The Trip Of The Moose and The Bear

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Friday, July 11, 2014

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

 

Every time I think I’m going to teach my six-year old grandson something important, I end up being the one who learns a lesson.

 

Each year my wife and I take our oldest grandchild Will (did I mention his name is William?) on a trip to New Hampshire.  He is the only one of our three grandkids old enough to steal away on vacation for several days, though we keep plotting to include the other two soon. 

 

This year marked our fifth consecutive trip with young Will to the Great North.  We always stay in a hotel that includes either a pool and/or a water park to keep him busy.  Up until this past year we also went to nearby StoryLand which excited him to no end.

 

On this journey we shook things up a bit.  We visited Santa’s Village instead, and we also went to a nearby alpine slide where Will experienced his first ski-lift and first viewing of Grandpa’s terrified face as we hurtled down the side of a mountain.  We went on a new mountain coaster, visited an amazing trail and waterfall, and were in the water park every day of our trip.

 

In addition, we did the auto road up Mt. Washington – something that scared Will almost as much as it did his grandparents.  We took pictures at the summit and both on the way up and down.  It was a very exciting time for us all.

 

But after all that effort, all that planning, and all that expense – this year’s trip will always be known and remembered by our grandson as “TheTrip of the Moose and the Bear.”  And that part didn’t cost us a cent.

 

We were coming back from our alpine slide adventure, driving along Route 16 just outside of North Conway.  Suddenly Will shouted from the back seat.

 

“Grandma!  Grandpa!  It’s a moose!  We have to stop!”

 

My wife pulled the car over to the side of the road, joined by several other motorists.  Sure enough, there was a young moose taking a drink from a large puddle along the wooded roadside.  He (or she for all I know) was taking his time, keeping a wary eye on the people now snapping pictures from a safe distance.

 

If it had been up to Will, we would have shaken hands with the moose.  But he settled for standing nearby and getting his picture taken with the wild animal in the background.  Will excitedly told us he had never seen a real live moose before, and it was not until the skittish creature bounded off into the woods that we could get him back in the car.

 

Once again in his seat, Will wanted to call his parents and tell them about his amazing experience.  But first we decided to stop at a nearby Dairy Queen and get a treat before breaking his big news.

 

We were in line for ice cream when a man and his young son who had been at the moose sighting walked in and recognized us.  “Did you see the bear out behind the building?” the youngster asked Will excitedly.  Unable to believe he could be this lucky, Will glanced up at me and asked if we could go outside and take a look.

 

Sure enough, there was a good-sized black bear attempting to climb some pallets stacked behind the Dairy Queen.  Again, Will wanted to go make friends.  Again, I explained he would have to settle for a very long-distance photo op.  Grandma came out with our ice cream, and we sat watching the bear until it got bored and ran away.

 

When Will called his parents, he could barely (pun intended) contain himself.  Forgotten was the water park fun, the climb up the mountain, the roller coaster, the alpine slide, and Santa’s Village.  All he could talk about was that he had seen a moose and a bear.

 

And that is as it should be.  He reminded us what vacations are truly all about.  And the more excited he got, the more we realized the moose and the bear were now also the highlight of the trip for us.

 

It’s astounding what you can learn from a six year old…

 

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

You Can Bet On This Election...

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday, July 7, 2014

 

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

 

There was always going to be a statewide election this fall, including a race for Governor.  But now it will be different from any other ever held in the Bay State.  Hold on to your hats folks – the political winds will soon be escalating to hurricane force level.

 

When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled last week that repealing the current “casino law” could be placed on the ballot this year, the political rules and landscape were immediately and severely altered.  You can throw out all the usual election philosophies, rules and assumptions if this question is on the same ballot as our elected state officials.  It’s a sure bet this election will be all about legalized gambling.

 

Massachusetts has always been both hypocritical and schizophrenic when it comes to betting.  It is as though our puritanical roots and our liberal leanings can only find common ground in how we project our public position on gambling.  We say one thing, while doing another.

 

In general, Massachusetts residents like to gamble.  We have long been home to one of the most successful state lotteries in the country.  We flock to casinos in Connecticut and other nearby states in search of winnings.   Casino operators in Las Vegas will tell you Massachusetts residents are prime customers.  And underground and illegal sports betting has been supporting the families of Boston bookies for many generations.

 

But we don’t like to see it where we live.  We prefer pretending we are above it all.  Casinos are for visiting, not having within our pristine borders.  Oh no – we can’t have that, even if it does bring in billions in revenue and ancillary business.

 

Gambling preys on the poor, we are told.  It is socially unfair.  And the gaming companies are unfeeling corporate entities that bring corruption and backroom deals to our already political state.

 

Corruption?  Here in Massachusetts?  Surely you jest.  You mean to say there may be corporate entities seeking to spend money and peddle influence in order to advance their own success?  Oh my, how out of the ordinary that would be compared to other types of industry located here.

 

And apparently we will save those “poor people” by making sure legalized gambling is located just on the other side of the state line.  That way we can fulfill our gambling urges while still maintaining the façade that we are above the fray.  Apparently, appearance is everything.

 

Legalized casino opponents would rather see us drive residents to illegal betting, where there are no regulations to ensure fairness and the collection efforts tend to be a bit more extreme.  The poor are still victimized in this scenario, but it is harder to see them from the comfort of our high moral perches.

 

But now gambling will be the main issue, with money being tossed around on both sides – especially the pro-casino groups.  And as we know, money is the lifeblood of politics in America.  Massachusetts is no exception.

 

This will be a major issue in helping voters to choose candidates for statewide office.  While most running for office would like to ignore it and let the people decide the issue, they cannot and they know it. 

 

You need only look back a few years to Foxboro for an example of how this next election may be affected.  In 2012 gambling technically was not on the ballot, but everyone knew the local election was a referendum on allowing a casino locally.  The turnout was tremendous, way above average.  Candidates handily lost their races with vote totals that would have easily won any other year.

 

At least 20 states have legalized casino gambling.  Others have “Indian” casinos run by Native American tribes.  As with other industries, some are more successful than others.

 

But gambling itself will not be on the ballot this fall.  No matter how the electorate votes, Massachusetts residents will continue to gamble.  The question now is, will they do it here in a regulated or non-regulated setting and will the state collect taxes and benefit from new construction and new jobs?

 

This approach didn’t work during Prohibition, and it won’t work now.

 

One thing is certain - between today and November, pollsters are going to make a boatload of money.  You can bet on that.

 

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

Plagiarism Charges Sticking With Mansfield Superintendent

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on Friday, July 4, 2014

GOUVEIA: Still a question of integrity

• Story
• Comments

Print

Create a hardcopy of this page

Font Size:

Default font size

Larger font size

2

Posted: Friday, July 4, 2014 12:13 am | Updated: 3:50 am, Fri Jul 4, 2014.

0 comments

If a student of Mansfield School Superintendent Brenda Hodges submitted a speech or paper which was found to be largely copied from another source, and did not credit that source, that student would have some serious explaining to do.

But apparently in Mansfield, those in positions of power are held to a different standard. What some have dismissed as something "blown out of proportion" is now threatening the very integrity of the school system itself.

Charges of plagiarism began to circulate on social media after the June 8 Mansfield High graduation address by the superintendent. It seems Hodges' remarks were extremely similar to those given by Naval Adm. William H. McRaven at the University of Texas less than a month earlier.

The superintendent denies she is guilty of plagiarism, saying she heard a speech in Oklahoma in 2013 and asked the speaker (whom she declined to identify) if she could use it. She says he handed her a copy, and she drew from that for her message to graduating seniors.

But she does admit she should have handled the situation differently. "In hindsight, I would have said 'I recently heard a speech that resonated with me and I'd like to share some thoughts from it with you'," Hodges said recently. She added she had not seen or read the admiral's speech before giving her own, but was able to clearly see the connection.

Mansfield High claims to take plagiarism very seriously. Students often have to submit their work to a website that checks for similarities to other written or spoken materials. Hodges herself has pointed out the school department instills in the students, "You have to cite your sources."

Yes, superintendent - you do. And you didn't. And for that, there needs to be consequences.

Plagiarism is a tricky concept. It is debatable whether this particular instance rises to the level of actual plagiarism. But there is no question what Hodges did was wrong, irresponsible and unprofessional. She has damaged her own integrity and credibility with students, parents and fellow professional staff and administrators.

But it's just a commencement speech, you might be tempted to say. Why make such a big deal out of a few remarks to graduates and their families? The head of the school's English department called the alleged plagiarism "much ado about nothing."

That is wrong. It is a big deal. The school department has been quite clear about citing sources. This not only fails to set a good example, but is the epitome of a bad one.

Very little that is written or said is truly and completely original. As a columnist, I draw information for virtually every column from a wide variety of sources. If I gave attribution to every stray fact or statement I encountered, there would be little room for anything else.

But if I were to copy much of what I wrote directly from someone else's work, I would have to attribute it. To not do so would be dishonest and get me fired.

When you are the head of a school system, your responsibilities are clear. You have to be able to conform to the standards and behavior you expect and demand from students. The concept of "Do what I say, not what I do" doesn't work.

What would Superintendent Hodges do if one of her students virtually copied a speech or paper from another source? If they told the superintendent they had permission from someone else to use their work, would that make it OK? Or would they face disciplinary action for failure to follow the rules?

Superintendents and students are different and should not be treated exactly the same. That is understood. But in this case, they should both abide by basic principles of right and wrong.

The school committee needs to investigate this matter. Continued failure to take this seriously will result in its own integrity being questioned. And if it is confirmed Superintendent Hodges did indeed operate outside the very rules she is charged with enforcing, she should be subjected to disciplinary action.

There appears to be no valid excuse for what has been done here. And until and unless one is forthcoming, the school committee needs to show the community their lofty standards apply to everyone.

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

Don't Blame Guns - Because No One Actually Is

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday June 30, 2014

 

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

 

In the wake of yet another recent senseless and violent school shooting, one thing has become abundantly clear to me.  Those who keep saying guns are not to blame are absolutely right.

 

Not a one of those guns used in the school shootings went off by themselves.  Every single weapon was fired by an individual who intended to kill those in their sights.  The blame for the deaths of innocent children and adults in these situations lies with those people, and not in the inanimate objects they fired with such effectiveness.

 

My friends on the pro-gun side of the debate have totally convinced me of this undeniable fact.  They say it all the time.  Gun Rights advocates tell us it is the people firing the weapons who are defective, not the guns themselves. 

 

They point out how no one suggests we ban or restrict the use of automobiles after some crazed killer runs down a crowd with a vehicle.  It is senseless to blame guns for these national tragedies that just keep occurring, they say over and over.

 

And while they are correct, there is one glaring problem with their logical and quite effective argument: 

 

They are pretty much the only people making the ridiculous suggestion that guns themselves are being unfairly attacked.

 

Sure, there are some extreme left-wing liberals who want all guns banned so the world will be a peaceful place where everything is decided by calm discussion and the sharing of crunchy granola.  But they are in the vast minority.

 

Most Americans who favor stronger gun control laws do not want guns taken away or banned.  They don’t want an America that is weak and defenseless.  They believe people should be able to responsibly own firearms for their own protection, and for various other reasons.

 

Instead, they want strong laws that make it harder – even if only a little bit – for these mentally unstable and irresponsible individuals to get their hands on guns.  They want preventive measures that try to restrict guns to those who responsibly handle them, and away from those who would use them to kill in our schools.

 

So I have decided to back the more conservative voices in this great discussion.  It is time to concentrate our attention on those who might perform these heinous crimes, and less on the tools they use during them.

 

Now – how do we keep these potential killers from using innocent guns to kill our friends and neighbors?  Hmm, let’s think about that.

 

Hey – how about we require stringent background checks on a national basis whenever someone buys a gun?  I know, it won’t prevent all the nut-jobs from getting their hands on firearms.  But if it only prevents one dead schoolchild a year, wouldn’t that be worth it?

 

Maybe we should protect the poor guns by making sure they can’t be blindly acquired at gun shows by people trying to find loopholes through which they can gain access?  If we keep them out of the hands and homes of people unworthy to own them, these “killing machines” can’t be unfairly maligned.

 

Perhaps we require mandatory gun training for those who receive licenses and make sure they properly register their weapons.  This should be no big deal for the millions of people who keep and carry guns for all the right reasons.  They are merely trying to protect their families and homes, or perhaps do some hunting or sport shooting.  They should welcome the chance to keep guns away from those who don’t follow their excellent example.

 

It is not the fault of guns that they can now be virtual weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the crazed or irresponsible.  Guns do not choose to be empowered with the ability to fire hundreds of rounds of ammunition in mere seconds.  It is the people who purchase weapons designed for warfare rather than personal use who put the pressure on law-abiding American gun owners.

 

This problem has never been about guns themselves.  The real issue has always been who should have access to them, and how regulated that access should be. 

 

It is time to listen to those gun advocates.  They’ve been right all along - sort of.

 

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

Apology Due in Foxboro OML Situation

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Friday, June 20, 2014

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

When the Opening Meeting Law works, it is usually because citizens decide their right to have public business done out in the open is worth the difficult process required to make that happen.

So thank you, Heather Harding.

For those who may not know, Harding is the person who filed a series of OML complaints with the Town of Foxboro and eventually the state attorney general’s office over the actions of Foxboro selectmen.  So far, two of her complaints have been determined by the AG’s office to have been actual violations.

As a result, the Foxboro board has been subjected to what passes for harsh punishment under the rather toothless terms of the OML.  They must review the AG’s training video on deliberations, and certify they have done so in writing within 30 days.

Oh, the horror.  That should teach them, right?

But at this point, the punishment is not the most important thing to come out of this debacle.  What truly matters is there seems to be at least some willingness on the part of state officials to uphold this weak law.  That will hopefully inspire more people like Heather Harding to stand up for all our rights, even when it may not be popular to do so.

Harding correctly pointed out that selectmen engaged in what the AG’s office called “serial deliberation outside of a properly posted meeting”.  That began when Selectman Lorraine Brue sent a carefully-worded email to some officials questioning the legality and wisdom of something she had voted to support just the night before.

Brue’s email questioned whether or not the board had violated the OML 24 hours earlier when they voted unanimously to send two of their members to an informational meeting with representatives of an applicant for a liquor license.  Though she tried to temper her email’s intent with a heading including the phrase “no response please”, it was quite evident she was engaging in discussion that was improper outside of a public meeting.

Her excuse concerning why she had not brought up her issues in front of the public rather than away from them was a poor one and lacked believability.  Her email started a chain-reaction between other selectmen and the town manager as well as town counsel. 

In effect, they undid in private what they had voted to do in public.  You can’t do that without at least being exposed.  But the punishment is a big nothing, and it can be argued Selectman Brue and some of her colleagues achieved their political objective without having to do it in front of the voters who elected them.

So far there has been no real admission of guilt or apology from the board or the individual members.  None is required under the terms of their punishment, but it would seem they owe the townspeople something in this regard.  After weeks of insisting they had done nothing wrong, it was found they in fact had.

There are still complaints pending that have some connection to those already adjudicated.  It could very well be selectmen have been advised by their legal counsel not to comment for fear of incurring liability for both themselves and the town. 

And politically, remaining mum on this subject is probably the smartest thing selectmen can do.  OML violations are seldom taken very seriously for long.  Allowing this whole mess to pass slowly into oblivion would work to their advantage. 

Some have suggested Brue should resign over this matter.  Without making light of her actions, they simply do not call for a move that extreme.

But Selectmen Brue has clearly been found to be in the wrong here.  So has her board as a whole, and some other individual members as well.  They owe their constituents not just an apology, but a sincere one. 

Expecting Foxboro residents to believe selectmen’s attempt to cure one OML violation by committing another was an unintentional action is to insult their intelligence.  Selectmen did something wrong, and they got caught. 

As Heather Harding said some many months ago, “"It seems to me purely cut-and-dried. You say, 'Yeah, I made a mistake' and you move on."

Let’s hope Foxboro selectmen take that good advice to heart. 

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

Ignoring Voters Normal In North Attleboro

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday, June 16, 2014.

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

There is a general rule that should apply to all local governments when dealing with the voters who elect them: 

If you have no intention of listening to what the people you govern have to say – then stop asking them questions.

If North Attleboro citizens needed any further proof their local government doesn’t care what they think, they got it recently.  For the umpteenth time in the last two decades, the town’s Representative Town Meeting sent a clear message to voters.  That message said, “Stop trying to tell us what to do.  We are smarter than you.”

Last year selectmen put a nonbinding question on the ballot seeking to require voter approval to abolish town boards.  The townspeople then voted 1478-229 in favor, a majority of close to 84 percent.

Now, the concept was not a good idea.  The selectmen should have either sponsored the article when it was presented to them, or told the sponsors to advance it on their own.  The board members failed to do what they were elected to do – provide leadership.  Instead, they asked yet another meaningless and toothless non-binding question on the ballot.

But they did ask.  And they got an answer.  They were very careful to make sure that answer could be ignored.  They simply allowed frustrated citizens to vent their feelings, get it off their chests, and then go back to complaining and lamenting the fact they can’t seem to change anything.

The RTM was under no legal obligation to support the ballot initiative.  They had a legitimate argument that it undercut the foundation of the current form of government – shaky as that foundation may be.  Their vote to defeat it was actually quite understandable.

But the attitude they took in doing it was demeaning and insulting to the citizens of North Attleboro.  And don’t think for a second that was accidental.

People in North, your RTM government just doesn’t seem to like you.  It considers you an obstacle.  You are something to be manipulated, managed, and ignored when it suits their purpose. 

They are the parent, you are the children.  They know best.  Now go back outside and play, and let the adults make the decisions.

When debating the approved referendum question, RTM members seemed more concerned with their authority being questioned than if the proposal was good for the town.  Quotes from RTM members included “If you vote for this, our fellow RTM members, you give your authority away”, “Don’t be pushed around, vote no”, and the interesting “This was a nitwit question on the ballot and this is a nitwit article”.

The vast majority of RTM members were elected with far, far fewer than the 1478 votes the ballot question they ridiculed received.  It makes you wonder – if 84 percent of those voting passed a “nitwit” article, would that label then also apply to the RTM members they chose at the same election?

To be fair, there were RTM members who defended the public’s right to have their votes taken seriously.  One member warned that continuing to ignore clear requests from the voters would be going “down a slippery slope”.

RTM members are secure in their positions.  The majority of them run without opposition.  They believe they should tell the voters what to do, and not the other way around.

RTM does not work in North Attleboro.  It is too big, too powerful, and too isolated.  It is more of a private club than a public institution.

There is nothing new here.  North’s RTM has many good people working within it, but they are trapped in a bad system.  This has been going on for a long time, and no doubt will continue unchanged for the foreseeable future.

Because that’s the way the political establishment in North Attleboro wants it.  They don’t let anyone – particularly the voters – get in their way.  And while you all may be sick and tired of hearing this, that doesn’t make it one bit less true. 

North Attleboro’s government won’t change because the system and the people running it won’t allow it.  And if you really believe that doesn’t discourage people from voting, then I have this swampland I’d like to discuss selling you…

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

Father's Day A Happy Holiday Once Again

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Friday, June 13, 2014

 

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

            I hated Father’s Day when I was growing up.  It was an awkward time, and I always wished we could just skip it.

 

            Not that my home life was horrible, mind you.  My parents split when I was 12, and the few years before that weren’t exactly cheerful and homey.  But my first decade was spent in what I consider a great childhood.  I was the oldest of three, lived in a nice residential neighborhood with lots of friends, and had tons of family nearby.

 

            But even before the split, my dad was not exactly the type that celebrated Father’s Day.  He was a hard-working Portuguese-American who was putting himself through college, working three or more jobs to support us, and who considered excessive emotion to be a weakness.  He would make time to celebrate his family members, but celebrating himself just seemed silly.

 

            It was good Father’s Day was on a Sunday, because that was one of the few times we would see Dad.  Between attending night school, working days in a Boston financial firm, and butchering meat on nights and weekends, his free time was at a premium.  As kids, we knew that and understood.

 

            His generation of fathers seemed to concentrate on “providing” as the overriding principle upon which they built their lives.  He wanted us to live in a nice house.  He took pride in putting steak on the table several nights a week.  He mowed the grass regularly, took pride in his home and family, and minded his own business.

 

            We never doubted that he loved us.  But the way he showed it was hard to fully comprehend.  He came from a different country and a different life with more responsibilities.  He probably had as tough a time understanding our needs as we did his.  I shouldn’t speak for my brother or my late sister though.  Maybe it was just me.

 

            I remember my dad being at exactly one of my Little League games.  It was a big deal, and I was extremely excited.  He wasn’t a huge sports fan, so that wasn’t something we bonded over.  But half a century later, I still recall him standing along the third base line smiling at me as I batted. 

 

            My dad never had “the talk” with me.  He never taught me how to shave.  We never discussed girls, talked sparingly of school, and had very few truly emotional moments between us.  As I grew into my later teenage years, that became a good thing because the emotional moments were seldom about sentiment and often about resentment.

 

            Despite our differences, I saw my dad as the strongest man in the world.  I respected how hard he worked and what he accomplished.  And though I was more outgoing, I proudly became a lot like him in other ways.

 

            Then I got married and became a father.  My perspective – and my world – slowly changed.

 

            I wanted to be a good provider, like my dad.  I worked 80 hours per week.  When I had the opportunity to start a business with a friend, that number went even higher.  I was building a future for my family, and I was proud of what I was doing.

 

            But I should have done some things differently.  I know that now.

 

            I wish I had provided less financially and more emotionally for my kids.  They could have done with a few less toys and a lot more Dad.  I was there for lots of special moments in their lives, but I wish I had been there for more.

 

I believe I’ve been a reasonably good father, but understand now I could have been so much better.  Being a grandfather has given me the opportunity to try and make up for past failures, even if only in my own mind.

 

I loved my dad, but I’m glad I didn’t grow up to be just like him.  And I’m truly grateful my own two sons didn’t grow up to be just like me.  Because of them, and the kind of dads they have become, Father’s Day is now one of my favorite holidays.

 

A good father never stops learning how to be a better dad.  Happy Father’s Day to all you dads.

 

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist, father of two and grandfather of three.  He can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.