree on the fence and choose not to build it.  Instead you decide to sell the house and move across town.  You then go to your original neighbor and tell them they have a moral obligation to pay for a fence on your new property.  

            Sound silly?  Well, it’s pretty much what some Foxboro town officials are doing in their long-running dispute with the Kraft organization over a 2007 agreement.   It involves the development of Patriot Place and a promised $7.5 million payment towards building a new sewage treatment plant. 

Kraft wanted support for additional liquor licenses and other things from the town for Patriot Place, which was provided.  The town wanted the increased revenue from the project and the promised money to build a treatment plant, which had to be approved by Town Meeting.

            But the people at Town Meeting voted down the project in 2007.  Five years later, they have never accepted it.  Most officials agree the Kraft organization has no legal obligation to now pay the $7.5 million, and the amount of revenue promised from the development has been met or exceeded.  But some Foxboro selectmen are crying foul, insisting the town’s largest taxpayer is defaulting on its obligation.

Selectmen Lorraine Brue, Virginia Coppola, Mark Sullivan and James DeVellis have been particularly vocal on the matter.  They insist the Kraft group owes the town based upon the 2007 agreement.  They were supported in that view last week by the recently replaced and now former town attorney Paul DeRensis, who claims the Kraft folks have a “moral obligation” and a “social contract” with the town to pay the $7.5 million. 

When the Kraft organization wanted to merely present the case for a casino to be built in Foxboro this past year, these same community leaders refused to allow him to do so.  Selectmen and the town manager prevented Kraft officials from speaking at a public meeting, forcing a judge to issue an injunction allowing it.  They also sponsored a town meeting warrant article to take Kraft land by eminent domain over a dispute about billboards, before eventually rescinding it under pressure.

Now the same people who refused to listen to Kraft’s plans for his own property are insisting he honor an agreement their own Town Meeting turned down.  They slammed the door of town hall shut in Bob Kraft’s face, but now are lecturing him on his “moral obligation” to that same community.  That smacks of hypocrisy and politics.

The Kraft group and the town have been engaged in new talks over future development.  Kraft wants more from Foxboro in the form of support for additional liquor licenses and zoning relief.  The town has severe sewer problems and needs money to fix them.  There would seem to be a natural alliance here waiting to be forged.

But a majority of Foxboro selectmen are saying they may not negotiate until the Kraft group lives up to their alleged “moral obligation”.  Selectman Coppola recently said, “I’m not interested in looking to the future and making negotiations for the future until the past negotiations have been dealt with. That’s where I stand.” 

This is exactly the kind of shortsighted attitude that got Foxboro into this predicament in the first place.  Coppola and most of her fellow board members are trying to rewrite history. 

Town officials need to get over the past and start working on creating a better future for all involved.  Their alleged “social contract” isn’t worth the paper it’s not written on.  If they want a different result, they should negotiate a different deal.  They can’t do that by cutting off the town’s nose to spite its face.

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

There's No Excuse for Lack of Debates

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on September 14, 2012.

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

            A political campaign is all about getting people to vote for you, or at least against the other candidate.  Every politician worth their salt knows most elections are won or lost long before the day the voting actually occurs. 

            Part of the campaign process is to try and match your strength against your opponent’s perceived weakness.  Winning a debate on the issues is not nearly as important as dictating which issues are actually debated.  If you can shape the campaign the way you want, you are much more likely to win it.

            That principle is clearly on display in the race for state representative in Attleboro, where incumbent republican Rep. George Ross is being opposed by democrat Paul Heroux.  As is the norm when a political newcomer runs against an established official, the newcomer has challenged the incumbent to debate.  And therein begins the political games and doubletalk.

            Generally speaking, challengers want debates and incumbents do not.  Those already in office have a documented track record which can be both a boon and a burden.  They usually have higher visibility and voter recognition than their opponents.  So when it comes to appearing in public with the other candidate, they have little to gain and a lot to lose.

            The new office-seeker faces just the opposite situation.  They need credibility, and anytime they can share the stage with the person they are seeking to unseat, they have to make the most of it.  And if the incumbent refuses or limits the debates – which they usually do – the challenger can point to that as disrespecting the voters and being afraid to defend their record.

            That scenario is playing out in the Ross-Heroux race.  Heroux has challenged Ross to four debates before the November election.  He wants to debate both general topics and specific issues such as the economy and crime.  Ross has tentatively agreed to a single debate, although he has indicated he may not even do that if he decides Heroux has not kept the race “clean”.

            But Ross keeps using silly and unnecessary excuses to explain his decision to have only one debate.  He stated he would only meet his opponent once publicly because he is hard at work in his legislative capacity.  “I am a full-time legislator”, Ross said in explaining his rejection of multiple debates.  He noted he is doing the job people elected him to do, and is busy working on improving the economy. 

            Of course, the legislative session ended in July and the House will not reconvene for months.  That might leave many to conclude Ross would have at least a little bit of time on his hands.  But the freshman legislator insists he still has meetings at the Statehouse and elsewhere, and is concentrating on addressing many important issues.

            Ross is no doubt a hard-working legislator, but this borders on the ridiculous.  Anyone with any political common sense knows the main reason the legislature adjourns at this time of year is so the members can go home to their districts and work on being reelected.  There may be a lot of valid reasons for Ross to not want to debate Heroux four times, but being “too busy” is not one of them.

            Political debates should be viewed as job interviews by both the public and the candidates.  Voters need to see their political representatives and would-be representatives engaged in explaining and defending their positions under the glare and focus of the public spotlight.  How candidates react and function under that pressure can tell you a lot about how they might be when facing down a budget deadline or considering critical funding issues.  No decision should be made strictly based upon debate performance, but it can be important.

            Heroux is reaching by requesting four debates.  That just isn’t really necessary for this kind of race and in this situation.  But one is equally insufficient.  The citizens they seek to represent deserve better from both sides. 

            So Ross and Heroux need to stop angling for political advantage and sit down for a couple of real, issue-oriented debates.  If they can manage to fit that into their busy schedules, the real winners will be the voters and citizens of Attleboro.

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

Can't Do Your Job With Your Eyes Closed

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

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

            Local government is all about getting people involved and active in their community.  Or at least, it ought to be.  But in Seekonk, there seems to be a different philosophy at work.

            In a joint meeting last week, selectmen and Housing Authority members appointed Selectman Francis Cavaco to a recently vacated post on the elected Housing Authority.  Cavaco will now serve until the unexpired term is filled at the April town election.

            The vacancy was not advertised to the general public.  It was not posted on the town web site.  It was not advertised in the local newspapers.  Unless you are a local political insider or activist, you probably didn’t know there was an opportunity available to serve your town.

            This is not the first time selectmen have chosen one or more of their own to be appointed to another town board.  Last year Carvaco and fellow selectman Robert McLintock effectively took control of the local Board of Health when helped appoint themselves to fill vacancies there.  That resulted in a new bylaw being overwhelmingly approved at Town Meeting which prevents sitting selectmen from serving on other town boards.

            Selectmen reacted to that mandate by joining their lawyer in claiming it to be illegal.  The law is currently under review by the state attorney general’s office.  But while the legality of the statute itself may be in question, there is no doubt Town Meeting was sending a clear message to their leaders.  But those leaders have deliberately chosen to ignore it.

            Selectman McLintock said he is opposed to the way selectmen fill vacancies via public interviews, claiming it makes the board “look like a bunch of buffoons”.  While he may well be correct about the result, he is absolutely wrong about what is causing it.

            The mistake selectmen have made here is not just appointing their own to fill important government roles.  Their gravest error is showing disrespect to the citizens they represent.  They continue to keep talking when they should be listening.  They are spending considerable time and effort to deny ordinary citizens an active role in government, rather than aggressively recruiting them for public service. 

            Housing Authority chairman James Tusino defended the action of selectmen, noting the difficulty of attracting good candidates.  “We have somebody on the hook that’s actually interested in giving another night to the community,” he said.  “I’m afraid if we let the person get off the hook, we’ll be left with no candidates in another month.”

            The chairman is right about how difficult it is to attract strong candidates to fill boards and committees these days.  But it is worth noting you cannot hook anything unless you first cast your line.  If the Housing Authority or the Board of Health openings had been better advertised or more sincerely pursued, the odds of landing a good new member may still have been slim.  But by not even advertising, they become non-existent. 

            When questioned as to whether or not their action flew in the face of the recent Town Meeting decision, Selectman McLintock responded by declaring “Town Meeting on this particular item has no bearing until the attorney general rules.”  This disturbing statement clearly shows McLintock and some of his colleagues just don’t get the real issue here.

            Whether the law passed by Town Meeting is legal or not really isn’t relevant here.  By approving it, Seekonk citizens clearly spoke - with the voice provided them by their town charter - and said they did not want their selectmen double-dipping in regard to political office.  If their elected leaders ignore that unambiguous statement based upon some legal technicality, they clearly do not understand their role in the relationship.

            The excuse that the Housing Authority is actually a state board is a frivolous argument.  The elected position in question can only be filled by a Seekonk registered voter.  That makes it a town position in virtually every sense of the word.

            Local leaders should be all about extending opportunities to serve, not denying them.  You cannot conduct a search for qualified candidates with your eyes firmly shut.  Seekonk voters deserve more respect from their selectmen.  It is well past time that town’s government stopped being a private club and returned to being a public collaboration.

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

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.