Religion Is No Excuse For Bigotry And Hate

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday, July 6, 2015

Posted: Sunday, July 5, 2015 11:03 pm | Updated: 11:10 pm, Sun Jul 5, 2015.

BY BILL GOUVEIA FOR THE SUN CHRONICLE |0 comments

In the aftermath of the recent Supreme Court decision establishing marriage equality, I am like a lot of people. I am angry.

But I am angry that discrimination has become a catchphrase. I am angry some people use religion as an excuse for bigotry and selfishness. I am angry that the self-centered among us use their faith as a weapon to hurt others.

I am not an overly religious person, but I respect those who are. I admire their ability to commit to something, to dedicate themselves to principles based upon belief in a spiritual being.

But when you practice hate in the name of love, you lose my respect. When you try and lift yourself up by attempting to keep those around you down, you honor nothing and no one. And when you think your rights include denying equality to those who believe differently than you - well, you are just wrong.

I am so sick of the tired old refrain coming from those who claim gay people somehow offend them. Oh wait, it's not the people who offend them. I keep forgetting that. It's the lives those confused folks choose to lead that are disgusting, not the poor misguided souls themselves.

It's that "love the sinner, hate the sin" philosophy.

But the difficulty of equality is that it is so - well, equal. And while that's great for the party that has been denied for so long, it can be a bit of shock for those who have previously enjoyed keeping the right in question for themselves. Sometimes they feel like something has been taken away from them.

That in part explains why there has been so much talk lately about an alleged "War on Religion" or "War on Christianity." Those making this claim say people with strong religious beliefs are being persecuted for no reason other than their faith. They insist something has been taken away from them with this recent Supreme Court decision.

As proof, they point to situations where bakers or florists have been criticized and in some cases prosecuted for refusing to provide services for the weddings of gay couples. These businesspeople say their devout faith and religious convictions prevent them from doing so.

What they seem to forget - or choose to ignore - is that there is no religion when it comes to the law or the basic rights provided in our constitution.

There is a distinct separation of Church and State in this country. Their right to practice the religion of their choice is implicit in those very rights.

But the baker who refuses a cake to someone based upon nothing but their sexuality is breaking the law. The florist who refuses to do arrangements for no reason other than the sexual orientation of the couple marrying is violating discrimination statutes. That has nothing to do with the personal religious affiliation or beliefs of the offenders. It brings back memories of the days of segregation.

Was religion ever designed to be an excuse for discrimination? Well, there is ample evidence to support that theory. More wars have been fought over religion than any other reason or cause. That can be seen as a testament to the power of faith, or as one of its unfortunate side effects.

Interracial marriage was once considered a threat to both traditional marriage and religion. But our society eventually saw the stupidity and prejudice in that stance, and it slowly was corrected. And somehow, both marriage and religion survived.

This instance is no different. America often makes mistakes, but we seem to eventually correct them. We are a better country today than we were just a few weeks ago.

I strongly defend the right of everyone to practice the religion of their choice. I believe faith is important. I would never support any decision or legislation that says otherwise.

But this "War on Religion" stuff is sad, pathetic and wrong.

It makes me so angry to hear supposedly responsible politicians and leaders urging people to ignore our Supreme Court and their interpretation of our Constitution. They are an embarrassment and a disgrace.

Religion is and should be a good thing. But it should never be used as an excuse for ignorance, hatred and the denial of equal rights.

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

The Four Things We Just Can't Talk About

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Friday, June 26, 2015

 

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia
 

            Guns, religion, race and politics. 

            Those are the modern day Four Horsemen.  The four things you simply can’t discuss rationally today in America.  The topics which need to be debated, that cry out for compromise, that involve the basic rights of each and every citizen of this country.

            Yet for some incomprehensible reason, we refuse to engage in meaningful discussion on these issues.  Most of us cling to our personal beliefs and positions on each of these volatile subjects, and decline to admit there may be other valid ones.  We make these things bigger problems.

            For example, take the recent tragic shooting in South Carolina.

            A young white supremacist with an arrest record walked into an historic African-American Church with a gun supposedly gifted to him by his father and shot and killed nine black people.  Captured shortly thereafter, he allegedly confessed he did so because he hated black people.  He believed they were taking over the country, and he wanted to bring back segregation.  He hoped his actions would start a “race war”.

            Grief and sorrow over the awful and violent act was felt almost universally.  But after that, reaction began to fall into sadly predictable examples.

            Some conservatives and Republicans, including a few currently planning to run for President, tried to ignore the obvious racist aspect of the attack.  They claimed it was not yet possible to know what actually motivated the shooter.  They ignored the obvious failure of gun control regulations to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of convicted criminals.

            Perhaps even more amazingly, they and others wondered out loud if this were in fact an “attack on faith” as Fox News and other media outlets suggested.  After all, the murders occurred in a church.  Perhaps this was an attack against Christians, they opined.

            They act in this manner because they cannot afford to insult or offend the conservative voters who they need in order to win their various primaries.  Moderate voters seldom vote in primaries of either major party.  Those tend to be dominated by the more extreme members of each group.

            And God forbid (oops, bad expression) that this overtly racist act be recognized for what is so clearly is.  Not even the direct admission of the accused racist murderer himself is enough to get them to do that.  Because, you see, a discussion on race does not help them politically.

            And they immediately move to absolve guns of any blame in this.  You can’t blame inanimate objects for murder, they note.  The attacker could have used a knife, or a rope, or a shovel, or almost anything else.  They are quite clear about this not being about guns.

            And again – they are totally wrong.

            Does anyone truly believe this was an attack on “faith”?  Is there the slightest bit of evidence to support that?

            This was absolutely a racist attack in a state that flies (for now) the Confederate Flag over its capitol.  It was allegedly perpetrated by a man wearing the flag of various Christian countries famous for their racist regimes.  And it was performed with a gun he never should have had.

            Would tougher gun laws have prevented him from obtaining this gun?  It’s possible, but unlikely.  Chances are he would have shot these people even if he was subjected to stricter regulations.

            But is that a reason not to have tougher laws?  When the murder rate goes up, do we stop passing laws because some are not following them?  Should we really just stop trying?

            And yes, he could have used a shovel.  But he didn’t.  Most mass murders use guns.  You can kill people much faster and more efficiently with guns.  That’s why you don’t need a license or a background check to own a shovel. 

            Liberals and Democrats share blame here.  They talk the talk on gun control, but are unwilling to take on the job of making it happen.  They also have to get reelected in their primaries. 

            But it’s not just our leaders.  As a people, we need to be tougher on guns.  We need to stop mixing religion and government.  We must address the rampant racism in our country. 

And we must learn that politics involves talking to other people, not just at them.

 

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

This Dad and Grandpa Celebrates Father's Day

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Friday, June 19, 2015

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

           

            This Sunday is Father’s Day.  It will be my 36^th as a dad and my 8^th as a grandfather. 

Yeah, I know – this is Father’s Day, not Grandfather’s Day.  But I don’t care.  Any excuse to brag about being a grandfather is a good one.  And these days, my physical appearance much more fits the elder role.

But I was Dad long before I was Grandpa, and that’s something in which I take great pride. 

The truth is being a grandfather is relatively easy.  You get to have a lot of the fun, and very little of the real responsibility.  You can break the rules with limited impunity, discipline is something you let the parents worry about, and “No” is a concept you treat with the same disdain you had for it as a kid.

Being a Dad is much different.  Sure, you get to have fun and enjoy those special moments with your children, creating memories that will last not only your lifetime but hopefully theirs as well.  But being a Dad (and in fact, being a parent today) is an awesome and heavy responsibility. 

I look back at the four generations of Dads I have known in my own family.  My grandfather was a hard-working immigrant who spent nearly a decade away from his family in Portugal before he could bring them to America.  He was a good man, but had a hard shell.  He was a farmer and worked in the maintenance crew at Wheaton College.  He commanded respect, and always received it from his children.

My Dad was the first of his family to go to college.  He inherited his father’s work ethic, often toiling at three different jobs while also going to school.  We knew growing up he loved us, but he was not exactly warm and fuzzy.  Late in his life, he would shake my hand whenever we saw each other.  I would embarrass him with a hug and kiss.

I was not dissimilar from them both when I entered the fatherhood fraternity, particularly regarding time spent providing financially.  I worked hard to try and give my kids the life they deserved, as well as the opportunity to go to college.  My pride at their graduations was boundless.  And thanks to my wife (the best parent I have ever met) I was at least somewhat visible and active in their lives growing up.

Today both my sons are dads.  And I watch in utter amazement and joy at how they have not only accepted the role, but made it their own.  They are more than just wonderful parents.  In my eyes they reflect everything a Dad should be, which at the risk of sounding sexist or prejudiced, is different from what a parent should be.

They are so involved in every aspect of the lives of their children. They are constantly in the schools, always know everything their kids did that day, and provide the best kind of example for those young minds.  Their patience makes me proud, while at the same time making me ashamed of the lack of same I often remember exhibiting back when they were young.

They both married strong women, true partners in their lives.  They have built families on a foundation of love, with the emphasis on all the right things.  They demonstrate strength when needed, gentleness when necessary, and are smart enough to recognize when each is called for. 

If you judge a Dad by how his children turn out, then I will get much more credit than I deserve.  My sons are awesome people, and sensational parents.  And there is no shaking hands when we get together.  We never let each other go without a hug and kiss.

“You’re never too old to kiss your father”, I told them at a very early age.  And they have never hesitated, even through those awkward and sensitive school years.

I have so many moments from being a dad that I treasure.  And the good news is – I’m not done collecting them. 

Aaron and Nate, thank you for learning from my mistakes and maybe picking up a rare good thing or two.  Happy Father’s Day to everyone, especially the two best Dads I know.

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

This Is What Is Wrong With Politics Today

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday, June 15, 2015

 

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

            If you want a perfect example of what is wrong with politics today, you need look no further than what happened this week when Governor Charlie Baker visited our area to attend a fundraiser for State Representative Betty Poirier (R-North Attleboro).

 

            Baker is a Republican.  Poirier supported him during the hotly-contested election this past fall.  In Massachusetts, Republican legislatures are almost as rare as Yankee fans.  As Governor, Baker has a vested interest in trying to help the GOP increase and at the very least maintain their numbers in both the House and Senate.

 

            So is there anything wrong or unusual with Gov. Baker helping to boost Rep. Poirier’s campaign coffers and already considerable popularity in her district?  Nope – nothing at all.  It is a standard tradition practiced by both major parties all the time.

 

            But the Massachusetts Democratic Party is apparently running out of things to complain about.  The party organization decided to criticize the Governor for attending the fundraiser based upon one political position (albeit an important one) where he and Poirier disagree – abortion and a woman’s right to choose.

 

            Poirier has never been shy about her opposition to legalized abortion, and has in the past both sponsored and supported legislation that would deny women that option.  But quite frankly, most of that was for show.  Chances of legislation like that succeeding here in the Bay State are about equal to my chances of making the Patriots practice squad.

 

            Pat Beaudry, a spokesperson for the party, claimed this week that by his visit Baker “is in fact supporting an agenda ostensibly counter to his own regarding choice.”  She went on to add that his “headlining Rep. Poirier’s event is a perfect example of the governor’s willingness to support Republicans of all stripes here in Massachusetts, regardless of his own publicly stated positions.”

 

            And that, ladies and gentlemen, is pure and unadulterated crap.

 

            Yours truly is no great fan of Betty Poirier as a legislator.  This space has often been critical of her performance and actions on a wide variety of fronts.  We are polar opposites in most of our political positions and beliefs.

 

            But her general position on that particular topic should have no bearing on Gov. Baker’s decision to support her.  And by trying to make it one, the Democratic State Party looks like the whiny bunch of liberal complainers the Republican State Party often makes them out to be.

 

            Poirier was absolutely correct when she said of the “controversy” that erupted as a result of the Governor’s visit:  “I guess there can’t be a lot of big news out there today.”

 

            Rep. Poirier has been elected and re-elected many times by the good people of her district.  While certainly conservative, she is reasonably representative of the general political philosophy of her constituents.  She is not so radically different that she should be cast as a pariah.

 

            Is this what state and national politics have to be about?  Must our elected leaders be required to only surround themselves with people who share their views?  Are both Governor Baker and Representative Poirier doing such a good job that Democrats are reduced to foolish complaining such as this?

 

            And let’s be clear.  This type of despicable tactic is practiced with great regularity by both major parties.  In fact, Republicans may even be better at it than Democrats.  Neither group holds the moral high ground here.

 

            But it’s getting old.

 

            Maybe we out here in the Sun Chronicle area just aren’t accustomed to the glare of the spotlight that accompanies high-ranking officials like the Governor as they venture out of our capitol city.  Could it be we (or at least this writer) are just “small-town” and don’t get how real politics work?

 

            If that is the case – and I don’t believe it for a minute – then we should wear that as a badge of honor.  Our local politics can be intense, personal, and sometimes just silly.  But a local leader who doesn’t establish close relationships with people holding different views usually doesn’t have much success.

 

              I understand state party officials get paid to politick.  But our officials give us enough reason to complain without having more invented for us.

 

            Neither Rep. Poirier not the Governor deserved the cheap shot.

 

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

It's Official - I'm Not Running for President

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on Monday, June 8, 2015.

BY BILL GOUVEIA FOR THE SUN CHRONICLE The Sun Chronicle                        
             

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to take this opportunity to make an important announcement, right here on these very pages.
  After much thought and careful consideration, I have officially decided I will not be a candidate for the Republican nomination for the President of the United States.

 

I may well be the first person to actually NOT seek the GOP nomination. I wanted to get this momentous decision out there before the primaries - whenever they are. It was not a conclusion I reached lightly. I fully understand the impact my choice may have on the thousands of others considering throwing their hats into the ring.
 

To all those who contacted me about being my running mate (and most of those were after last call at the local pub), I apologize for denying you the opportunity of a lifetime. Those who contributed to my campaign in the pre-announcement stage will have their donations returned as soon as I get change for that $5 bill.
 

Many factors influenced my surprise decision, not the least of which is I am a lifelong Democrat.

I have few actual qualifications for the job itself, which gives me a lot in common with the announced candidates. And most importantly, I am not a member of Congress either recently or currently, perhaps my biggest advantage had I run.
 

I had briefly considered seeking the Democratic nomination, but Hillary told me I couldn't. I thought perhaps Bernie Sanders or Lincoln Chafee might consider me for the second spot on the ticket, but clearly I was too high-profile for them. And the Republican field seemed so much more inviting.

They are from states like Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Kentucky. There are also candidates from states located north of the Mason-Dixon Line like New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
 

I understand I would have had to make myself stand out from the crowded field had I stayed in the GOP fight. I am often confused with Chris Christie at first sight, but our political positions are not really similar. Besides, at least I root for the football team actually from my area. I guess since Christie is not one of the GOP stars from Texas, he needed to find another way to attract votes from the Lone Star state.
 

Like most of the Republican candidates I would have been running against, I am extremely conservative. I almost never eat spicy food, and seldom dress in loud colors. I am patriotic, though I'm not as intent as the Republicans on telling everyone just how patriotic. I am not a fan of the Patriot Act, but I did search my kids' rooms without a warrant and listen to some of their phone conversations when they were growing up.
 

And like that group of politicians, I am against extremism. I am totally against extremism. I mean, without exception. My opposition to extremism is so extreme that my FBI file is actually available at the public library. I once participated in a protest against my own decision because I thought I went too far.
 

I plan to wait for the shockwaves generated by my stunning choice to subside before announcing the next step in my grand plan. By then, I'm sure I will actually have a grand plan. I had considered making the rounds of the late-night talk shows to boost my national visibility, but have discovered I really can't stay up that late anymore.
 

For those of you who are wondering, I will indeed make myself available as a highly-paid guest speaker on the banquet circuit. I would tell you to have your people call my people, but frankly I'm not sure I have any people, so that could be awkward.
 

I have been contacted about running for statewide office, but unfortunately I don't live in any of the states where there are currently vacancies.
 

In the meantime, I stand ready to serve as an adviser for any of the Republican candidates who might be looking for good advice. I hope that through my decision to spare them the agony of certain defeat, they find some peace of mind and the strength to go on.
 

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

Norton Without Mr. Watson Just Not The Same

        

My latest Sun Chronicle column discusses Mr. Watson and how his retirement as Graves Officer in Norton is just unimaginable.  This first appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Friday, May 29, 2015. 

          

Previous Next

                                                            

 

 

 

 

                You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.        

 

Login

Screen NamePassword

Forgot your Login ID or Password?

Need an account? Create one now.

Screen Name or Email Now I remember!

Need an account? Create one now.        

Posted: Friday, May 29, 2015 12:00 am | Updated: 9:38 am, Fri May 29, 2015.

GOUVEIA: Doing his duty as he sees it BY BILL GOUVEIA 

            

When I picked up my copy of The Sun Chronicle this past Monday, a front page picture of Mr. Watson jumped out at me. You may have seen his name listed as Al Watson, but if you grew up in and have lived in Norton as long as I have, you call him Mr. Watson.
  The story said Mr. Watson is retiring from his official job as Norton’s grave officer. I read that several times, and frankly — I don’t understand. It just doesn’t compute. Obviously, there has been some mistake

Back

 

Screen Name or Email Now I remember!

Are you telling me he is no longer going to be taking care of placing flags and plaques at the graves of Norton’s veterans? You might as well tell me someone made off with the Norton Town Common last night. Or that the Norton Reservoir was filled in while I slept. Or perhaps that Wheaton College closed its doors for good.

 

Because, frankly, it is easier to picture those unlikely events than to imagine Mr. Watson no longer engraving plaques and making sure every single deceased Norton veteran has a properly marked grave.
 

I don’t believe Mr. Watson was ever really appointed to this job. I think he was just born into it. And from talking to him over the years (or more accurately, listening to him, because when you talk with Mr. Watson, you do an awful lot of listening) I know he never considered it a “job.”

For him, it has always been a duty. It is an obligation that he sought out, treasured and loved. And he has fulfilled it nobly.
 

If you saw his photo and came away with an impression of Mr. Watson as a gentle senior citizen — think again. He is one of the toughest and strongest individuals I have ever known. He is quick with a smile, has an eye and a memory for detail and doesn’t seem to know the meaning of the phrase “back off.” His is a style and personality that is 100 percent Norton.
 

If you live in town and don’t know Mr. Watson, it’s not surprising. He does not seek attention, nor does he want it. He hasn’t done this often thankless and tedious job for publicity for the past 60 years. He’s done it because he personally believed it to be of the utmost importance, and because he has tremendous respect for all those who have donned a uniform and defended this country.
 

The stories of Mr. Watson’s dedication to Norton veterans over the decades are legendary. There are few town officials who have not at some point been introduced to his zeal, his sharp wit, his often pointed comments and his steadfast loyalty to his cause.
 

I remember one fairly recent story in which I had a personal involvement. I was running for office a few years back, and standing outside the polls on Election Day. Mr. Watson lives nearby, and came over to say hello.
 

During our chat, he took the opportunity to point out that the flag flying in front of the Yelle School next door was slightly tattered. He explained to me in great detail why this was neither proper nor acceptable. I did a lot of nodding, thanked him for telling me and assured him that when I saw the school superintendent I would let her know about it.
 

After he walked away, my wife smiled and suggested I call the superintendent right away. I saw the wisdom in her suggestion, and did just that.
 

Later that same day, I saw the flag being lowered and replaced with a different one. Then, I observed the superintendent having a conversation with Mr. Watson on the edge of the school grounds. Like me, she was doing a lot of listening.
 

Mr. Watson has long been an advocate for veterans, living and dead. He often speaks for those who no longer have a voice. He doesn’t really care if you like him, or if you approve of his performance. He has always known exactly what his job is, and just how to do it.
 

I thank him for his service, although I know he doesn’t believe that is necessary. After all, he was just doing his duty.
 

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

Foxboro Chairmanship Yet Another Fiasco

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday, May 18, 2015.

GOUVEIA: 'As the Chairman Turns' is Foxboro's latest soap opera

• Story
• Comments

Print

Create a hardcopy of this page

Font Size:

Default font size

Larger font size

Bill Gouveia

Posted: Sunday, May 17, 2015 11:30 pm | Updated: 11:31 pm, Sun May 17, 2015.

BY BILL GOUVEIA FOR THE SUN CHRONICLE |0 comments

In one short meeting last week, the Foxboro Board of Selectmen showed us all the good, the bad, and the ugly part of serving in local government.

The simple act of reorganizing and electing a chairman proved to be too much for this group of selectmen. They wound up choosing a member who seemed uncertain how to win, and then handed it to a member who seemed uncertain how to lose.

John Gray was vice chairman this past year, and was nominated to the top spot by Virginia Coppola. Selectman David Feldman nominated Jim DeVellis for his second term as chairman. A vote was held, and by a 3-2 tally, DeVellis was chosen.

But after DeVellis spoke, Gray questioned the result. He said the whole thing seemed "pre-planned", accusing DeVellis, Feldman and newly-elected Chris Mitchell of conspiring to predetermine the chairmanship.

"I was really looking forward to being chairman" he said, sounding like a disappointed youngster on Christmas morning.

Coppola also complained about Gray's loss, claiming it was "his turn." Feldman responded by saying he nominated DeVellis because he thought he would be the best person for the job, and that "turns" should have nothing to do with that.

DeVellis offered to have another vote, and things got worse (if you can imagine). Gray asked DeVellis to support him for chairman and DeVellis rather gallantly agreed, but not until stating he could do a better job than Gray. Another quick (and procedurally flawed) vote was taken, DeVellis voted for Gray, and Gray became the apparent new chairman by a 3-2 tally.

And with that, town government in Foxboro reached new heights of silliness and pettiness.

It was ironic that Gray accused some of his fellow selectmen of "pre-planning" the chairmanship. He and Coppola wanted to hand the mantle of leadership to the incoming vice chairman, which would mean it was pre-planned.

Apparently "pre-planning" is only a bad thing if it doesn't go your way.

Leadership is something you earn, not inherit. Ask George Dentino in Mansfield, who ironically got elected to his second straight year as chairman of that board of selectmen last week. He waited years to be chosen and missed many "turns, "yet never once sought to reverse a proper vote that made his wait longer.

DeVellis tried to avoid creating a bitter board with his abdication, but it was too little, too late. The damage had been done. Everyone now knows the apparent chairman of the Foxboro board was not the real choice of the majority of his own committee. That is bad for the chairman, bad for the board, and bad for the community.

Immediately following the chairmanship debacle, selectmen were forced to address their latest Open Meeting Law violation. Four members (including three current ones) attended a meeting of the town's building committee recently and engaged in discussion on a topic that will eventually come before them for action.

After the fact, it apparently occurred to them that this might be an OML violation. Following discussion with counsel, they "cured" it by reading the minutes of that meeting aloud and repeating the comments they made during it.

This might not be so bad except for the fact selectmen are fresh off having to undergo training on the OML because of repeated violations.

Coppola sought to deflect blame from her board by suggesting the chairman of the building committee might have been responsible. When DeVellis (who was not one of the violators) angrily disputed that, Coppola made further excuses. She noted the offending board members had realized the error of their ways eventually.

"The fact that we realized something (after) is a big step," she explained.

No, Selectwoman Coppola. A "big step" would be not committing the violation in the first place. You don't get credit for admitting the obvious after the fact. Foxboro citizens don't want you to "cure" violations, they want you not to commit them. Higher standards would be appropriate here.

Kudos to DeVellis for trying to avoid ugly conflict, but in the end it was the wrong move. Now Foxboro citizens are waiting to see who steps up to be the real leader of their dysfunctional board.

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