North Attleboro Turnout Reflects on Government

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Friday, April 5, 2013

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

           

            North Attleboro held an election this past Tuesday, but hardly anyone noticed.

            Town officials are bemoaning the fact only 9.6% of the more than 18,000 registered voters bothered to cast ballots this week.  They are talking about what they have to do to get people to vote.  On Tuesday night, Election Commission Chairman Kevin Poirier said “This is downright disgusting.  It’s the lowest we’ve had in quite a while.”

            He is right, it is disgusting.  But it is also largely the fault of the election commission, the selectmen, and other town officials who have continuously and consistently given voters more than enough reason to stay home during local elections. 

            North officials had the opportunity to do what several other area communities have done and move their local election to April 30^th to coincide with the statewide senatorial contest.  They could have saved money, made it more convenient, and almost guaranteed a larger turnout – which is what they keep insisting they really want.

            But the commissioners recommended against it, citing aging voting machines, confusing ballots and the strain on election workers.  The selectmen agreed, and thus North’s voters will be called to the polls twice this month instead of just once.

            Selectmen placed a non-binding question on the ballot asking voters yet another variation of the same question they have been answering for over a decade – should the town change the form of government?  Of course, they asked it while providing absolutely no details, how much it would cost, how it would take place – minor things like that.

            If your town officials would rather make things easier for themselves than you, why should you bother to vote?  And if your government isn’t going to listen to what you say, why should you keep saying it? 

            The answer to both questions is – because it’s the right thing to do.  Regardless of how dysfunctional or self-serving their local government may be, North Attleboro voters have a responsibility to participate in selecting those who run it.  Giving up and staying home helps no one.  There simply is no valid excuse for the horrible turnout this past week.

           

            But when 85% or more of your voters stay away consistently over the course of a decade or so, you can’t just lay the blame on them.  The turnout problem reflects poorly on the town as a whole, and the town government in particular. 

            North Attleboro voters certainly turned out for the presidential election last year.  They have a history of making their votes count in state elections as well.  The problem is not that they are disinterested in politics and government, or don’t care about their taxes or services.

            The problem may well ben they just don’t think their votes on the local level really make any difference.

            Just a couple of months ago, I wrote the following regarding local elections:  “You might think town officials would be happy when the turnout is much higher.  My experience is that is not necessarily so, though most won’t admit it.  The feeling is often that the “regular voters” are being overrun by the folks who usually stay home during the local contest.  In a weird kind of reverse logic, that is often seen as undermining the local election.”

            I believe that is the case in North Attleboro, perhaps to an extreme.

            North Attleboro officials got the turnout they deserved, and probably wanted.  They continue to offer voters meaningless non-binding questions which produce meaningless non-binding answers and solve nothing.  They continue to refuse to centralize authority in a government that obviously needs just that.  They continue to appear more concerned about maintaining the status quo than giving the majority of voters what they want and need.

            When having a total of three contested races for over 100 RTM seats is considered an improvement, your governmental system has real problems.  North’s RTM attracts neither candidates nor voters in any great volume.

            Better advertising of the election is not the answer.  Voters are not stupid or oblivious, they just think participating in their local government is a waste of time.  And sadly – on many fronts – they keep being proven right.

            Hey North Attleboro officials – you want bigger turnouts?  Try giving your citizens a better government.

           

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

Gay Marriage Now All About Politics

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday, April 1, 2013

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

A decade ago you could barely find a politician who would publicly favor gay marriage. Today, elected officials are jumping on that bandwagon faster than Pink Hat Red Sox fans hop on board in the middle of a pennant race.

The former President who signed the Defense of Marriage Act now says it should be repealed. The current President has come out in favor of gay marriage and has refused to enforce federal rules designed to prevent it. And recently the conservative Republican senator who was almost the party’s vice presidential candidate came out in favor after his son came out about his homosexuality.

The United States Supreme Court is deciding a case that could make gay unions legal across the country. Yet judging from the tone and content of their public questions (not always a good barometer) it seems they are merely trying to delay the inevitable until they believe more of the country is willing and able to accept it.

In other words, the battle over gay marriage is – at this point – pretty much all about politics.


That is hardly a new or shocking revelation, but the obviousness of it now is so much clearer than it was just five years ago. That is sad, because for the people directly affected by it this has never been about politics. For them it is about love, life, commitment, and equality.


Gay people want the right to marry their same-sex partners and have it recognized by the government. They want the right to inherit, the right to medical visitation and decisions for spouses, and for their families to have rights equal to those given to heterosexual families.


Quite honestly, it doesn’t seem like a lot to expect. And it is rather amazing they even have to be asked for anymore.

This is not a religious issue. America has no national religion. Allowing gay civil marriages does not damage any specific faith, other than perhaps some religion’s sensibilities. No one is being forced into any kind of marriage, homosexual or otherwise.


Yet our leaders have approached this basic civil rights issue as though it was a newfangled nuclear weapon. Justice Anthony Kennedy said during the recent proceedings, “We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more.” And Justice Samuel Alito asked of pro-gay marriage lawyers, “You want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution, which is newer than cellphones or the Internet?”

These justices are selectively utilizing history. Gay marriage may be relatively new, but gay people and gay couples have been around almost as long as the human race. To somehow claim the effects of officially recognizing something that has always existed is going to harm those who believe it is immoral or too expensive is just wrong and repulsive.


How long does it take to properly assess whether denying rights to people based upon nothing but their sexuality is something this country should continue to do?


To answer Justice Alito’s question – no, you should not render a decision based upon those things. Instead you should render a decision based upon the law and the principles of equality upon which this country was founded. Stop worrying about what the people might be ready for, and instead concentrate on what they need.

It is hard to fathom what the big deal is here at home in Massachusetts, where gay marriage has been legal since 2004. Yet legally married Bay Staters are refused the rights granted to heterosexuals on a federal basis and in other states.

Public opinion is evolving on this issue. A majority polled now believe same sex marriage should be legal across the country. But frankly, that is not a good reason to make it so.

The reason it should be legal and recognized is because civil marriage should be a right afforded all Americans.

Gay marriage does no harm to the so-called “traditional” part of the institution. In the late 1960’s the Supreme Court ended discriminatory laws against interracial marriage, helping a split nation move forward.

It is time for a highly divided and terribly politicized court to once again step up and do the same.


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

School Committee Better Get Story Straight

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Friday, March 29, 2013

AN INSIDE LOOK
By Bill Gouveia


When the Attleboro School Committee made a mess out of getting rid of Superintendent Pia Durkin, it was hard to imagine them looking any more dysfunctional and secretive. But in trying to hire Durkin’s replacement, they have done just that.


Despite being handed two candidates, the committee was unable to make a decision on who to hire last week. Only the members themselves know why, because they chose to conduct their deliberations behind closed doors where the public could not view what should have been the climax of this arduous process.


The committee voted (not unanimously) to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing bargaining with non-union personnel, meaning they were going to discuss a contract for whoever the new superintendent would be. It would be a violation of the Open Meeting Law to discuss the comparative strengths or weakness of the finalists in secret session, or to make the actual choice.


After the closed meeting, Chairman Michael Tyler announced “there was no consensus on either finalist” and said another meeting would be held with an eye towards making the decision.


Of course, that raises some interesting questions: If all the committee talked about in this closed meeting was contract negotiations, how could they possibly reach a “consensus” on which candidate to hire? How can they negotiate or even plan strategy until they know who they are negotiating with?

Choosing a school superintendent is a very important and difficult task. Attleboro knows this, since they have done it several times in the last two decades. In fact, the next superintendent will be the 6th appointed by the school committee in the last 16 years. That’s a lot of superintendents in a relatively short span.


While the process is complex, choosing between two finalists is not. Each member evaluates them and votes for the candidate of their choice. It is a weighty responsibility, but ultimately you have to make an actual decision. It’s one or the other – or perhaps scrapping the process and starting all over. This is arguably the most important thing any school committee does.


Several members expressed surprise there was no decision made. Member Ken Parent said he was disappointed. Vice Chair Brenda Furtado said she was “disgusted”. The agenda did call for a public portion of the meeting to discuss the candidates, but it apparently never got that far. And again, the question is – why?


On their web site the school committee talks about the superintendent search being inclusive of the public. Their statement says “The search will incorporate a high degree of public engagement, with every constituency wishing to share their views on the process having ample opportunity to do so.”

Yet apparently the “public engagement” does not include allowing their constituents to observe what should be the public process of choosing between the finalists.

In fairness to the committee, they did have their lawyer present during the closed session. And the generalities of any potential contract do need to be worked out in private and in advance before anyone is hired. But they cannot and must not deliberate in secret on who to hire.

It is difficult to understand how they did not do that when after the meeting they spoke about not having “a consensus” on the choice. How would they know they don’t have a consensus unless they deliberated and discussed it? And where did this concept of a “consensus” come from?

Member David Murphy said he believed finding a consensus was important, rather than choosing the new superintendent by “a razor-thin majority”. While he is entitled to his opinion, the fact remains only a majority is required to make the hiring. How can any member know if there is a majority, razor-thin or otherwise, unless they have discussed the actual appointment?

This process may be highlighting why Attleboro has had trouble hanging on to school superintendents. But more disturbing is that it gives the appearance they have been less than totally open in their deliberations.


The school committee needs to come out of this process with both a good superintendent and the trust of the voters they represent. Based upon their performance, the latter may be more difficult to achieve than the former.


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

Our Attitude on Gambling is Hypocritical

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday, March 25, 2013.

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

          We New Englanders are generally known for our thriftiness, directness, and love of our professional sports teams.  We tend to be straightforward folks, and what you see is pretty much what you get.

            Well, most of the time.  But when it comes to the topic of gambling, we are among the larger hypocrites.  We tend to say one thing, but do another.

            New Englanders have always been a bit on the puritanical side.  That is part of the reason why there are few if any real casinos in our part of the country.  But make no mistake about it - we are no strangers to gambling.  Not by a long shot (pardon the pun).

            In this general area gambling officially thrived for many decades.  In Taunton and Raynham, two dog racing tracks existed within a short drive of each other and prospered for many years.  They also employed many people on both a full and part time basis, and were an accepted (if not highly regarded) part of the community.

            Closer to home, Foxboro was host to a harness-racing horse track for several decades.  It was a well-attended facility that eventually ran into disrepair before it closed shortly after the original stadium was built.  It also served the local economy, providing jobs for many locals.

            Naturally, there was the other side to these entities.  They made money by taking it from people willing to risk it.  No doubt many a paycheck was lost in search of that elusive big score over the years, and many an angry spouse cursed the fact they existed.

            But gambling is not primarily a sin of geography.  Just take a ride down Interstate 95 one day and count the number of Massachusetts plates on cars in the parking lots of Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun.  Or stop at Twin Rivers in Rhode Island and do the same.  And what does that tell us?

            It tells us we Bay Staters love to gamble.  Not all of us, of course - but a pretty large number.  We have the most successful state lottery in the country.  Ask any gambling expert from places like Las Vegas or Atlantic City about New Englanders, and they will tell you we are known for our gambling.  The casinos love to see those from the Northeast coming for a visit.

            That does not make us bad people.  But as much as we may love gambling, we don't like to admit it and don't seem to like it too close to home.  We apparently enjoy the fact we can claim we don't have gambling here, but with a short trip can still enjoy it.

            The problem is we and our state don't benefit when our gamblers leave the Commonwealth to have their fun - but the other states do.  Now we face trying to locate casinos within our borders so we gain our share of the revenue it provides, but at the same time continue to maintain our hypothetical purity.

            That attitude is making it difficult to get casinos licensed and built here - along with the sad fact that everything costs more to do here than in other states.  Between decision-makers who constantly have their hands out, and those worried about their community's moral values being compromised, the process is taking a lot longer than it should.

            Now to be sure, gambling has its severe problems.  It can become addicting and has contributed to the break-up of families because someone can't control themselves.  I know I have seen it affect my family and friends, and we aren't just talking about casino-style gambling here. 

            But gambling can be compared to activities involving alcohol and tobacco.  We don't ban those activities, nor do we refuse to allow them within our state borders.  Instead we regulate them.  We tax them.  We control them.  And part of the revenue we collect from them we funnel into efforts to educate the public about their dangers.

            That makes a lot more sense than blaming the facilities or state officials for giving so many what they have clearly wanted.  

            State and local officials should spend more time protecting our wallets than our morals.  But you wanna bet they don't?

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

Mansfield Chief Search Too Limited

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday, March 18, 2013

AN INSIDE LOOK
By Bill Gouveia


Congratulations are in order to Mansfield Police Sgt. Ronald Sellon who was recently chosen to be that town’s next Chief of Police when current Chief Arthur O’Neill retires at the end of this month.


The new chief is a veteran member of the local department, and brings tremendous experience and expertise to his new position. Being familiar with the department and the personnel, he will no doubt be able to hit the ground running and make the transition a smooth one.


Town Manager William Ross had the important task of making the appointment. He said he conducted an extensive process including interviews with the candidates and other law enforcement officials, as well as a full day of assessment center activities provided by an outside source. He noted the difficulty in making a choice from among the finalists.


But with all due respect to the three in-house candidates, by its very nature the search was quite a bit less than “extensive”. That is not to say the best possible candidate wasn’t chosen, but it is asking the relatively simple question: “How can you know that for sure, when you really didn’t look?”


Mansfield is a Civil Service department, and the chief’s position is governed by that body and those regulations. Mansfield’s “search” for police chief candidates never went beyond the halls of its own police station. The reason is – at least largely – because it is almost impossible to do so when working within the arcane, obsolete and unfair restrictions and guidelines of Civil Service.

Most people agree that when searching for a town manager, police chief, fire chief or other skilled local position, it makes sense to give some preference to in-house candidates. After all, they have working knowledge of your system. You no doubt have invested money in training them. In many cases, they are residents and taxpayers in your community. It not only fair to give them some type of advantage in the search process, but it is beneficial to the citizenry to do so.


When searching for a town manager, Mansfield conducted a truly comprehensive search. They did not limit themselves to managerial candidates currently working within the government. As a result they hired Ross, an outsider who has won considerable praise for his performance. They have conducted similar searches over the years – with varying degrees of success – for other positions such as school superintendent, town treasurer, and other professional jobs.


But when it comes to picking police and fire chiefs, Mansfield – like so many other towns – allows itself to be virtually restricted to those they currently employ. Because the town accepts the provisions of Civil Service, it must also accept an inferior search process and rules which are so slanted towards employees and against management as to be almost laughable in today’s world.


Conducting a search beyond those currently working for the town is not in any way disrespectful to those employees. They should always be given fair and perhaps even more than equal opportunity to win these coveted positions. But is is just plain wrong and unfair to local citizens to run a closed search, where the results are rigged to limit the candidates before the process even begins.


It is entire likely that even if a search across Massachusetts or New England was conducted, the new chief would have come from the in-house candidates. So supporters of that system point to the time and money saved in keeping the search limited and local.


But what do you lose by limiting yourself? You lose the perspective an outside candidate may provide. You lose the opportunity to gain experience other candidates may have picked up from their work in other communities. You unnecessarily shut yourself off from a possibly great pool of choices based upon nothing but geography.

Many towns in this state are not Civil Service. Mansfield officers can apply there to be chief, but skilled officers from other communities cannot apply for the Mansfield job? It seems silly, because it is.

Civil Service does let you hire outside candidates, but not without tremendous difficulty. Mansfield and other communities would do well to rid themselves of this antiquated and corrupt system.


In the meantime, Mansfield has an excellent new chief despite a search that never left town.


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

Buying A Mattress A Tiring Experience

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Friday, March 15, 2013.

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia


I am an out-of-touch shopper when it comes to most items of the household variety. It constantly amazes me how much things cost.


Now, talk to me about an HDTV or an updated computer, and I’m okay. Even new cars are something I can be conversant about pricewise. But get into furniture, curtains, carpeting or flooring – and I am lost. Just ask my wife, she’ll tell you.


That’s why the past few weekends were such a shock to me as we went out to buy something everyone has in their home – a mattress. Our old mattress dates back to one of the Clinton administrations, and was clearly in need of replacement. I remembered vaguely what we paid for our king-sized bed back then, and figured things couldn’t have changed that much. My wife just smiled and said we’d go shopping.

As I recalled, mattress shopping was a simple thing. You go to a store, you try out a few in the display room, and you pick the one you like. I tend to go for a softer sleeping surface, while my Beloved prefers a firmer mattress. I figured we’d debate, discuss, compare the alternatives – and then she would tell me which one we were buying. That’s how it usually works.

However, things have apparently changed a bit since we were last in the market. Upon entering a local store, we were guided to a computer where we entered our name, age, general physical characteristics and other information. We were then escorted to a small bed adjacent to the computer, where we were instructed to lay down one at a time and be “measured” for our perfect sleep fit.


That surprised me and immediately removed me from any comfort zone I might have been in. As I grudgingly reclined on the bed, I felt a bit like a large fish being hung on a hook at a dock to pose for a picture. A small television screen above my head extolled the virtues of this sleep system and the importance of selecting the right mattress.


I was told the results of this “screening” immediately pinpointed what kind of mattress we needed. To say I had my doubts would be an understatement, but I played along. After all, this had the potential to shorten my shopping experience. That is almost never a bad thing.


We were then shown to several of the displayed products for more traditional testing. The task now was to agree on a specific mattress we could both live with for the next decade or so. As with most things, that would prove to be more difficult than anticipated.


We proceeded to do the Goldilocks routine. I said the first bed was too hard, my wife declared the second bed too soft, and I was hoping the third would be just right. But when I saw the price, I decided we needed to do more shopping. She just shook her head.


The following weekend we went to a different store and went through a similar experience. Once again I was “measured”, though by this time I was convinced the colored lights were just a scam and looked the same for everyone. But I dutifully listened to the analysis of how I could now be shown the perfect sleep surface.

We were thorough and careful in our consideration. We tried several beds, and finally settled on the one my wife really liked. I thought it might be a bit firm for me, but it did seem comfortable during my brief sampling. So we made the purchase, though it felt like they should at least include dinner and movie for the price we were paying.

The bed was delivered and my Beloved was thrilled. Truth be told, I liked it a lot when I went to sleep those first few nights. On the third night I awoke about 4 am wondering why my back and shoulders felt like they had been beaten severely for an extended period of time.

It’s been a week or so, and I’m getting used to it. I am barely hunched over when I walk now. My wife says we can make an exchange if I want.


I’m afraid she may mean me.


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

Seekonk Board Just Can't Get It Right

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday, March 11, 2013

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

Careful attention should be paid to the current fiasco passing as a political race for selectman in Seekonk. The contest and the performance of the board as a whole (and each member individually) have been textbook examples of what happens when arrogance and self-promotion become more important than serving the public good.


Each Seekonk selectmen’s meeting seems like little more than a chess match, with members seeking to position themselves and others in such a way as to maximize their own political advantages. The strategies are not exactly complex or complicated, giving the board itself and the town government in general the appearance of being a poorly organized and slipshod operation.

Worse than that, it looks like the citizens of Seekonk are actually the last thing most of these folks are worried about. They are merely yet another tool to be used by self-serving politicians who over-estimate their own importance and under-estimate the intelligence of their constituents.

Take for example the recent “controversy” surrounding the date of the Annual Town Meeting. Selectmen were forced to cancel the meeting hours before it was scheduled to begin on February 25 because of an unthinkable clerical error. Apparently none of the selectmen who signed the original warrant bothered to actually read it and thus did not notice it had no date and time on it.


Having served as an area selectman, I can’t stress enough how silly this is. Selectmen should always check the documents they sign. Town Meeting warrants are among the most simple of those. This mistake was a huge embarrassment for both selectmen and their staff.


But selectmen then made matters worse by rescheduling the meeting to March 25, which happens to be the first night of the Jewish holiday of Passover. After doing this, they began to have second thoughts when both candidates running against the incumbent chairman put out press releases denouncing the move. Further community pressure forced them to hold an emergency meeting and again change the date, this time to March 27.

Of course, they couldn’t even do that right. Board members sparred about the change, trading silly statements. There were charges of violating the doctrine of Church and State, warnings the town might be sued for delaying voting on school issues, and complaints that notices of the changed date had been submitted to the newspaper before it was voted. It seems the last thing they were concerned about was a date when the greatest number of citizens could attend.

Then Chairman Francis Cavaco continued the nonsense when he chose not to participate in a televised cable access candidate’s forum because he believes the organizers were conspiring against him. In a press release issued after he failed to show, Cavaco said the debate’s coordinator is “part of a group of elected officials, town employees and longtime activists who have a stake in protecting the longtime status quo at town hall.”


While acknowledging all questions in the debate came from local media members, Cavaco said it would have been too easy for the coordinator to “selectively submit reporters’ questions to the moderator that would put me in a bad light.”


When the chairman of your board of selectmen is either unwilling or afraid to answer questions submitted by the media in an open debate before the voters, you have serious problems. If you can’t handle yourself in an ordinary debate of the issues in public, how do you expect voters to have faith in your ability to manage their public affairs?

A huge part of being a selectman is dealing with people who may not like you and may not have supported your candidacy. If you are more worried about being cast in “a bad light” than you are about allowing the voters to see you engaged in an open discussion of the issues, then you should reconsider your commitment to public service.

The only way to improve things on the Seekonk Board of Selectmen is for more voters to get involved in the local political process. They need to turn out in force for the upcoming April 1 election, and continue to do so after that.


It’s time Seekonk voters started telling selectmen what to do, instead of the other way around.

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

The Sequester is All My Fault

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Friday, March 8, 2013

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia


I have had enough of this “Sequester” stuff. It has to stop. This madness cannot continue. So I am going to end it right now in the only way it can possibly stop.


I am taking the blame. The Sequester is my fault.

That’s right, I did it. I wrote the law, I pushed for it, I personally enacted it, and I lobbied for it in Congress. I forged the President’s signature on the actual bill. I take full responsibility. You now all know exactly who to blame. Bury me under a mountain of abuse, release your frustrations, and attack my character, reputation and abilities. I am guilty.

I kidnapped executives at both Fox News and MSNBC and forced them to spew angry rhetoric designed to do nothing but inflame their respective political bases. I faked a phone call to Bob Woodward and got him mad at the President. I made Speaker Boehner cry.

So please – for the love of all that is good in this world – move on now from politicizing this critical issue and start actually solving it.


President Obama is officially off the hook. So is Speaker Boehner, Senate Leader Reid, all cabinet officials, every member of Congress and the head valet at the White House. You are all hereby officially absolved. You shoulder no blame. Now get to work.

Everyone in Washington agrees the Sequester cuts as they currently exist are stupid. The amount of money is workable, but not the actual plan. Heck, when I personally devised this plot I did it because I thought no one would ever allow this to happen. But then it did, and now I need all you heroes in Washington to clean up my mess and return us to some form of sanity.


Nothing has happened as of yet on this crucial matter because the blame always got in the way. After all, what good does it do the President and the Democrats if we reduce our spending in a big way but the Republicans get the credit? And how humiliating would it be for congressional leaders on the right if this “Socialist” president somehow managed to address spending?

I get it – it doesn’t do either side any good unless they can get credit for it. And that means the other side has to get the blame. In Washington, the easiest way to make yourself look better is to make your opponents look worse. It’s not what you accomplished that counts, but rather how you voted. How can you win your primary back home unless you totally toed the party line?

That’s why I’m willing to take the political hit here. I know it’s probably going to cost me my shot at the presidency or even a senate seat, but I’m just going to have live with that. I can’t sit back and watch this circus anymore. I have to do something, and this is the only thing I can see being even slightly effective.


Mr. President, please call a joint press conference with the Speaker to denounce me. Explain how what I did was so diabolical and evil that it forced you two and your parties to work together to undo the harm I caused. Senate Democrats and Republicans - join hands on the steps of the Senate Building and sing patriotic songs while celebrating the way you have removed me from the scene. Explain to everyone what a wonderful thing it is that the last obstacle to common sense governing has been eliminated.


I am so ashamed. It was a very bad thing I did. You were right to rip me, to highlight my misdeeds. I don’t know how I ever imagined I was going to get away with such a stupid plan. Thank goodness you found me out and can now undo all I despicably did for my own political gain.

Yes, the Sequester was all my idea. It was 100 percent my fault. I was only stopped through the incredible and devoted efforts of this unique group of leaders we have today in Washington. We are so fortunate they are in place protecting our interests.


And by the way – it was my idea to hire Bobby Valentine last year too.


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

Plainville Feeling Foxboro's Hand In Pocket

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on March 4, 2013.

AN INSIDE LOOK
By Bill Gouveia


Mitigation – it’s a word being tossed around quite a bit recently in terms of what area towns may expect if the Plainridge Racecourse in Plainville is awarded the highly sought after slot machine license in Massachusetts.

According to Dictionary.com the word “mitigation” is defined in the following way:

1. The act of mitigating, or lessening the force or intensity of something unpleasant, as wrath, pain, grief, or extreme circumstances: Social support is the most important factor in the mitigation of stress among adolescents. 2. The act of making a condition or consequence less severe: the mitigation of a punishment.


In this instance mitigation is being used to describe what could be done to compensate area communities for the “impact” locating a gambling facility of this type might have on them in various ways. The town discussing it most right now is Foxboro, with selectmen recently having state gaming officials visit to explain how they can benefit.

Selectman Chairman Jim DeVellis said, "This is not an adversarial position, but rather an opportunity for the developer to work with Foxboro so their application is complete and comprehensive when it reaches the commission for their review."

That’s a nice way of putting it, but seems disingenuous at best. It sounds much more like Foxboro is trying to put itself in a position to either oppose Plainville’s project or benefit from it in ways not possible if this were any other kind of development. And that seems – well, a tad selfish.

The traffic generated by the proposed slot house in Plainville is dwarfed by the traffic generated by Patriot Place throughout the year – forget the traffic which occurs during Patriots game days and other stadium events. Plainridge is located on Route One, right at the intersection of Interstate 495. While some small roads in Foxboro could see some increase, it is difficult to imagine an overwhelming influx of new cars.

Did Foxboro offer Plainville “mitigation” when Patriot Place opened? Or when the stadium opened, for that matter? Perhaps they did, but I don’t recall it. It is interesting Foxboro seems to expect it now. DeVellis said, “At the end of the day there is going to be one slot house in the state so [Plainridge's] study is saying they’re going to be pulling business from everywhere and if they’re starting to pull business from Patriot Place then I think that’s another impact.”

Really? Is Plainville and Plainridge supposed to protect Foxboro from allegedly losing some business at Patriot Place? Did Foxboro “mitigate” any loss of business other local shopping centers had when Patriot Place opened? Or is this strictly a one-way street?

Another recent statement made by the Foxboro selectmen chair was regarding the impact of having a slots gambling facility located close to town. “I think it was said well at the meeting by someone that if one of our kids is more prone to gamble in the future because they abut a slothouse, that is a real impact," DeVellis related.


This is a bit confusing, coming from a community that for decades was home to one of the state’s premier harness racing tracks – which is exactly what Plainridge is today. Foxboro Raceway stood at the current stadium site for many years, and Foxboro happily accepted the revenue it provided. Now a similar operation with the addition of slot machines, which is scheduled to generate no income for Foxboro, is somehow a moral threat to the community? How convenient.


Plainville Town Administrator Joseph Fernandes said he is wary area communities may “seize on an opportunity they would not have in other circumstances” to grab some “mitigation” cash. He stressed he was not saying this was what Foxboro officials were doing. Others – like me – are not quite so sure that isn’t the case.

Like Foxboro, Plainville officials were presented with a unique revenue and business proposition. Unlike Foxboro officials, they chose to listen to the opportunity and allow their voters to make an informed final decision. Foxboro should make their concerns known to their Plainville neighbors, then butt out and let Plainville voters have their say.

The eyes of Foxboro may well be upon Plainville, but the hands of Foxboro should – for now - stay out of Plainville’s pockets.

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

Mansfield Boards Feud Helps No One

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Friday, March 1, 2013

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia


The recent political battle between the Mansfield Board of Selectmen and the Conservation Commission they appoint should have been waged on one the town’s playgrounds rather than within the walls of town hall. At least then all the silliness put on display would have a more appropriate backdrop.

Mansfield selectmen were unhappy with their Conservation Commission’s performance. Specifically, they were angered by the commission’s use of outside counsel to advise them on a specific issue, as well as whether or not proper procedure was followed in instituting regulations. They instructed town counsel – which really is a misnomer, since in most towns that attorney works for and under the guidance of the selectmen – to “investigate”.


Counsel did as his selectmen requested, and selectmen made sure they had much public discussion about the report. They apparently wanted the commission members to come to the selectmen’s meeting and have a discussion about the selectmen’s concerns. There is confusion and debate over whether or not the members were actually invited to gathering, but the situation quickly deteriorated from there.


Selectmen also responded to complaints they claim to have received from residents and others who have appeared before the conservation commission. According to selectmen chairman Olivier Kozlowski, many of these complaints involve allegedly unfair or rude treatment and were anonymous. Kozlowski and his board felt compelled to address these complaints in a very public fashion despite their mostly anonymous nature. Kozlowski wrote that his board “will continue to monitor this situation.”


Well, good for them.


It is difficult to judge the validity of anonymous complaints against public officials. Unless they involve serious crimes or misconduct (and none has been alleged in this mess) they need to be documented by those who make them in order to be taken seriously. As Kozlowski himself noted, they usually stem from those who did not get what they wanted from some public board or official.


That does not mean they should not be taken seriously. And there is nothing wrong with passing them along to the official or committee in question. But if you are going to accuse a board or individual members of such behavior, you have an obligation to give them specific examples and allow them to know just who is doing the accusing.


Some selectmen were extremely upset the Con Com members did not show up to be questioned. “Why don’t they come in here so we can look at them face to face and have these discussions?” asked selectmen Jess Aptowitz. Before the meeting was over, selectmen had voted 5-0 to suggest the commission go over the regulations in question with town counsel and the town manager in hopes of correcting any problems.


Which raises the pretty obvious question: Why didn’t selectmen just do that in the first place?

Could it have been because they wanted to try and pressure and influence the committee members they appoint? Why couldn’t this have been worked out in a professional manner between the town manager, the conservation agent, and the two chairmen? How does it serve the public interest to have two bickering boards blasting each other in the newspapers and on cable TV?


The saddest part of this story is that commission member Michele White was caught in the crossfire. She was recently not reappointed when her term ended, clearly and unquestionably a victim of local politics. Chairman Kozlowski said of her non-appointment: “Under the circumstances, a majority of the board felt that sending two new faces to the seven-member board, both of whom were present when we discussed these issues with the commission, would have a greater impact.”

This seems to say Ms. White was knocked off the board not based upon her qualifications, but rather by the desire of selectmen to have the conservation commission run the way selectmen want it run. That is a very shoddy way to handle appointments, and discourages good people from stepping forward and offering their services to the town.


The conservation commission may well have made mistakes. Selectmen are right to want to make sure any mistakes are corrected. But when they do it in a way designed to shine the spotlight on themselves, they do neither themselves nor their constituents much good.




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

North Attleboro's Government Getting Worse

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday, February 25, 2013

AN INSIDE LOOK
By Bill Gouveia

On April 2 North Attleboro will hold a municipal election and once again present voters with some non-binding ballot questions regarding the structure of town government. This is yet another sad commentary on what has arguably become the worst and least representative town government in this area.


North has an elected 135-member Representative Town Meeting legislative form of government, with a five-member Board of Selectmen and a weak town administrator position. This past year a dedicated and concerned group of citizens formed a committee that conducted what was termed a “successful effort” to increase interest and turn out candidates for the town meeting seats. These posts usually feature few if any contested races and no candidates at all for a large number of positions.


These good folks worked hard, and the results were significant. But their “successful efforts” must be viewed through the prism of reality. Success in this case means there are fewer town meeting member positions with no one at all running for them. In terms of actual contests and true choices, there are few if any. The bottom line is North Attleboro voters have consistently shown little to no interest in their current form of government over the last decade or so.


And why should they? North Attleboro’s town government is largely made up of longtime local residents and special interests more intent on preserving the present than forming the future. That is hardly unusual, but in this case is extreme. Town government has a long and well-documented history of ignoring the expressed will of the people and manipulating their votes to mean what town officials want it to mean.


Over the years selectmen have put multiple non-binding questions before the voters. The questions asked are usually vague and eventually meaningless. The results have proven not to matter, since local politicians and citizens just put their own spin on them and do what they want anyway. So why do they do it?


Simple – it’s a great political maneuver. It allows them to appear they are listening and empowering the voters, while in actuality preserving and protecting their own positions and power bases. And since it is all non-binding – what’s the harm?


Selectmen John Rhyno typified that attitude in his recent remarks. When explaining his vote to place more non-specific and non-binding questions on the ballot, the veteran selectman said, “It never, ever hurts to ask voters what they think. I don’t have a problem asking the voters 20 times because the last time I knew, we answer to them and they’re in charge.”


Selectman Rhyno’s comments are just wrong on so many levels. First, if you have to ask the voters something 20 times, you are doing a really bad job of posing the question. Secondly, if the voters are actually “in charge” then why do you need to make their vote non-binding? And finally, it does indeed hurt when you keep asking pretty much the same questions over and over while ignoring the answers you don’t like.


One of the questions to be on the upcoming ballot is” “Do you want a mayor form of government for the town of North Attleboro?” How in the world are voters supposed to make an informed decision on that vague question without being told at the very least the following details:


What will the powers of the mayor be? Will there be a town council or a town manager also? Will the mayor’s position be a full-time paid spot? What other town positions will be changed or eliminated? How long will the mayor’s term be? How would the transition take place? What is the financial impact of such a change?


This process is dumb. There simply is no other better word for it. It is insulting to the citizens of North Attleboro, and an embarrassment to town government.


It seems the people of North Attleboro are constantly being blamed for not participating enough in their government. The truth is, their government spends a great deal of time and effort making sure their participation is limited. Their leaders are more than happy to let them make decisions – as long as they don’t really count.


North Attleboro doesn’t need more non-binding ballot questions. But it sure could use more real leadership.
Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Riding Out The Blizzard Wasn't All That Easy

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Friday, February 22, 2013

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

When we were preparing for the recent blizzard at the Gouveia household (population now down to two) we were readying ourselves for the worst.  What we got was far from that, but still enough for me to complain about.

With as much as three feet of snow expected, we grudgingly engaged in the "storm preparation" process.  My wife was much more loath to do so, not believing we needed very much.  I was far more concerned about having sufficient food in the house, and kept insisting we needed to make a visit to the grocery store. 

I may have expressed this concern verbally once or twice to my Beloved (or it could possibly have been 10-15 times, I'm not really sure).  We were driving home together when she finally saw the wisdom of my words and pulled the car into the supermarket parking lot.  When I then told her I was missing the Bruins game, she expressed a few things to me - and did so pretty directly.

When the hurricane struck last year, my wife went out and brought a generator.  It served us well for the four days we went without power that summer, and we were determined to be ready with it during the blizzard.  We filled it with gas and made sure we had extra containers in case of any lengthy outage.

Of course, we then forgot to move it from under our deck to a place where it could be operational before the snow came.  We were very fortunate to not lose power during this storm, because moving a heavy generator after two feet of snow has fallen is not as easy as you might think.  It was not one of our finest moments in planning.

While we did not lose power, we did lose internet and cable.  This was a catastrophe for me, as it prevented me from doing two of my favorite things:  Browsing the net and watching television. 

I read most newspapers online, along with many different webpages.  It helps me stay up with current events, as well as providing me with information for my twice-weekly conversations with you good readers.  My computer was still working, but I could not use it as my portal beyond the snow and ice.

Fortunately my iPhone was still operational, and through my wife’s phone we were able to set up an internet “hotspot” which gave us access.  So I was able to get my column to the newspaper office despite not having my usual internet connection – which may have pleased some of you and disappointed others.

As far as keeping ourselves entertained, we did have some shows taped on our DVR.  However, we went through those quickly the very first night.  Then we turned to our seldom-used collection of DVDs in an effort to pass the time, but discovered our DVD player was not working properly and kept freezing up every ten minutes.  Frustration levels were high in the Gouveia household.

This left us few options, and in fact forced us into the unthinkable:  We had to actually talk to each other at length with very little going on in the background.  We were almost forced to look at each other while we spoke, and provide our undivided attention.  While my wife claims this was not a new experience for her, I have to admit that for me it was venturing into waters uncharted for quite some time.

I will cop to doing a bit of reckless law-breaking over that weekend.  Against the expressed directive of our honorable governor, my Beloved and I ventured out for a ride on Saturday morning to see what it looked like around town.  We were in awe at what Mother Nature had done to our small community, and it was an adventure getting back up our 300-foot driveway upon our return.  It’s a good thing we have a reliable plow person who eventually showed up and cleared the way.

Did I learn anything from this experience?  You’re darned right I did.  As soon as the driving ban was lifted, I went out and bought a new DVD player.  After all, I can’t be letting this happen again anytime soon.

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

Republican Winslow Following Brown's Path

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday, February 11, 2013.

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia


When it comes to races for the US Senate, the Wrentham/Norfolk area has played a major role in producing republican candidates. Now there’s a sentence you would not have used ten years ago.


Former Wrentham selectman Scott Brown moved on to succeed Ted Kennedy in the Senate, before ultimately being defeated this past year by Elizabeth Warren. Now current state representative and former Norfolk town moderator Dan Winslow has jumped into the short but critical race for the senate seat left vacant when John Kerry became Secretary of State. The parallels are both obvious and fascinating.


Winslow was elected to the state legislature to fill the spot vacanted by Richard Ross when he moved to the state senate to replace (you guessed it) Scott Brown. Both are republicans who stress their “independent” streak. Both are entering statewide races after potential candidates with far greater name recognition and political experience declined to run. Both will experience their first attempt at higher office in a special election with a drastically reduced campaign period.


But while they share similar political stories, they are different in their political styles.


Both are lawyers, but have followed different career paths. Brown was not active in the political arena in a legal sense, while Winslow has served in some high-powered public legal positions. He was the former chief legal counsel to former governor Mitt Romney from 2002-2005 and also served as presiding justice of the Wrentham District Court.


Where Brown was relatively low-key during his brief local and state political career, Winslow has gone out of his way to garner publicity and be noticed. Brown filed little in the way of legislation during his time on Beacon Hill. Winslow has sponsored a slew of bills, though few of them have made it very far in the legislative process. Brown was primarily known for his personality and blue-collar image, while Winslow is known for his ability to navigate the political scene and promote both himself and his positions.


Winslow revels in being known as “an idea guy”, and promises to bring that ingenuity and pluck to the senate. He has shown a willingness to get involved in many political issues, often through unusual means and methods. Last year he said he was personally hiring a former state police detective to investigate the man slotted to be the executive director of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, though he would accept public donations for the same purpose.


Known for his unquestioned intelligence, quick wit, and political shrewdness, Winslow is a good candidate for state republicans after their high-profile candidates have declined to run. Winslow understands the importance of public relations in politics, and does not shy away from that aspect.


With the election to be held in the spring, the senate campaign promises to be long on politics and short on issues. There will be the usual stuff, with the eventual candidate from both parties decrying the “gridlock in Washington” and promising to pursue change. Winslow will enjoy an advantage in that regard if he is the nominee, since whoever wins the democratic nod will be an incumbent congressman with a political record to attack. Winslow’s political career thus far is long on ideas and philosophy, but short on actual achievements and legislative accomplishments. It is one thing to make suggestions, but yet another to make them happen.


Winslow is a former town moderator, and I had the pleasure of meeting him at a gathering of the Massachusetts Moderator’s Association. During his time at the helm, Norfolk’s Town Meeting underwent changes designed to reach out to voters and get them involved. This is a skill candidate Winslow will have to again utilize as he tries to convince voters across the Commonwealth he is the right person to represent their interests in Washington.


After being involved in Scott Brown’s campaign, Winslow knows well the enormity of the task before him. But he has the right attitude to take it on, and anyone who underestimates him will do so at their own peril.


There won’t be much time for Dan Winslow to work his PR expertise on voters, but he apparently comes from the right area of the state. You think it’s something in the water?


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

Norton to Dediciate Park to Local Hero

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Friday, February 8, 2013

AN INSIDE LOOK


By Bill Gouveia


We use the words “thank you” so much that we sometimes need to be reminded of their real meaning.


We thank people for things they do, things they express, and even for extending us the simple common courtesies everyone expects. It’s a nice thing to say, and even nicer to hear when said sincerely.

But sometimes saying “thank you” just isn’t enough. Sometimes we need to go further, to demonstrate our heartfelt and overwhelming appreciation for someone. Sometimes actions speak much more loudly than words, and when what someone has done requires a real and tangible symbol of our gratitude.


That is the position the Town of Norton and its citizens find themselves in, trying to say “thank you” to departed hero Master Sergeant Gregory Trent. Master Sergeant Trent was a 1992 graduate of Norton High School who lost his life in service to his country in Afghanistan in August 2012. According to town officials, he is the first son or daughter of Norton to lose their life in battle since perhaps the Korean War or before.

Master Sergeant Trent was no ordinary soldier, if indeed there is such a thing. His list of accomplishments and awards are far too lengthy to list here, but included: The Bronze Star, The Purple Heart, The Defense Meritorious Service Medal, four Good Conduct medals and a host of others. He was a true American hero in the very best sense of the term.

Now his town struggles to find an appropriate way to thank him and recognize his brave contributions. So Norton formed a Gold Star Committee charged with honoring not only Master Sergeant Trent, but others who may make the ultimate sacrifice for us at home. They have decided to dedicate a piece of town property to be named “Master SGT Gregory Trent Memorial Park”.


Located along the main road in the center of town, it will feature a monument dedicated to Master Sergeant Trent and any future Norton soldiers who may tragically perish in defense of America. The plan is to inscribe on the monument “A place of solemn reflection dedicated by a grateful community”.


The park and the monument will be built with private funds raised by committee members and local citizens and businesses. It will truly be a community project, a grassroots effort undertaken by people with no motive other than honoring those who stood in our place and defended us all.


There will be a raffle to raise money for the worthy cause held at Clark Center on the campus of Wheaton College Saturday, March 16th at 6:30 pm. Those wishing simply to make donations to the memorial park effort can do so by writing a check to Town of Norton/MSG Trent Account and mailing it to Norton Town Hall, 70 East Main Street, Norton, MA 02766.


In a special fundraising effort, bottles of wine bearing the name and picture of Master Sergeant Trent are available for sale with a portion of the proceeds going to fund the memorial project. They can currently be purchased at The Swirling Wine store on Route 123 across from the proposed park as well as ordered by the bottle or the case. A 5K road race is also in the planning stages, to be held in May.


The Gold Star committee hopes to raise enough money to create a perpetual care fund to keep the park maintained. It is the equivalent of lighting an eternal flame honoring Master Sergeant Trent. And while we all fervently hope no one else has to die in battle, we know they inevitably will – and this park will stand in tribute to their sacrifice as well.


This effort will be made up of Norton citizens, former citizens, businesses, and those from other places who wish to honor Master Sergeant Trent. But it will largely be a uniquely Norton tribute to one of our own. It will be a reminder to those who knew him, an inspiration to those who look to his example, and a lesson to the young children who will grow up learning his legacy in the Norton of the future.


It will be a proper expression of the phrase “thank you”.


Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and a proud lifelong resident of Norton. He can be reached at aninsidelook@aol.comand followed on Twitter at @BillInsideLook.

In Foxboro, there ain't no free lunch

By Bill Gouveia

It’s not easy being a selectman in Foxboro these days.  Having an NFL stadium in your small community is certainly prestigious and economically advantageous, but as the old saying goes:  “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.”

Town officials find themselves constantly forced to adapt to a quickly changing world, one private business is much better equipped to handle swiftly and efficiently.  That is most recently demonstrated in the pending lawsuit filed against both the Kraft Group and the town by a collection of folks who claim they were improperly held in custody within Gillette Stadium by Foxboro police.

The suit charges the town and Police Chief O’Leary with negligently detaining concertgoers without valid cause.  While neither police nor selectmen can comment on the lawsuit itself, officials have in the past defended the practice of taking patrons into protective custody when they appear to be a possible danger to themselves or others.  In the past the town and the stadium owners have been accused of not providing enough security or safety for those who attend events.

Kraft officials will not comment on whether or not they support the actions of Foxboro police inside the stadium.  The organization has an agreement with Foxboro that indemnifies the town against lawsuits arising from the granting of licenses for stadium events, with the exception of “negligence, gross negligence or willful misconduct of the town parties.”

Stadium owners are refusing the town’s request to be indemnified in this case, citing the charges of negligence or worse being alleged.  However, they are offering to provide the town with an attorney and pay that expense.  They are not agreeing to cover damages if the town or the chief loses the case.

Kraft Group spokesman Jeff Cournoyer said, “Our agreement with the town does not require us to indemnify the town in that scenario, but because we value our relationship with the town, we offered to defend them in the case.”

Selectman Chairman Jim DeVellis has a different view, arguing there has been no finding of negligence and thus the Kraft Group should be indemnifying the town against possible damages.  He added that Foxboro’s legal representatives are currently in discussion with Kraft Group lawyers over the matter.

Given the circumstances, it certainly appears the stance taken by the stadium ownership is reasonable.  The suit does allege willful negligence and misconduct by town personnel, albeit on stadium grounds during a licensed event.  The offer to pay for attorney fees relieves the town of any financial burden – unless the suit is found to have merit and negligence did occur.

Of course, the offer to defend is not totally unselfish by the Kraft Group.  They have a large stake in the outcome of the suit, and in many ways their interests and those of the town coincide.  If Foxboro prevails in the suit, that helps the Kraft organization.

But at some point, the interests of the two parties could possibly diverge.  That is why Foxboro officials must make certain that regardless of who is paying the bills, their eventual counsel will be 100 percent on their side.  Even if the Kraft Group writes the checks, there must be no question that counsel for the town and the chief must be prepared to possibly take actions not to the liking of the party actually paying them.

That is not unusual.  Town officials are often represented by counsel separate from the municipality in lawsuits, but paid through the city or town.  Sometimes their interests go in different directions.  I know – I have been a party to such a situation.

But to expect the Kraft Group to say they will pay any damages awarded as the result of any negligent conduct by town employees committed willfully while in their official capacity is just silly.  If that were the actual agreement, police officers and others would have complete immunity from any bad acts.  They could do anything they want, and stadium owners would have to bear the ultimate responsibility.

There has been no finding of any willfully negligent actions or behavior by any town entity charged in this suit.  As long as that remains true, Foxboro has nothing to worry about in their indemnification deal.

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

Columnist and Wife Divided Over Cell Phone

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Friday, January 25, 2013

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

My wife and I have become a split family. It happens to the best of us, but in this case I blame her. She just won’t listen to reason.


You see, I have an iPhone. My wife has a Droid. It’s amazing we are even able to live in the same house. This clash of technology is resulting in what the legal world would call “irreconcilable differences”.

For reasons relating to my job, we are on different cell phone plans with different providers. My wife thus has the choice of going with any phone and any wireless company she wishes. She has chosen to use one of the Droid phones and a different provider, despite the fact I have an iPhone and we share an iPad. I am having trouble understanding the logic behind this.


Of course, looking for logic may be my first mistake. Not that my Beloved doesn’t have what she considers to be some sound reasoning for staying away from the popular iPhone. But logic is often in the eye of the beholder, and over the last four decades we have learned we have very different definitions of the term.


My wife says she likes the features on the Droid. I’m not sure how this can be, since she uses so few of them. There is no doubt the phone has amazing capabilities and is better than the iPhone if you are a geek doing complicated things in cyberspace. But my better half is far from geeky, and her trips into cyberspace are more like John Glenn’s orbiting the earth than Neil Armstrong’s landing on the moon.


The iPhone is easy, and gives us non-geeks limited geek potential. It allows you to perform a myriad of complicated tasks with relative simplicity of operation. In other words – it’s great for the “older generation” like myself who want things to happen, and aren’t overly interested in exactly why or how they happen. Touch the button, do what it says, and reap the rewards. It’s my kind of phone.


And since my youngest son has an iPhone and an iPad, we are able to “Facetime” with our beautiful granddaughter with a minimal amount of difficulty. No logging in to Skype and fretting because we can’t remember our password and don’t want to store it (because there are no doubt evil villains in the world desperately seeking to gain advantage through illegally obtaining our Skype password). When you live a good distance from those you love, it is a great tool.


And utilizing “The Cloud” is terrific also. Taking a picture on my phone and having it show up on our iPad is amazing, and sharing photo albums in that manner with family is also a wonderful thing. My wife loves the iPad and uses it fairly regularly, although in truth my nearly five-year-old grandson (did I mention his name is William?) is better with it than either one of us.


But she will not join the iPhone family, for reasons which again are crystal clear to her but a bit murky to most of the rest of us. Of course, I have my own theory about why she will not come over to the “I” side. And it has absolutely nothing to do with technology, cost, or ease of operation.


I think she just doesn’t want to have the same phone I have.


In the faraway world she seems to reside in so much of the time, this would be a bad thing. It would be the equivalent of admitting defeat and moving over to the dark side. It would be surrendering a portion of her individuality, and almost admitting I might be right. That – trust me here – is simply not going to happen.


So we argue about it. I tell her the iPhone would enable her to communicate more directly with her son and his family in Baltimore. She tells me the Droid has a windshield wiper that comes across her screen when it is raining out. I have no good reply to that point.


So we have agreed to separate in this regard. We are still sharing custody of the iPad, but I get it on the weekends.


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

Controlling the Question Key to Gun Debate

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Friday, January 18, 2013.

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia


When you need to win a political fight – and the facts aren’t on your side – you can’t just debate the obvious question. You need to refocus the public’s attention on what you want to talk about. Political battles are most often won by those who successfully frame the question to be discussed before the fighting even begins.


That is exactly what is going on today with the controversial issue of gun control. Both sides of the debate are working very hard, but not just on truly solving the problem. Instead they are laboring to convince the public that the real issue is what they say it is, not what their opponents claim.


Gun control supporters say it is time to limit access to assault-style weapons and large capacity ammunition clips. They want to ban assault weapons, limit devices that carry large numbers of bullets, strengthen and increase background checks, and maximize efforts in the mental health area. They want the debate topic to be: Should we limit the sale of some guns and tighten up gun registration to protect the public?


The NRA and some gun advocates reject that question. They say the issue is whether or not the country will continue to honor the Second Amendment. They claim law-abiding gun owners are being blamed for things not their fault, and that Liberals are using the recent mass shootings to try and take away guns. They want the debate topic to be: How can we stop an over-emotional response to recent tragedies and still protect the “right to bear arms”?


Let’s get something straight here. No one should be blaming guns themselves for any of the awful massacres that have dominated the news in recent years. You cannot blame a gun for being shot. They seldom (if ever) go off by themselves. They are fired by people. The responsibility for the damage they do rests with those people. So those who may be blaming the guns must stop it. And those with the opposing view making arguments like “People die in car crashes, but we don’t ban cars” – you must stop too. Both arguments are just dumb.


Allow me to humbly suggest the real question which should rightfully consume both our politicians and the public at large over the next several months. It’s a simple one, although any answer will be complicated and difficult. The question is:


Can we pass common-sense laws that limit assault weapons and large ammunition clips while maintaining the public’s right to own guns for self-defense and other legitimate reasons, while also overhauling mental health regulations all in the name of making our schools and neighborhoods safer?


I believe we can do it, and I believe we must. I also believe anyone who chooses not to at least try and engage in such a discussion is either selfish, a coward, or both.


This works both ways. Gun control supporters cannot simply jam new laws down the throats of gun owners or anyone else. Guns are an undeniable part of the American culture, and always will be. Those with a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment have a right to that view, and it must be respected. Their concerns must be discussed and addressed.


But a line needs to be drawn on just what kind of weapons can be sold to the public. Guns that fire an incredible number of bullets in virtually no time at all have no place outside of military or police use. And spare me the argument that you can carry lots of smaller clips and reload immediately. Of course you can. But it makes it harder to kill lots of people quickly that way, and in the end – that is a most worthy goal.


Don’t be fooled into believing upcoming legislation is about “taking our guns”. That’s merely an attempt to prey on your emotions and avoid the real issue. Don’t be distracted by those seeking to politicize our very safety.


There is always a price to be paid for keeping our kids and neighborhoods safe. If part of that price is restricting who can own certain guns designed for the sole purpose of killing many people quickly – then we can all live with that.


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

Time for Baseball to Fess Up to What It Is

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday, January 14, 2013

AN INSIDE LOOK


By Bill Gouveia

The recent election (or lack of same) held for the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown has resulted in a renewal and intensification of the debate that has raged through the sporting world for the last few decades: How do you judge the Hall of Fame worthiness of players in what has become known as “The Steroid Age”?

Well, it seems pretty simple to me. You judge them the way baseball players have been judged since Abner Doubleday first threw a few sacks on the ground and created America’s national pastime. You judge them by how they performed on the field, and whether or not they did so within the confines of the rules.


It’s that simple. There should be no confusion about the standards by which major leaguers are judged. Baseball is – more than any other sport – a game of numbers. You score more runs, you win the game. You hit for the highest average, you win the title. You hit the most homers, you are the homerun champion.

But now there is much discussion about the worthiness of players who possess numbers that should easily reserve them a spot in the hallowed halls of Cooperstown. While their statistics are undeniable, we now view their accomplishments as suspect because they may have taken a substance which – at the time they took it – was not against baseball rules. And we can’t put them in the greatest of all Halls of Fame because (gasp) that would damage the integrity of the game of baseball.


Integrity of baseball? Should those words ever really be used in the same sentence without the words “lack of” preceding them? It’s too bad Major League Baseball and the Hall of Fame voters didn’t worry about the “integrity” of baseball when these players were on the field, earning their owners untold millions of dollars. Because when it counted – when MLB had a chance to really show they were concerned about the integrity of their game – they chose to turn a blind eye.

Is there anyone who really didn’t believe guys like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens weren’t taking some type of steroids or performance-enhancing substances during their playing days? I mean, just look at pictures of them early in their careers and then towards the end. Clemens bulked up like a weightlifter, and Bonds had a head that seemed to grow five sizes. Are you kidding me?


But they weren’t suspended by baseball, and they were barely even investigated until the situation could simply no longer be denied. Part of the reason is that early on, there were no specific rules against \what they were doing.


Look, I really don’t like Clemens or Bonds. I think they both pretty much represent what was wrong with professional sports for much of the last couple of decades. They are not role models for our children, and in many ways do not deserve our respect or support.


But this is the baseball Hall of Fame, not the good citizen Hall of Fame. It is a place where great players are honored for their achievements. It is supposed to be a reflection of baseball, not a glorified image of what writers or fans think baseball should have been.


And the undeniable fact is these men dominated their era. Roger Clemens was pitching to hitters who used steroids. Barry Bonds was hitting against pitchers who were using various enhancements. And they did their jobs better than any of their peers, whether those players were partaking of the same substances or not.

No matter what else they are or have ever been, these players are a product of baseball. They played within a system that glorified them when it needed them, and vilified them when they no longer served a purpose. Baseball simply can’t reap the benefits these individuals provided them, and then refuse to recognize their accomplishments.

Perhaps on their Hall of Fame plaques there should be a mention that they were suspected of using steroids. But Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens belong in Cooperstown. If they continue to be denied, then the Hall of Fame becomes nothing more than a carnival sideshow designed to promote a game that in fact no longer exists.

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

Selectmen Prey on Voter's Fear in Foxboro

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday, January 7, 2013.

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

            “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!” – Michael Corleone in The Godfather Part III.

            Al Pacino wasn’t talking about the Foxboro Board of Selectmen when he uttered those words in the worst of the three Godfather movies, but it might apply today.  Every time you begin to believe that esteemed board can’t possibly appear any more overtly self-serving or administratively inefficient, they prove you wrong.

            It has been over a year since selectmen voted 3-2 to refuse to allow the Kraft Group to present voters the option of a casino to be located near Gillette Stadium.  It has been eight months since the Kraft Group announced they were no longer pursing the project after a decisive town election.  It has been almost three months since a Kraft spokesman said publicly, “We are not proposing a casino.  The town doesn’t want a casino.  They have made that clear.”

            Despite all that, selectmen Mark Sullivan and Ginny Coppola last week insisted the prospect of a Foxboro casino is still very real.  Sullivan actually said he didn’t believe the situation had gone away at all. 

“On either side – the ones that want it and the ones that don’t – nobody’s convinced it has gone away,” claimed the board’s vice chairman.

            Apparently Bob Kraft could climb atop a 30-foot tall stack of bibles in the middle of the Town Common on national television while screaming “I’m not going to build a casino” and Selectman Sullivan would still tell people the issue was in doubt.  While no one other than Sullivan knows with certainty his reasons, it is fair to conclude self-serving politics may be at the center of them.

            This board needs local voters to believe the only thing standing between them and the big, bad casino is - the selectmen.  They need voters and citizens to be afraid, and they need to harvest that fear into political support.  After all, what other major accomplishments can they claim?

            They have failed thus far to achieve a solution to the sewage plant issue.  They have reversed course several times on the new town hall.  They have botched negotiations with and alienated one of the town’s largest revenue sources over future development.  They have done little that might convince people to support them.  So they keep the casino issue alive so they can “rescue” the good citizens of Foxboro from a “threat” that in truth no longer exists.

            Selectman Coppola said without the provision that allowed selectmen to prevent the casino issue from being presented to the townspeople, “we could have had a casino jammed down our throat.”  That statement is completely inaccurate and untrue.

            All the selectmen prevented was allowing the townspeople of Foxboro the opportunity to directly make an informed decision on a possibly lucrative development.  The only way a casino could have been built is through Town Meeting action and a referendum.  The only folks who jammed anything (either down a throat or up any place else) was the board of selectmen, and they did it to both the Kraft Group and the voters they claim to serve.

            When Coppola talks of “local control”, it rings hollow.  Pretty much her entire campaign was about denying the voters control, rather than providing it.  The only thing Foxboro voters were “protected” from was the opportunity to make their own informed decision.

            There are no guarantees in life, other than death and taxes.  But Foxboro citizens have to ask themselves an important question:  Who has been more credible over the last year, the Kraft Group or the selectmen?

            Selectmen at first agreed to allow the casino issue to be presented, then reversed themselves.  They threatened to take Kraft-owned property by eminent domain, and then backed down.  They were successfully sued for refusing to allow Kraft representatives to speak at a public meeting.  They and their manager totally messed up (twice) trying to place the infamous billboards out to bid.

By contrast, the Kraft Group said if the town showed it truly did not want a casino, they would abandon the project.  And they kept their word.

The casino issue remains a topic of debate in Foxboro for only one reason – because the selectmen need it to be. 

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