NRA Has No Answer to Real Problem

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Friday, September 28, 2013.

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

 

​According to the executive director of the National Rifle Association (NRA), the answer to reducing gun violence in America is always the same:  We need more guns.

 

​When there's a shooting in a school, they propose arming teachers.  When a disturbed individual shoots up a US Navy yard, the answer is to arm more individuals.  Their reply is always the same, always consistent - and usually wrong.

 

​There should be a clear distinction drawn between the dues-paying membership of the NRA and their political leadership.  People generally join the NRA because they believe in the 2nd amendment, they believe in their right to responsibly bear arms.  They believe they need someone in Washington lobbying for their constitutional position and protecting their rights. No problem there.

 

​But the leadership has become detached from those it represents.  Oh, it still does the basic job those members pay them to do.  There may be no more effective or feared lobbying force in our nation's capital than the NRA.

 

​But those who run it no longer seek to carry out the will of their members.  Instead, they tell those members what it is they really want.  The tail is wagging the dog here, and the result is an organization with tremendous power and influence that no longer feels the need to even pretend to act responsibly.

 

​The NRA today is little more than a broker of fear.  They are powerful because they tap into the innate distrust most Americans have of their government and their fellow man.  That fear is the source of their power, and without it they are nothing more than yet another group of professional influencers trying to make a buck.

 

​Their philosophy is to give absolutely no ground in restricting or regulating gun ownership, regardless of how reasonable any proposal may be.  Even the simple and common-sense concept of background checks - which the NRA supported when they thought they could not stop it - is nothing more than an obstacle to their self-serving goals.

 

​Just days after the deadly shooting in Washington, the NRA took to the airwaves to tell us guns were not in any way responsible.  They told us the blame lies with our system of mental health care.  Or more accurately, they blame our concentration on treatment over confinement.  

 

​The NRA director clearly stated we need to lock up more mentally disturbed people, while at the same time opposing even the most rudimentary attempts to screen them and locate them when they try to buy guns.

 

​Yet most of the NRA's political supporters are the same people trying to limit healthcare availability.  They want the system to find these people, but don't want to spend any money to make that happen.  They want to repeal the law giving access to such care and prevention, while simultaneously complaining about the inevitable result of such an action.

 

​The NRA is hardly alone in practicing this type of fear-based political extortion.  There are many organizations and causes on both the left and the right guilty of the same type of reprehensible conduct and strategy.  The NRA is just better at it than most.  They have turned it into something of an art form.

 

​What kind of world is it we live in when providing healthcare for everyone is something to be repealed and denied, but performing background checks on potential gun owners is seen as outrageous?  We seek to increase the possibility of shooting someone, but decrease the possibility of sick people seeing doctors?

 

​The NRA director is right when he says the mental health system is broken.  He is right when he says we need to better enforce laws already on the books.  He is right when he defends the basic concept of responsible gun ownership.

 

​But he is wrong when he simply espouses more of the product that makes him a rich man as the answer to our societal woes.  

 

​He and his organizational team remain a formidable collection of organized thugs intimidating politicians into doing their bidding.  They don't care about being "right", nor do they make any attempt at it.  They are all about winning.

 

​But if the NRA keeps winning, Americans will keep dying.  It is well past time for reasonable compromise.

 

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

Foxboro Official Needs to Stop Showing Off

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday, September 23, 2013

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

            Foxboro may be “The Gem of Norfolk County” as it proudly proclaims, but the actions of some of their residents and officials concerning the proposed Plainville slot facility are making that good community look more like “The Hub of Hypocrisy”. 

            As the Plainridge Racecourse’s candidacy for the single Massachusetts slot license has risen from the ashes, so have attempts by Foxboro to either derail that effort or cash in on it.  And frankly, some of those efforts have become almost embarrassing.

            Gambling laws in Massachusetts allow for mitigation payments to communities surrounding those who host such facilities, in recognition of the impact they may experience.  This impact includes traffic, strain on infrastructure, and the “social impact” including increased compulsive gambling and various other concerns.

            This is a good idea.  Far too often we worry about such impacts after the fact, rather than planning for them.  Foxboro and other neighbors may well be entitled to some funding for problems created in this somewhat unique situation. 

            That is why Foxboro has a racino committee charged with making recommendations in this area.  Chaired by resident Michael Davison, this group seems to be taking a reasonable approach towards determining the impact and proposing fair and equitable remedies for it. 

However, the same cannot be said for at least some members of the town’s Board of Selectmen. 

Chairman Mark Sullivan was part of the majority of selectmen who refused to even give his fellow townspeople the option to vote on having a full-blown resort casino in town a while back (though he was initially in favor of negotiating, before changing his mind in the face of extreme political pressure).  Now he has become a vocal and arguably rude critic of the proposed Plainville project.

“It’s not what I signed up for as a father in Foxboro, raising children” the selectman said recently of the Plainville bid.  Then he added defiantly, “If we have to start kicking, we’ll start kicking.”

Really, Selectman Sullivan?  Do you think making this an adversarial situation is what is good for your community?  Do you believe implying Plainville citizens are welcoming something to town that is bad for children is the right approach here?  Do you think it might be a bit smarter to do more negotiating and less showing off if your true goal is to better serve your residents?

But let’s put aside the style with which the “mitigation” argument is being advanced here, and concentrate on the merits.  Frankly, it’s difficult to find much beyond the simple and obvious.  When gambling is closer to home, more people are likely to gamble.  It doesn’t take a study to figure that out.

And gambling – like drinking alcohol – can be addictive and dangerous.  Both can lead to financial woes, family problems, medical issues, and social disorders.  No one is disputing that.

But Selectman Sullivan and some others don’t seem overly concerned with the fact Foxboro has more liquor licenses within its borders than most if not all of its neighbors.  There are some 14 or so licenses in Patriot Place alone, not including the license to sell alcohol at Gillette Stadium.  Every day a whole lot of people go to those establishments to drink, and many probably live in or travel through neighboring Plainville.

Does Selectman Sullivan believe Foxboro should pay “mitigation” to Plainville for this?  Is he concerned about the impact of these businesses and the possible social ills they might cause neighbors?  Or is his concern offset by the fact his town receives the revenue they produce, while the racino will mainly benefit Plainville?

Selectmen Sullivan and his fellow town officials were all elected or appointed to represent Foxboro, not Plainville or any other community.  They owe it to Foxboro residents to protect their interests as best they can.

But in doing so they should apply the same standards to themselves and their community as they do to Plainville and the potential racino operators.  And they should quit the hypocritical drama and concentrate on the practical realities of the situation.

Selectmen Jim DeVellis suggested Foxboro “reserve our comments until we hear what they (Plainville) are going to do and hear what their proposal is.”  That’s the type of leadership worthy of “The Gem of Norfolk County”.

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

Congress Needs to Come To Town Meeting

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on September 16, 2013

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

            Congress is the legislative branch of our federal government.  It is where our laws are created, our budget is passed, and decisions affecting each and every one of us are made.  It is comprised of citizens who represent other citizens and exercise awesome responsibilities on their behalf.

            And they have done an awful job of it lately.  In fact, this current Congress may well be the worst and least effective national legislative body in our illustrious history as a nation.  Our congressmen and women have engaged in little serious debate, accomplished virtually nothing legislatively speaking, and managed to alienate a large percentage of the voting public.

            They don’t seem to understand the art of compromise.  They apparently have no ability to work cooperatively in an environment that is often hostile and difficult.  They obviously are in need of serious help and advice.  I think I have an idea that might just aid them.

            Let’s invite the entire United States Congress to one of our local Town Meetings.  It might remind them what the point of being a legislative body is supposed to be – making decisions even when it’s difficult.

            It really doesn’t matter which one.  They can come to Plainville, or Norton, or Mansfield, or Foxboro.  They can stop by Wrentham, Seekonk, and Rehoboth.  They can visit the RTM in North Attleboro.  Each and every one of those deliberate bodies does a better job than our current Congress – which is hardly overwhelming praise.

            I don’t suggest this because our local Town Meetings are models of efficiency.  The truth is many of them are unwieldy, obsolete dinosaurs given the size of the communities they serve.

            But one thing they all share is – they know how to make decisions. 

They generally don’t postpone things, ignore things, or refuse to debate difficult issues.  They tackle all propositions brought before them, even the ones that frankly don’t make a lot of sense.  They understand the need to stay as long as it takes to get the job done.

Each Town Meeting also knows how to pass a budget.  They do it every year without fail.  They do it in times both good and bad, when there are budget deficits and when there are surpluses.  They never sidestep responsibility, never pass the buck to another branch of the government, never make excuses why they can’t do the job entrusted to them.

Perhaps our congressional representatives could watch the imperfect yet democratic way our Town Meetings debate the issues of the day.  Maybe they would learn debate can be controlled and yet still be productive, without all the partisanship and stuffiness Congress seems to treasure above actual production.

Town Meeting has to approve a balanced budget every year without fail.  Congress hasn’t approved a balanced budget since Lincoln was President, or so it seems.  Maybe Congress would be impressed by the fact a few hundred citizens with limited political experience manage to perform this important function annually, while our highly-paid professional legislators can’t seem to do the same.

We could manage to find room in the visitor sections for all 535 members of the House and Senate.  Heck, bring the President and Vice President while you’re at it.  They all might all be well served by a first-hand civics lesson and reminder that the people’s business can be done without the level of political animosity they can’t seem to avoid.

I’m sure Moderator Saquet in Mansfield would allow Speaker Boehner to have a seat up front so he could observe.  Moderator Billian would most certainly welcome congressional members in Wrentham, as would Moderator Martin in Plainville.  Each one of those elected officials or any of their counterparts in the area could provide an excellent example of moving government forward, not sideways.

Our expectations of Congress are not unreasonably high.  What they should be doing is achieved on a local level regularly, though admittedly on a much smaller scale.  It is not the difficulty of their task that is preventing them from success, but rather their unwillingness to do what it takes to make it happen.

So come on down, ladies and gentlemen of Congress.  Let us show you how it’s done.  After all, you really can’t do any worse.

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

Plainville Voters Got A Chance to Vote

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday, September 16, 2013

AN INSIDE LOOK
By Bill Gouveia

Regardless of what happens now in the long and difficult saga of the Plainridge Racecourse and slot machine gambling in the Town of Plainville, one thing cannot be denied.

The people of Plainville, given a chance to study both sides of the issue, spoke loudly and clearly in favor of expanding gambling at the horseracing track located within its borders.  It probably won’t happen, given the politics of the situation and the way they were unfairly cheated by bad management at the track.

But although the potential financial implications are very important for the town and its taxpayers, even more important is that their leaders allowed them the opportunity to make an informed decision.  Regardless of whether a coin ever actually drops into a slot machine at Plainridge, the people have spoken.  There can be no honest debate about whether or not the business in question would be welcomed into the community.

About 37 percent of Plainville voters took the time to go to the polls, even though the likelihood of their decision actually mattering was small at best.  Over 75 percent of those casting ballots voted in favor of allowing the slot machine parlor.  That was about as close to Plainville speaking with one voice as you can get in a situation like this.

A lot of credit has to go to Plainville selectmen and their town administrator for allowing this to occur.  It would have been easy for them to fold their political tents, say they gave it the old college try, and take the easy way out of a no-win situation.  Given all the obstacles thrown in their path along the way, it would have been hard to blame them.

But they did what was necessary to give their citizens the chance to make an informed decision.  They allowed the initial application to go forward and negotiated in good faith to obtain a fair and reasonable contract.  When Plainville voters went to the ballot box, they knew the deal.  They had a reasonable estimate of the revenues, a written document outlining the rules and regulations, and they knew in general what the impact (financially and socially) would be on their town.

When you compare this to the situation in Foxboro, the difference in approach is stark.  Foxboro citizens never got the opportunity to vote on a casino deal because their selectmen never bothered to get the facts and present them.

While they will tell you the election of two years ago was a de facto referendum on the casino issue – it was not.  It could not be because there had been no negotiated deal, no outlining of payments, no written commitment to specific conditions.  Foxboro citizens were prevented from ever knowing what their deal could have been, because their town officials refused to allow it.

Selectmen in that community chose not to give citizens the opportunity afforded Plainville voters, no doubt in large part because of their personal beliefs as to what was best for Foxboro.  But the political aspect was obviously a huge factor also.  Given organized local opposition, Foxboro selectmen reversed their initial position and folded faster than the proverbial “cheap suit”.

There were three other major differences in the Foxboro/Plainville comparison.  First, Foxboro was facing a resort casino – much different on all levels than a slot complex.  Second, Foxboro’s project was to be proposed by an established firm with a strong reputation and financial position.  And third – Foxboro’s town manager manipulated the issue for his own political and professional advantage, while Plainville’s town administrator handled the situation professionally at all levels.

Everyone can argue the advantages or disadvantages of having a gambling facility in your town.  You can weigh the impact of the money, the effect on the community, the traffic, and the moral implications.  It is a difficult decision to make.

Plainville voters made that decision, and they did it without much of the bitterness and divisiveness that has torn apart other communities.  They gathered the facts, discussed it publicly, and decided collectively.

Whether or not the facility ever comes to town, Plainville has set an example for other communities to follow.  When allowed to consider all the facts, people will generally make the choice best for all.

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

Look Everywhere When Hiring Town Managers

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday, September 9. 2013

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

            It’s not easy being a town manager or town administrator anywhere, but it is particularly difficult to hold one of those lofty titles here in Massachusetts.  As with many things in our beloved Bay State, we tend to be parochial when it comes to handing over authority and tax dollars.

            The very structure of our state and local governments here in Massachusetts is pretty much designed to prevent “outsiders” from coming in and messing up the system we have loved and lived with for the last 200-300 years.  When it comes to everything from bidding for lucrative contracts to hiring professional personnel, we tend to stick to the familiar and those nearby us.

            Of course, there is nothing bad or unusual about that – at least when it is done in moderation.  Almost everywhere in the country, local candidates and companies get preference over “outsiders”.  But here we have brought that to new levels when it comes to municipal decisions, particularly on the hiring of chief executive officers.

            It is unusual for someone to come from the Midwest or the south or really any other part of the country and become a town manager in Massachusetts.  It is not totally unheard of (see Mansfield Town Manager William Ross) but is far from the norm.  The reasons usually given are that experience with complex Massachusetts laws and regulations are crucial to being able to properly manage a local community.

            The truth is while that is helpful, it is hardly critical.  While we like to fancy ourselves as more “complex” than the rest of the country, much of that is a myth created to give local candidates and concerns an edge.  A good manager is a good manager, no matter where they come from or where they gained their experience.

            So it might make you chuckle a bit when you see manager after manager recycled through various cities and towns.  Turnover is inevitable and simply comes with this highly political job.  If a manager does his/her job well, they have to burn some political bridges along the way that may ultimately cost them their job.  If it’s stability you want, this is definitely the wrong profession.

            When Kevin Paicos left Easton after 15 years, his exit was hardly graceful.  But it was a love-fest compared to his recent departure from Foxboro after less than three years there.  He had a couple of unremarkable short stays in-between.  Still, he seemed a good choice to many - including yours truly - when Foxboro (just one town away from Easton) hired him as manager.

            Pam Nolan came to Seekonk from Truro, and now is headed to Rhode Island.  The public relations disaster that has been her tenure in Seekonk did not seem to discourage nearby Narraganset from making her their top choice.  Granted that is not a Massachusetts community, but the principle remains the same. 

            When former town manager John D’Agostino left Mansfield, the situation there could not have been any more ugly or disturbing.  Yet he wound up in Abington before once again leaving in a less-than-professional manner after some high profile performance issues.  It makes you wonder how wide the search for candidates truly was.

            The philosophy of “local is everything” goes a long way here in New England.  Our particular brand of Civil Service (though slowly dying a well-deserved death) is a prime example.  Geography rather than qualifications often decide who becomes a police officer or firefighter, or even chief of the department.

            With both Seekonk and Foxboro preparing to search for new managers/administrators, it will be interesting to see what approach each community takes.  Foxboro has discussed hiring a professional company to help with the search, and Seekonk’s post is not even technically vacant yet. 

            If it turns out the best candidate is a Massachusetts resident, each town should hire them.  But these jobs are important enough (and pay enough) to warrant a wide and complete search.  Spending money to fly a potential manager in from some distance for an interview is preferable to eventually paying a six-figure severance package to a local individual.

Almost every candidate brings with them both experience and baggage.  The trick in hiring one is being able to tell the difference.

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

Kids Will Let you Know You're Aging

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chroncle on August 26, 2013

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

            For many of us it is difficult to recognize changes in our behavior and habits as we grow older - unless of course you have been blessed with children.  They usually have no problem stepping up and telling you when you start to exhibit symptoms of aging, either physically or socially.

            When you are a dad with two sons, it’s even easier.  If I ever start to wonder if I’m slipping in any particular area of life, all I have to do is go see one of my boys.  They seem more than willing to highlight any areas of failure my wife may have skipped out of sympathy.

            The fact they are usually correct is no consolation and in my mind no justification for their general honesty and accuracy.  In fact, it just gives me more motivation to live long enough to see them reach my current age bracket.  I want to be able to make fun of them and point out their inevitable shortcomings - assuming I am still capable at that point, of course.

            The examples of this type of thing are easily documented.  It starts when they begin groaning when you make the same corny remarks or tell the same old stories over and over again to their friends or relatives.  The rolling of eyes comes first, followed by the annoying finishing of your sentences, concluding with the sad shaking of the head as if to indicate a deep sorrow for what has been lost.

            I was on the way to a Patriot’s game last year with my best friend and my oldest son when one of the most jarring and memorable examples occurred.  My buddy and I were having one of our usual discussions, like we have thousands of times in front of my son (my boys still call him Uncle Rick).  Then in the middle we were interrupted by incredulous laughter from the back seat.

            You see, our conversation had started about our individual activities of that week and somehow digressed into a comparison of the different medical problems and medication we were each taking.  If you are in your mid 50’s or so, I’m sure you know what I’m talking about and understand how it goes.

            “Oh yeah, I had that done.”  “What medicine did they put you on after that?”  “Do you take it two or three times a day?”  “They say if that one doesn’t work, I’m going to have to go on the same stuff you take.”

            My son was aghast.  “When did you guys get this old?” he asked with more than a hint of glee in his voice.  We exchanged knowing glances and then joined in his laughter – though not as heartily.

            “Wait until you’re our age and have been married for 35 years or so – then you’ll understand”, Rick told him.  My son merely shook his head and went back to his smartphone, no doubt a little bit more worried about his future than he had been before the conversation.

            As much as I would love to ignore this and other warning signs, the age bell seems to be ringing louder these days.  Trying to stay up for Red Sox west coast games is a lost cause.  Mowing the lawn seems to take a bit longer than it did in prior years.  Any alcoholic beverage I drink now usually comes with an umbrella. 

            But I can still get down on the floor and play with my grandchildren, even if I am a bit slower in getting up.  I manage to keep posting on Facebook and other social media, no doubt embarrassing my offspring.  And most importantly, I keep whipping their butts at fantasy football.

            Their mother has not been completely spared from this treatment, although they generally tend to be much kinder to her.  She still thinks she is picked on, but she has it easy.  She no doubt deserves that after being with me for the last 40 years.

            The fact my kids care enough to tease me is in truth a great comfort and source of pride for me.  But please don’t tell them – then they might actually stop.  And that would be the hardest adjustment of all.

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

Mansfield Board Fails in Enforcing Liquor Laws

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday, August 19, 2013

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

            If Mansfield selectmen expect those who sell alcoholic beverages in town to be serious about not serving minors, the board must start demonstrating their own seriousness by imposing severe penalties on those who fail that responsibility.  Their recent actions in that regard have fallen just as short as the efforts of some of their licensees.

            Mansfield Police conducted compliance checks (often called “stings”) back in June.  Eight of the town’s licensees failed that check by selling liquor to two minors without checking their identification properly.  Eight establishments – that is a very high number to have fail this most basic responsibility that comes with this privilege.

            Especially when you consider the fact each business was warned the “sting” was coming weeks in advance.  The element of surprise was not a factor here.  These businesses knew a compliance check was imminent, and they still failed miserably at what is arguably the most important single job of a liquor license holder – making sure no minors are served alcohol.

            So what ended up being their punishment for this most serious and preventable violation? 

            Well, they were forced to accept an official police reprimand.  They got a serious scolding from selectmen.  They were required to provide additional training for all employees.  And they must pass up to two follow-up compliance checks.

            Wow – that should teach them, huh?  No messing around with Mansfield authorities is obviously the clear message here.  These businesses must be reeling under the terrible punishment handed out by the local licensing authority.  And in case there is any confusion – that’s sarcasm being expressed here.

            The reprimand is fine, and should go without saying.  The additional training for all employees is something that should be expected and required from all businesses serving alcohol even if they have no violations.  And having to pass at least two follow-up compliance checks?  That’s not a punishment.  It is what they were supposed to do in the first place, and what most of their competitors obviously have already done.

            The bottom line is these license holders got off easy - so easy it raises the question of whether selectmen are providing enough of a deterrent to prevent future offenses.

            In fairness to selectmen, they accepted plea agreements negotiated by police officials and recommended by town counsel.  Negotiating the plea does spare the town any possible appeals, including the expense of a possible hearing before the ABCC in Boston as well as legal fees.

            But Selectman Doug Annino had a good point before the vote when he said, “We’re cognizant of the alcohol problems we have in this town, but these violations were an easy thing to prevent.  Considering the seriousness of the offenses, I don’t think the recommendations go far enough.”

            He was right – they did not.  Annino and member George Dentino initially backed a proposal to issue a one-day suspension, but in the end the milder negotiated settlement was accepted with only Annino voting against it.

            Chairman Jess Apowitz told the businesses during their hearings, “If you’re here again, it’s not going to be a pretty sight.”  While all parties appeared to take that warning seriously, you have to wonder about its long-term effectiveness.  It rings hollow given the selectmen’s weak action.

            Aside from the message it sends liquor license holders, the selectmen’s decision also might have an effect on young people throughout the community.  Underage drinking – at places like the Comcast Center as well as neighborhood stores and restaurants – has been a major problem in town.  There have been deaths associated with minors abusing alcohol, and no one takes that problem lightly – especially each selectman.

            But actions speak louder than words.  It is possible a one-day suspension might have been harder to enforce.  It also might have hurt some of these businesses that are struggling right now in a difficult economy.  Everyone makes mistakes, and most of us deserve second chances.

            But when you accept a liquor license, you also accept the awesome responsibility that comes with it. 

            Selectmen Annino had the right idea.  These situations cried out for suspensions.  The punishments did not fit the crimes.  The message sent was the wrong one for everyone in the community.  

            The license holders were wrong, and the selectmen compounded their error. 

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

Seekonk Selectmen, Administrator Need to be Professional

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Friday. August 16, 2013

 

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia
 

            Seekonk Town Administrator Pam Nolan is looking for a new job.  She may need it sooner than originally planned.

             Nolan has been in Seekonk just over two years now, and apparently has had enough of the raucous and personal politics prevalent there.  She is currently a finalist for the position of town manager in Dracut, and was previously a finalist in both Topsfield and Maynard before those jobs were filled.

            While interviewing with Dracut selectmen, Nolan described Seekonk’s political climate as “miserable”.  She told them she was looking for a community with more political stability to allow her to focus on being a professional.

            Frankly, the best way to focus on being a professional is to actually act professionally.  That generally includes being careful about criticizing your current employer, also known as “biting the hand that feeds you”.  But sometimes it is difficult to be truthful and careful at the same time.

            At least some Seekonk selectmen were not happy with Nolan’s candor with her potential new bosses.  Both Chairman Nelson Almeida and member Dave Parker expressed disappointment over her remarks. 

Parker said Nolan did to the board “what she wouldn’t want anyone to do to her.”  Almeida called her remarks “disrespectful to our elected officials here in Seekonk”.  He added her statements “may make it difficult to find a new administrator for our town.  A potential candidate reading a response like that may not want to work for our town.”

Nolan’s remarks did not seem to be disrespectful to any individual elected official in particular.  If Selectman Almeida or any other official is taking the reported remarks personally, they perhaps need to thicken their political skins.

Their resentment of Nolan’s actions and statements is easily understandable.  But with all that has gone on politically in Seekonk over the last few years, it is pretty clear any potential replacements won’t have to even know of Nolan’s remarks in order to have concerns about taking this job.  All they have to do is read a few newspapers and talk to anyone in town to discover they would be walking into a hornet’s nest.

First, the job itself is structurally weaker than a town manager position.  The selectmen exert a lot of control over the day-to-day operations.  One of Nolan’s main complaints is the “micromanaging” that goes on with the board.  While that claim is not unusual for town administrators in general, it is particularly valid in Seekonk.

From failing to publicize vacancies on town boards and then appointing themselves to fill the spots, to publicly berating town employees beyond what is necessary, to botching even the simple job of setting a town meeting date – the Seekonk BOS has a well-documented recent history that does not put the town in a favorable light.

If a potential candidate doesn’t want to work for Seekonk, it will most likely be more because of what selectmen have done than what Nolan has said. However, there will probably be no shortage of candidates when the job does open up.  But qualified, experienced candidates?  Well, that might be an issue.  Time will tell.

 

Nolan probably should have chosen her words a little more judiciously when describing her current work environment, but it is difficult to argue with the validity of those statements.  And to be sure, she has contributed somewhat to her own problems.  She is not a blameless victim here.

But this should be yet another wake-up call to a board that seriously needs to come to grips with its own issues.  Seekonk’s town governmental structure is disjointed and easily manipulated.  There needs to be some studying done on how to change it for the better, and how to centralize authority in a true professional manager. 

If selectmen believe they and not the paid professional they are entrusted to hire should truly be in charge, then the bevy of problems being experienced will continue.  If they decide to come together and forge a new attitude of consolidating authority and re-instilling confidence in the integrity of town government, Seekonk should have no difficulty attracting excellent candidates for the soon-to-be-open position.

But if they don’t, selectmen need look no further than the nearest mirror to locate the real reason why.

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

The Truth is a Casualty in Foxboro

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday, August 12, 2013

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

           

            Given recent events dominating Foxboro’s town government, a serious and important question has surfaced:  Do government officials have any responsibility to tell citizens the truth these days?

           

            In Foxboro, truth seems to be a rare commodity when it comes to the relationship between now former town manager Kevin Paicos and the Board of Selectmen.  While no one is accusing either party of actually lying, they are both most definitely keeping the truth from the citizens they were sworn to serve.  Remaining to be seen is if they get away with it.

            For those unfamiliar, Paicos and selectmen reached an agreement where the former manager will get full pay and many benefits over the next 11 months for doing pretty much nothing.  This follows many weeks of an unexplained “paid administrative leave” after selectmen declined to renew his employment contract beyond June 30, 2014.  The current agreement contained that year-early clause.

            The board voted not to renew the town manager’s contract just weeks after granting him a raise, and have not explained that.  They refused to give their reasons, other than to say it was their choice.  Both those actions smack of expediency and a lack of courage – political and/or otherwise.

            Why did selectmen deny the option shortly after granting a raise?  Why couldn’t Paicos finish out his final year, like the school superintendent in Attleboro just did?  What had gotten so bad that they agreed to pay him for not working?  Many Foxboro folks would like to know.

            It is easy to understand why Paicos isn’t talking.  Why would he do anything to possibly damage such a sweet deal?  But the refusal of selectmen to detail reasons for their actions in this matter is simply inexcusable. 

            One selectman told me this was just a business deal buy-out, and has happened before in Foxboro and elsewhere.  But in a business buyout, doesn’t someone eventually explain the reasons for it to the stockholders?  And aren’t the voters of Foxboro in essence town stockholders?

            It is true selectmen have to deal with sensitive contract issues.  Often they cannot discuss those matters publicly because of the privacy of employees and the very nature of negotiations, even though they might well like to do so.

            But when Chairman Mark Sullivan was asked why selectmen wanted Paicos to leave, he (like the other selectmen) avoided the issue.  “There’s five members of the board, and we voted unanimously that it was time to move in a different direction,” he said.

Sorry Mr. Chairman, but that’s not an answer for why you set up the taxpayers to take a hit of more than $250,000.  It’s a dodge.  If you can’t or won’t answer that basic a question beyond those words, you have no business claiming to properly represent the local citizenry. 

It has been said and written that hiring Kevin Paicos was a mistake, and the cost of getting rid of him is just something that had to be paid.  That is no doubt at least partially accurate. 

But it has also been stated the current Board of Selectmen is just making the best of a bad situation they inherited.  That is the poorest of excuses.  Two members were serving when Paicos was hired, and four of the current board has given him respectable evaluations in the recent past.

What has also been implied (and in some cases stated) is that the situation would have been worse and more costly had they not settled with Paicos and ended up in litigation.  Litigation over what?  Shouldn’t someone at least publicly explain why the town was leveraged into such a high cost settlement?

While Paicos is now a convenient and deserving scapegoat for virtually all the town’s problems, the truth is this current group of selectmen has performed poorly.  They have mismanaged their own town manager, mismanaged situations with the Kraft Group, and even had problems following the Open Meeting Law. 

If Foxboro voters and citizens decide to accept the non-answers they have been given and simply move on, that is their choice.  But they are being treated shabbily.

Getting rid of Paicos is a good thing, but it does not justify the selectmen’s actions.  The situation in Foxboro is outrageous, and the Board of Selectmen needs to be held accountable.

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

My new grandson and my Aunt Mary

This column appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Friday. August 9, 2013

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

            Some things never get old.  You can experience them again and again while still enjoying the same thrill and happiness you did the first time.  Now for those of you who might be worried where I’m going with this – I’m talking about the unmatchable joy and pride involved with being a grandparent.

            Last week I became a grandfather for the third time (amazing since I’m still claiming to be 39).  My oldest son and his wonderful wife are now the proud parents of Samuel Christopher Gouveia, who joined his older brother (did I mention his name is William?) and his beautiful cousin Avery in the pantheon of my own Grandchildren Hall of Fame.

            Sam checked in at 9 pounds, 3 ounces.  I immediately notified the Kraft Organization to hold a spot open in the offensive line on the 2035 Patriot roster.  By that time he will have graduated from whichever Ivy League school wins the bidding war.  Sam is just as good-looking and brilliant as his fellow grandchildren, something I have easily been able to determine during the first week of his young life.  And each of them is unique and special in their own way.

            Sam had a tougher road to get here than my other two treasures did.  I won’t get into the whole story because it belongs to my son and his family, but let’s just say it took a lot of work, sacrifice, love and tears to make it possible for young Samuel to join us.  I am so proud of what my son, my daughter-in-law and oldest grandson did and accepted in order to complete their beautiful family.

            For me, little changes in terms of my grandfatherly duties.  In essence, I have one more perfect child to spoil rotten.  That is hardly a difficult task, and only gets easier as they grow older.  Having our granddaughter in Delaware makes things a little tougher, but with the proper dedication my wife and I are already accomplishing that worthy ultimate goal.  Distance can’t stop the grandparent-grandchild bond.

            We are fortunate to have our two grandsons living in Norton, and even luckier their parents are so understanding of our obsession with them.  Well, understanding may be a bit strong – tolerance might be a better word.  They have been great at allowing us to be a big part of our oldest grandchild’s life, and we look forward to bothering them just as much over the newest addition.

            In turn, we are thankful for the computer age that allows us to communicate so often with our granddaughter despite the distance.  I am a little worried she will grow up thinking I’m that strange man inside the computer screen, but plan to see her often enough to ensure that doesn’t happen.  And thankfully her parents are fantastic about keeping us all in touch and visiting on a more than regular basis.  It’s not quite like they are around the corner, but it closes that distance considerably.

            You can’t have wonderful grandchildren without first having wonderful kids.  We consider our daughters-in-law to be our children too, and our boys are lucky to have them.  Being blessed with two amazing sons, I guess it only follows that our grandchildren would just as amazing.

            My grandson was born last week, and just days later my Aunt Mary passed away.  She came to this country as a child and lived the rest of her life on my grandparent’s farm in Norton.  She was a symbol of my early childhood, my Portuguese heritage, and my extended family. 

            Her passing made clearer than ever to me the circle of life.  One soul moves on, and another arrives as family ever changes.  It reminds me time is so valuable and fleeting, and wasting it is something none of us can ever truly afford.

            This September my oldest grandson will enter kindergarten, becoming the fourth consecutive generation of the Gouveia family to attend Norton schools.  I hope to be around long enough to watch him, his brother, his cousin and any future little ones grow up and start their own families wherever life may take them.

 Could I possibly ever become a great-grandparent?  Maybe in another 20 years.  You know, when I’m 50.

Bill Gouveia is an aging grandfather and local columnist.  He can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Foxboro Taking Bake Sale Rules Too Far

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Friday, August 2, 2013

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

            The world today is very different from the one that produced my generation.  And yes, I did walk to school every day in all kinds of weather, uphill both ways.  Except for the days I rode my bike (without a helmet, which might explain a lot to frequent readers).

            I’m grateful for the progress we have made in this country over my lifetime with regard to safety and health concerns.  That’s why I accept the need for bicycle helmets, car seats, and background checks on adults who work with children.  The newer rules might be a little more restrictive than those of 40 years ago, but they make a lot of sense.

            Well, many do.  But someone is going to have to explain to me just what in the name of Sara Lee the Foxboro Board of Health thinks it’s doing.

            In case you missed it, the BOH in that community recently released an email announcing that if you want to have a bake sale in town, you must get a permit from their board.  In fairness, they did note the permit is free.  All they require is that you fill out a simple form and comply with some simple rules, all for “trace back purposes” only.

            That form asks for the name of your organization, your name, your address, telephone number and mailing address.  You must give them the date, time and location of the sale, as well as the hours of operation.  You must tell them what items you intend to sell or give away, and you must sign and date the application to attest to the accuracy of the information provided.

            The application informs you that “potentially hazardous foods” such as eclairs are not allowed.  They require you to label all products with the ingredients and the initials of the person who baked them.  On a separate index card you must list what the item is, the ingredients in decreasing amounts, and the baker’s full name and address.  If a brownie, cake or cookie mix was used, you must attach the ingredient panel from the box (including any added ingredients like eggs, oil, nuts, etc.). 

            Boy, that really makes you want to whip up a chocolate cake to raise money for the local church bake sale, doesn’t it?  Well, maybe after you’ve updated your personal liability policy, gotten the minister to sign an insurance waiver, and submitted your medical records for the last five years - but only for “trace back purposes”, of course.

            No one should underestimate the seriousness of food allergies or the spreading of dangerous bacteria or disease.  I do not have any food allergies, but have seen the serious conditions they cause.  And in tracing a dangerous outbreak of any kind of poisoning, there is no such thing as having too much information.

            But this is nuts.  Oh, sorry – I probably can’t say nuts without listing them on the warning label that obviously should accompany any newspaper column.  With no malice intended towards anyone who is just trying to create and maintain the public health, I say with all due respect:  This is crazy.

            If you are really worried about allergies and the spreading of dangerous bacteria, you probably shouldn’t buy that apple pie from the local band parents association.  You also should probably not buy that hot dog at the ballpark or the ice cream from the small stand down the street. In fact if you made vendors list the ingredients of a hot dog on a label attached to the bun, it’s likely no one would eat them at all.

            I admit to ignorance when it comes to problems associated with bake sales.  Perhaps I missed the news coverage of the deadly string of poisonings associated with the miniscule amounts of baked goods sold in small towns like Foxboro.  In fact, in my own personal experience most of those goods end up being bought by the families of those who baked them in the first place.

            I’m sure the Foxboro BOH took the bake sale action with the best of intentions and after careful consideration.  But if there is a label on my next sausage at Gillette Stadium, they’re getting a nasty letter from me.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and has been known to cause irritation.   He can be emailed at aninsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.