Town Meeting Passes Rules Most Did Not See

Know What You Are Voting on...

by Bill Gouveia

(This column appeared in the Sun Chronicle on Monday, October 28, 2019)

Even longtime defenders of the venerable town meeting system of government have to be shaking their collective heads after what happen at the Norton Town Meeting last week. In fact, had I not been there (I’m the town moderator — full disclosure) I might not have believed it myself.

The cemetery commissioners wanted town meeting to accept a newly-compiled list of cemetery regulations. The motion called on the meeting to accept the rules “as filed with the town clerk’s office.” Town counsel said this was acceptable.

There were just a couple of problems. The rules had apparently been filed with the clerk’s office hours just hours before the town meeting, thus making it nearly impossible for most voters to review them. Additionally, neither the commissioners nor anyone else had enough copies of the regulations to give people attending the meeting. In essence, voters were being asked to accept rules 95% of them had never seen.

And yet despite that, by a vote of 70-67, those in attendance did exactly that. They accepted rules they had not seen and that had not been detailed. Kind of reminded me of the old saying about “you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.”

Now, this was not exactly high-level stuff. It was about adopting a list of cemetery rules. Maybe people just trusted officials who told them the rules were just “standard stuff taken from other towns.” It’s not like it was changing a zoning bylaw or voting to build a new school.

But think about it. Norton’s legislative governing body voted to formally adopt a list of rules they never saw and knew nothing about. That’s pretty amazing.

Imagine what would happen in a town like North Attleboro, which recently changed from a town meeting to a town council format, if this had happened there. Suppose a proposal came before the council to adopt a new list of cemetery rules. The councilors were told there was no actual copy of the rules available for them to review, but not to worry — a copy was filed with the town clerk’s office hours earlier, and they can view them later.

And the councilors said sure — and went ahead and voted them sight unseen. Can you imagine the public response that would generate? The charges of failing to do their duty, or even read the regulations before adopting them?

Well, that is what Norton’s town meeting did Monday night.

To be sure, folks at that meeting had the absolute right to do what they did. It is perfectly legal. They violated no rules. Town meeting is free to do as it pleases, whether it makes sense or not.

But this situation clearly highlights one of the obvious flaws in using a town meeting form of legislative government in a municipality the size of Norton.

This time it was just a list of cemetery rules. Who knows what might get through without explanation next time? Is it really too much to insist legislators — even volunteer “citizen legislators” — actually look at what they are voting on?

If local governments start voting on things without reading them, pretty soon we’ll have to start calling them “Congress.”

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

Why The Debate Is Worth The Effort - Sometimes

Why The Debate Is Worth The Effort

by Bill Gouveia 

This column appeared in the Sun Chronicle on Monday, October 21, 2019

“Why do you talk to and argue with that person? It’s a waste of time, they’re never going to understand or change.”

If you have ever posted an opinion on social media, or gotten involved in a conversation concerning government and politics on any level, or perhaps occasionally penned a newspaper column — then you have probably been asked this question before. I know I have, and have probably been the subject of it also.

To be sure, there is some merit in ignoring certain folks. In today’s world where bipartisanship and compromise are seen as weaknesses instead of strengths, it can be extremely frustrating to try and have a conversation about goings on at the local, state or national level without being attacked by those who believe their opinion supersedes the facts. Or those refusing to believe anything that does not reaffirm their own beliefs.

As an opinion columnist, you get used to having your words twisted and misrepresented by certain letter-writers promoting their own political agendas, as happened this past week after I wrote a piece criticizing the president. It’s an indication of how unimportant truth and accuracy is to some.

But despite this, I am not one who subscribes to the “just ignore them” theory of political discourse. It certainly is easier to do that, saves a great deal of time, and probably reduces your blood pressure by more than a few points.

But when we stop talking to those with opinions opposite our own, we make this country’s problems worse rather than better. Doing so surrenders the hard-earned right to engage in serious debate, which is the main principle upon which this democratic nation was founded.

That does not mean you waste valuable time engaging with “professional againsters” who merely want to get you to expend energy arguing for purposes of distraction. Debating “Facebook trolls” or similar types is a waste of time (see: Russian bots, etc.).

I still see great value in debating those I know will never agree with me or change their minds. Truth is, some of these people are my friends. I care about them and what they think, even though I totally disagree. They frustrate me, as I no doubt frustrate them, and I sometimes wonder how they can possibly defend taking the positions they take and spouting the stuff they do.

But if I block them, or ignore them, or unfriend them — what have I accomplished other than making my life a bit simpler? How have I helped advance the public discourse?

Those who disagree with this line of thinking (including many of my family and close friends) are adamant in their opinion that responding to obviously provocative and wrong opinions merely gives credence to both the arguments and the makers. I understand this.

But intelligent, honest debate is a casualty of our current political wars. It won’t come back if we all just stop talking.

So I keep responding to and debating even those I know are sometimes just baiting me. But perhaps I might convince others observing the discussion. Or maybe one of us will convince the other.

But don’t hold your breath on that last one.

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

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email
• Print
• Save

Trump Deserves Impeachment

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

This column appeared in the Sun Chronicle on Monday, October 14, 2019

Ukrainian President Zelenskyy: “We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.”

President Trump: “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.”

That discussion is directly from the transcript of a call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy on July 25, 2019 and released by the White House. A transcript Trump calls “word for word,” a call he says was “perfect.”

Trump goes on to ask Zeleskyy as a “favor” to conduct an investigation into his top Democratic presidential opponent Joe Biden, mentioning him by name and stating “…whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.”

To review, the president of the United States flat-out asked a foreign nation to investigate his political opponent as a favor immediately after that nation told him they wanted to buy more weapons from the US. He asked the leader of that nation to enlist the help of the top US law enforcement official in doing so. All shortly after Trump had unexpectedly cut off aid to this same country, and then under pressure restored it.

As a result of this behavior, and a lot more, the president is on the verge of being impeached by the House of Representatives.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not this particular event with Ukraine rises to the level where impeachment is proper. But only the most partisan of political hacks can argue with a straight face that what Trump did was not wrong and did not compromise the integrity of both the presidency and the nation.

If you still support the president and his policies after this, that’s one thing. If you believe he is merely a victim and did nothing wrong – you are either in denial and woefully uninformed, or just dishonest.

And if you are employing the “but look at what they did over there” defense where you point at others because you can’t defend the president’s behavior — like Trump himself is doing — then you need to grow up. The president of the Unites States has to be responsible for his or her own actions.

Since releasing the transcript, Trump has flat-out lied about what it says. He has changed his story on why he said it several times. He has added China to the mix, claiming they should also investigate Biden.

I have been an opponent of impeaching of Trump. He will never be convicted in the senate, and it always seemed a useless exercise. I wanted to wait for the election.

But this has become a bridge too far. If you are willing to accept his disgusting actions and lies and self-serving ways for short-term economic gain — then you simply don’t care about the integrity of the nation any more than he does.

Donald Trump is a dishonest liar and unfit to be president of the United States. Whether he is removed or not, he deserves impeachment. Our nation needs to stand up to his treachery.

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

Better Buildings in Norton Require Better Planning

This column appeared in the Sun Chronicle on Monday, October 7. 2019

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

            If you have ever stepped foot in what passes for the Senior Citizen Center or the Town Hall in Norton, you probably understand both buildings are woefully inadequate for just about any use.

            The senior center is an old one-room schoolhouse built in the 19^th century.  The town hall is an old gymnasium converted into alleged office space 40 years ago obtained via a donation and a grant.  The senior center has no parking, and officials in the town hall don’t even have private spaces to meet with citizens to discuss their tax bills or other private matters.

            The need to replace both is undeniable, though not cheap.  Town officials have recognized this for some time, but only recently have attempts to actually take firm action towards building new ones become serious.

            But as serious and sincere as those efforts have been – they have been equally flawed and ineffective. 

            The last plan brought before Town Meeting was to construct both buildings on a piece of badly contaminated land abandoned by its bankrupt owner.  The planning leading up to Town Meeting was bungled so badly that the building committee pulled support for its own article just days before the voters overwhelmingly defeated it.

            Now another plan is being advanced, seeking to purchase a small plot of land next to the existing town hall for an estimated $1 million, constructing a new town hall, and simultaneously building a new senior center on town-owned land behind it.  The ultimate cost has yet to be determined, but funds for the land purchase and design will be sought soon.

            Norton voters are not known for their willingness to spend large amounts of money.  They have never approved a general override, and only one debt exclusion since the inception of Prop 2-1/2.  But there is some support for replacing these two totally inadequate buildings.

            Except for one big obstacle.  People want their drinking water fixed first.

            It could be said that any plans to spend large sums of money in Norton are “underwater” right now.  Significant segments of the community suffer from really ugly, brown water.  They have had it for a long time, it has not gotten better, ruined their clothes and appliances, made them fear for their health, and generally ticked them off. 

            They don’t want to hear that a long-delayed filtration plant currently nearing completion “should” solve the problem.  They don’t care that the water department is funded through an enterprise account, not property tax monies.  They want clean water, and they want it now – before committing to other major projects.

            It’s hard to blame them.

            But other needs do still have to be addressed, and it is the duty of the citizenry to address them.  And it is the duty of town officials to present logical, common sense, reasonable solutions. 

            Norton can fix its water, the senior center, the town hall, and other challenges.  But town officials have to come together with a united, logical, practical plan.  Political bickering needs to stop, and the factions dividing Norton have to start concentrating on common goals.

           

            The next proposal to Town Meeting needs to be much better than the last.

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