Time to Zero Out TM Quorums

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on Friday, November 30, 2012.

AN INSIDE LOOK
By Bill Gouveia


About 150 Mansfield citizens took time out of their busy schedules recently to attend a duly-called and posted Town Meeting. Those good folks were there to attend to the business of the town and make many decisions affecting the community as a whole.

But they were turned away and respectfully told to go home. They were not allowed to cast their votes or conduct town affairs. The meeting was postponed until April because Mansfield’s Town Meeting requires a quorum of 200 to conduct business. In essence, the 150 voters who showed they cared were neutralized by the thousands who were otherwise occupied.


That is – in a word – dumb.


Mansfield has over 13,000 registered voters. They are represented in part by a five-member board of selectmen and a five-member school committee. That means three members of either board can carry a vote. Those committees make major decisions which have tremendous impact on the citizens and taxpayers of that fine community.

They can apparently be trusted to do so, but 150 citizens are not considered sufficient to give final consent and endorsement of those choices. It is okay if you have 200 people making these decisions, but not 150. That is somehow not considered a representative group. This is a clear case of favoring quantity over quality.


The idea of having a quorum is to prevent a small number of citizens with possible selfish interests from showing up and dominating the Town Meeting. After all, 200 citizens represent a mere 1-1/2 percent of the total number of voters in town. You have to draw the line somewhere, right?


Wrong. You can take the step many other communities have successfully made and eliminate the quorum entirely. A zero quorum guarantees town business never goes undone and is conducted in an open and straightforward manner. It also means rewarding the participation of those who show up, and recognizing the silliness of creating an arbitrary standard that has proven to be nothing more than a political weapon.

The quorum is presented as a way to guarantee the integrity of Town Meeting, but in fact often does just the opposite. When a meeting runs late or is particularly boring (this happens quite often) many people go home. Those who stand to lose when a vote is taken often ask for a quorum count as a way to delay their defeat and give themselves time to rally more supporters – while appearing to be defending the concept of democracy.

In Norton, a zero quorum has been in effect for more than two decades. The overall impact has been to generally raise the average attendance at the meetings. Sure, there have been a few where participation has been under 100 hearty souls. There have also been meetings where 1500-2000 have turned out. But people know when and where the town’s business will be decided, and the idea of winning by staying away is not an option.


In fact, the fear of a handful of voters showing up and leading the town towards disaster has been a great motivating factor for Norton citizens. People tend to show up just so that can’t happen. Some believe fear and distrust is not the best way to inspire attendance, but the numbers and human nature say otherwise.


Many claim a quorum of at least 200 is needed to prevent special interest groups from “stacking” any particular Town Meeting with their supporters. Excuse me, but isn’t that really what Town Meeting is all about? Isn’t the whole idea to get more people to vote the way you want than the other side does? It’s only “stacking the meeting” if you lose. If you win, it’s a great exercise in democracy.

If you have controversial and “sexy” issues at your Town Meeting, people will turn out. If you merely have the important but mundane business of the town to conduct, you will attract fewer. That’s life and politics – which is exactly what you find at Town Meeting.

Here’s hoping Mansfield and other communities ditch the antiquated quorum requirement for this uniquely New England Town Meeting form of government. If you are going to have a system dependent upon citizen participation, you should accept that participation as it comes.


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

The Sad Demise of Devil Dogs

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on Monday, November 19, 2012.

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

           

            When I first heard that Hostess was going out of business, I was not bothered at all. 

Sure, I have eaten a few Hostess chocolate cupcakes in my day.  And yes, those little powdered donuts are nearly impossible to stop devouring once you start.  But I have never been a fan of Twinkies, the Hostess delicacy that has become the very symbol of nutritionally disastrous yet tasty fare.  The passing of this snack food giant initially seemed to have virtually no effect on my gluttonous lifestyle.

Then I got a text message from my daughter-in-law.  She wrote to express her sympathy that one of my favorite guilty pleasures – Devil Dogs – would be disappearing from store shelves.  I chuckled at her obvious error, and wrote back that my Devil Dogs were safe.  They are made by Drake Cakes and not Hostess, I explained.  I had nothing to fear.

Then she texted back that Drakes was owned by Hostess.  A chill ran up and down my spine as her words crossed the screen of my mobile device.  Surely she was mistaken.  I began to text back to tell her she was wrong.

Then there was a beep, and my eyes went to the Wikipedia link she had texted me explaining the relationship between Hostess and Drakes.  I was stunned.  Yet there it was, undeniable and yet still unthinkable.  And the horrible reality of the situation began to descend upon me like a gloomy storm cloud.

I am now facing the possibility of a future without Devil Dogs.

You may scoff at my plight, and consider it trivial.  But Devil Dogs and I have been best of friends for some five decades now.  The elongated chocolate cake halves and creamy filling have been an integral part of my life.  It is like losing an old friend – even though that friend may not have had the best of influences on you.

When I trudged off to first grade at the LG Nourse School in Norton back in the early 60’s, there was a Devil Dog in my lunchbox making the trek with me.  It was a reassuring familiarity, packed away by my Mom with love to try and make sure I felt safe and secure in my new surroundings.  I ate my sandwich, drank my milk, and then savored my Devil Dog.  It gave me the strength and confidence to work my way through those grueling alphabet drills and kept me running and playing at recess. 

Devil Dogs were often my reward for achieving something or simply getting through the day.  They have been my emotional crutch, one of my sources of support and comfort.  While they may well be largely responsible for my rotund shape and general nutritional failure, they deserved a better fate.  It should not have ended for them like this.

Ring Dings are not my concern.  Yodels are something that should stay in the Swiss Alps.  Funny Bones you can laugh about if you choose.  But Devil Dogs are a genuine piece of Americana.  They are up there with apple pie and ice cream in the Pantheon of snack foods and desserts.  While there have been many imitators who have aspired to copy and capture the flavor and character of Devil Dogs, none have succeeded. 

I remain hopeful Devil Dogs will continue somehow.  Perhaps the brand and the super-secret recipe will be sold to some brilliant and enterprising businessperson.  If Hostess and Drakes had just concentrated on this one special product, they would no doubt still be in business today.  Devil Dogs practically sell themselves.

In the short-term I will be okay, thanks again to my daughter-in-law.  Knowing my plight, she went out and secured a stash of this valuable commodity to tide me over through the initial crisis.  While she does not approve of me gorging, she does understand.

I have not been so depressed and worried since Coke did that stupid “New Coke” thing a few decades ago.  Public outcry saved that iconic product.  Perhaps it can happen again. 

If the government can save GM, it should be able to save Devil Dogs.  Wait until my congressman gets this letter.  But my grandchildren should not have to grow up in a world without Devil Dogs.

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

North Attleboro Needs Centralized Authority

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on November 16, 2012

User fees – particularly in school systems – are never a popular thing. That is especially true with those who have to pay them.



This past year North Attleboro joined the growing ranks of area towns charging students and parents fees for things like athletics, extracurricular activities, parking and other privileges that were formerly fully funded by the community. School officials instituted the fees in the face of growing expenses and slowing revenues, spurred on by efforts to keep the Allen Avenue School open. According to estimates, some 1700 parents forked over the extra charges.

Last month North’s RTM transferred $1.2 million into the town’s saving account, known as the stabilization fund. They did so to try and set aside funds for the uncertain financial future ahead. Any monies in the stabilization account are usually used to eventually offset drops in revenue, large increases in operating expenses, or to fund large capital purchases or expenditures.

But apparently not everyone was impressed by the town’s efforts to plan for the future. Selectman John Rhyno said he was “besieged by phone calls” from parents angry they had paid money when the town apparently had funds to spare. He said the money should be given back to the people who paid it as a matter of trust, explaining “there are a lot of frustrated people out there”.


He also tied the recent talk of a Proposition 2-1/2 override to the fees, stating “that money is going to have to be paid back before that override is going to go anywhere”. He then added that “maybe if you did that, there’d be some trust”.


If Selectman Rhyno and his fellow board members are really concerned about “trust”, they should start by establishing a little more with their elected school committee. They voted to send a letter to school officials asking them if they were going to consider the issue. Considering the deadline for placing an article on the warrant for the January 7 town meeting is November 26 – and the school committee has no scheduled meeting before then – this is a move lacking in substance but overflowing with politics.

For the umpteenth time, the lack of centralized professional authority in North Attleboro is on full display. In most towns the town manager is in effect the budget officer. In North, the weak position of town administrator does not have that authority. That leads to a disjointed process and political grandstanding such as this.


Eliminating the fees going forward is one thing. Taking nearly a half-million dollars and going through the expense of refunding it is yet another. While the selectmen’s desire to return money to struggling taxpayers is laudable, their logic is faulty. Town Administrator Mark Fisher told the board it would take approximately 840 hours to refund the fees, and that it may leave the town short of funds in the future.

More than that, it simply is not their decision. What Selectman Rhyno hopefully told those who “besieged” him with phone calls is to call their school committee members. The fees were part of the budget package voted on at town meeting. It was a policy decision by the school committee. The selectmen do realize they are not responsible for that policy, which is why they are asking for consideration from school officials.


Talk of refunding the fees helping to make a case for a possible override is just silly. If your financial position requires considering an override, why would you start returning funds? Refunding the fees means eventually those funds would be made up via the property tax. You have to wonder if selectmen will be “besieged” by calls from people without kids in school wondering why they have to make up that difference.


Rhyno’s fellow members seemed lukewarm about the proposed refund, backing the request to send the letter but clearly concerned about the politics involved. They agreed the final decision rests with the school department, and Selectman Mark Williamson went so far as to state he did not “want this to be a political hot potato between us and the school committee.”

Let’s hope it is not too late for that. Town policy is not something you change at the last moment after receiving phone calls.

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

Selectman's Facebook Posts Not a Problem

This column originally appeared int he Sun Chronicle on November 13, 2012.

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

Last week in Mansfield, Selectman Olivier Kozlowski came under fire from the school committee and others for comments made on his Facebook page.  The discussion that ensued was an interesting commentary on the use of social media in local government, as well as a textbook example of how to solidify political advantage.

Kozlowski was on the defensive for posts he made regarding the budget sub-committee of which he is a member.  That committee was created to facilitate discussion and hopefully improve communication between the “town side” and “school side” with regard to funding and the splitting of revenues.  This is in the wake of a huge budget disagreement last year, which was settled at the last minute and presented to Town Meeting with little to no public scrutiny.

School committee members were upset not so much at the content of Kozlowski’s comments as they were their context.  The selectman apparently referred to things allegedly told him by other committee members, and openly questioned and discussed what direction should be taken in budget strategy.

School officials said Kozlowski’s Facebook comments were a major problem to their negotiating process with school unions.  They were concerned his continued posting on such matters would inhibit open and honest discussion on the budget, and result in a return to the animosity and budgetary protectionism of the past. 

This is a two-sided coin.  There is no doubt bargaining strategy within a negotiating team should be kept private at least until the negotiations are complete.  That is not “hiding” anything from the public, but merely doing your job properly and professionally.  After all, Bill Belichick doesn’t send his game plan to the other team prior to each Sunday’s contest. 

At the same time, the budget subcommittee is not a negotiating team.  It is a public body formed for the purpose of providing give-and-take on the budget.  You would hope it was also formed with an eye towards changing the way things are done and the philosophy that has dominated negotiations and contributed to budget shortfalls.  Perhaps it might even be a way to gain public input towards shaping the town’s economic plan.

School committee members claimed Kozlowski’s remarks were causing “serious damage” to their negotiations.  Frankly, there is little to nothing in the way of hard facts to prove that opinion is accurate.  While school officials may well believe any public discussion of how they can and should proceed with regard to regulating salaries and benefits for employees is improper, they may also be exaggerating that impact while seeking to protect their education budget.

When the budget fiasco hit Mansfield last year, the real losers were not either the board of selectmen or the school committee.  Those who lost the most were the citizens who wanted good advance information upon which to make solid financial decisions at Town Meeting.  They were forced to basically rubber-stamp something that was a done deal before they even voted.  They were irrelevant in terms of having an actual say.

That is much more of a threat to Mansfield than any alleged undermining of negotiations.  That is an undermining of the entire democratic process.  It happens all the time, and not just in Mansfield.

A cursory review of Kozlowski’s posts do not seem to reveal any secrets or comments that would cause “severe damage” to any negotiations.  Could they anger some of the union leadership and members?  Sure.  Could that then wind up in some type of increased adversarial confrontation at some point in the negotiating process?  Quite possibly.

But it is just as possible the school committee is upset because the remarks somewhat negate the inherent political advantage almost all school committees have.  They come with something of a built-in constituency with regard to parents.  They have a tough and important job, and they work hard to provide the best educational system they can.  Anything that makes that more difficult is no doubt upsetting.

Asking town officials not to personally post anything that can possibly upset negotiations is a wide-ranging request.  Virtually anything can be claimed to affect negotiations.  And frankly, sometimes the whole point is to try and influence negotiations.  It’s called “leadership”.

Selectmen are not students, and the school committee really shouldn’t treat them as such.

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

Foxboro Selectmen Now Totally Transparent

AN INSIDE LOOK

by Bill Gouveia

 When the Kraft Organization, owners of Gillette Stadium and Patriot Place, announced they were pulling out of "negotiations" with the Town of Foxboro, it seemed like a negative for all parties.  But this may be a good thing, especially for the town.

            You see, the term "negotiations" has not fit this situation for some time now.  The truth is Foxboro stopped "negotiating" with the Kraft Group when selectmen decided to not even allow the presentation of a casino proposal.  That was not negotiating - that was dictating.  Since that time, Foxboro officials have adopted that as their official policy.

            Maybe it's because it worked with the casino.  It helped get one selectman booted out, one elected, one reelected, and brought forth a tremendous election turnout.  The selectmen who prevented discussion were certainly riding high afterwards.  Perhaps some of them decided this "get tough with Kraft" policy was the politically wise way to handle all dealings with the town’s single largest taxpayer.

            So since that time they have been tough.  They stalled talks with the Kraft Group over future development at Patriot Place for well over a year.  They formed at least two different negotiating teams, and then disbanded them.  They insisted on negotiating with Kraft officials in public, and then canceled several meetings with little notice.  Some publicly stated they will not make any agreements with Kraft until they get what they think they are owed from the last negotiations.  Unfortunately, their argument they are owed anything is based on what their former attorney called “a social contract”.

            They failed to adopt a plan put forth by their own attorney placing their professional administrator Kevin Paicos in charge of negotiating a deal which they and/or Town Meeting would have ultimately approved or rejected.  They claim to do this in the interest of "transparency" for their citizens.

            Recently the Kraft Group became tired of the political posturing.  They decided "negotiating" in this manner was a waste of everyone’s time and effort.  So they pulled out, saying for now they will restrict the future development of their property to what they can do without "help" from the selectmen or other officials.

            This might cost the Kraft organization a chance at more liquor licenses.  It might prevent them from expanding their retail space along Route 1.  It may well restrict their ability to create additional profits from their business interests there.

            But it will undoubtedly cost the Town of Foxboro the additional tax revenue they would have received with any expansion.  It also eliminates the opportunity for the town to try and get back the $7.5 million the Kraft Group pledged for the building of a sewer plant last time, which Town Meeting turned down when they decided not to build it.  That is a huge potential loss for Foxboro's property taxpayers as well as their current and future sewer ratepayers.  The money has gone away, but the pressing need remains.

            Selectmen and Town Administrator expressed surprise over the Kraft Group decision to no longer participate in the painstakingly difficult process.  Paicos said the board had been ready to once again reconstitute a bargaining committee.  He also reiterated the selectmen were right to insist the alleged and dubious terms of the first agreement be honored before any new one is created.

            So now there are no “negotiations”.  There are no talks.  There are no expansion plans, at least none being discussed publicly.  There is no $7.5 million for sewer construction, nor the current possibility of obtaining it.  There is no public/private collaboration on creating a brighter future for a wonderful community.

            There is just the selectmen and their toughness.  They really showed that Kraft Group who’s boss, right?

            Yep, that’s total transparency.  The citizens of Foxboro can clearly see that absolutely nothing is happening.  Their elected leaders have created a situation where they isolated themselves from their largest property taxpayer.  It will now fall to Foxboro’s residential taxpayers to shoulder the burden of unavoidable future costs.  And the philanthropic Kraft Organization might be a little less so inclined in the future.

            Clearly, this was a good thing.  The selectmen have gotten their wish and created total “transparency”. 

Now everyone in town can hopefully see right through them. 

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

Hometown Parade With Grandson is the Best

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on Monday, November 5, 2012.

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia
If you ever find yourself getting a bit jaded or wondering what life is supposed to be all about, take your grandson to a parade in your hometown. It works wonders in adjusting your attitude.


Recently my wife and I got to take my 4-year-old grandson (did I mention his name is William?) to the Halloween parade in Norton. I am generally not a big parade person, but when you have grandchildren you do these things. So just before noon that Sunday I was in the parking lot of the Chartley Post Office on Route 123 with a very excited child.


Young Will was in full costume, dressed as Wolverine. For those not familiar with Wolverine, this is a character with large yellow muscles, a black and yellow mask, and long claws. My grandson was quick to explain to me that Wolverine is “a good guy”. I was relieved to find out I was not consorting with criminals.

We were a bit early, and I wondered how we were going to keep Will occupied. That turned out to be no problem. Parked next to us was Captain America and The Incredible Hulk, both close to his age. They quickly became friends, running around saving the world and each other as only kids can.

We also met their very nice parents and grandmother. After talking to them a bit, we discovered the mom had gone to Norton High with our youngest son Nate. Then just to drive the “it’s a small world” theme home even further, we found out the grandmother’s brother had gone to Norton High with my younger brother. It was a strange kind of Norton High reunion.



The parade started, and Wolverine and his buddies raced to the sidewalk to see what was coming. They were excited when the police officers and firefighters came by with sirens blaring (though Wolverine was seen covering his ears - even superheroes have their vulnerabilities). They were even more excited when candy began being tossed out of the vehicles, and they began filling their bags and containers.

They enjoyed the bagpipes, and loved the floats full of kids waving and tossing them more treats. I had forgotten just how amazed little kids can be by the simplest things, and it brought me back to a simpler time and place.


For Grandpa, it was a lot of fun. I teased old friend and Town Crier Butch Rich as he led the procession yelling “The parade is coming” – like we were going to miss it somehow. I knew so many of the local police officers and firefighters, as well the local businesspeople sponsoring the floats.



Then came the Board of Selectmen, who I had written about in a satirical manner recently. I’m not sure, but I think they noticed. While tossing candy gently to children along the route, they saw me and began firing candy firmly AT me. It was all in good-natured fun, and I laughed along with them.

Afterwards, as I dried out and prepared for a day of football, I reflected on the big event. I realized my grandson had sat on the side of the same streets where I perched as a kid, watching a local parade go by. I thought about how not every family gets to share these important moments, with our society being so much more mobile and wide-spread these days.

My mind flashed back to a Christmas party held at my house back in mid-90’s when I was a selectman. I remember standing in the kitchen with my son Aaron (Will’s dad) and Fire Chief George Burgess and Police Chief Ben Keene. We were swapping stories, and then Chief Burgess stopped and talked directly to my young son.

“Someday you’re going to be standing around, telling stories about listening to the old fire chief and old police chief in Norton,” he boomed in that unique and full voice. And he was right – but don’t ever tell him I said that. He'd enjoy it way too much.

There really is nothing like a hometown parade to make your weekend – especially when you still live in that hometown. And grandchildren make it all even better.

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

Rep's Remark an Insult to Veterans

AN INSIDE LOOK
By Bill Gouveia

The race for state representative in Attleboro has been a hard-fought and bare-knuckled battle between challenger Paul Heroux and incumbent George Ross.  The two candidates give Attleboro voters a clear choice, as there are wide differences between them.   They have different visions for the city and the state.

Ross is an experienced local politician, and Heroux a relative political novice.  The challenger has been quick to call attention to the incumbent’s voting record, and Ross has responded by highlighting Heroux’s voting record – not as a public official, but as a private citizen.  That has created an interesting discussion of just what voting is, and what should be expected of voters everywhere.

Ross has publicized how many times Heroux has voted since turning 18.  Heroux became of legal voting age in 1995, but records show he did not vote in an election until 2004.  Heroux says he was not motivated to vote until that time in his life, and says he has changed from being apathetic on the matter to now getting involved in running for public office.

Ross has charged the fact his opponent chose not to vote in many elections is an insult to military veterans who risked their lives to protect that freedom.  When Heroux responded by claiming he knows veterans who do not always vote, Ross replied that if you are a veteran and do not vote, “there is something wrong with you.”

It seems pretty clear everyone in this country should vote if at all possible.  It is one of the great rights and privileges we are given in America.  It is difficult to make a difference and a better life for yourself, your family, and your friends and neighbors if you don’t take the time to make your voice heard at the ballot box.

But George Ross is incredibly wrong and entirely off-base when he takes the issue of voting and tries to tie it to our brave men and women serving in the armed forces.  If he wants to take issue with Heroux’s choice not to vote for quite a period of time – that is fair game.  But casting it as disrespect to our veterans and servicemen and servicewomen is petty, political, and a cheap shot of the highest order.

There are many reasons why so many men and women have served our country with such great distinction throughout history.  Protecting the right to vote is no doubt one of them.  But overwhelmingly, the veterans I know have said defending their country and guaranteeing freedom were the biggest reasons they put their lives on the line for the rest of us here at home.  And part of that freedom – like it or not – is the right to decide whether or not to vote in elections.

Ross has a perfect right to hold fast to his own belief, but no right to claim it is the standard by which all shall be judged.  He should know and understand that some veterans come home inspired, and some come home disillusioned.  Some vote in every election after serving, and some vote in none.  But the fact some choose not to vote does not mean there is “something wrong” with them.

I don’t really know either of the candidates in this race personally.  I do not live in their district.  I can’t vote for either one of them, and I don’t know which one would better serve the good citizens of Attleboro.

But I do know exploiting the service of veterans for political purposes is disturbing.  Candidates should concentrate on veteran issues today, as well as things like the state budget, local aid for education, and other areas where as state representatives they can have a direct and meaningful impact.

Raising the issue of your opponent’s voting record is fine.  But using our veterans and the good men and women currently serving in the military as a way of gaining political advantage in a local race is simply inexcusable.  That is far more an insult to them than any lack of voting could ever be.

Here’s hoping that in this final week before Election Day, the candidates can concentrate on the real issues.  Better yet – let’s hope the voters do it for them.

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

You Can't Run Government Like a Business

This column appeared in the Sun Chronicle on Monday, October 29, 2012.

If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times. It is often said about government at all levels. If you believe some, it is the simple answer to many of our pressing societal and financial problems. Yet it always makes me shake my head in amazement. What is this popular theory?

“We need to get businesspeople into office, and start running government like a business.” Yeah, right. Run government like a business. That’s the answer – not.


Trying to run government like a business is a bit like hiring Bill Belichick to be President. He’s got a great and useful skill set – but not for that particular process and goal. He understands the value and need for hard work in order to be successful, but has achieved that success because he controlled and dictated the rules of the organization he has so brilliantly run. Put him in a total government environment and he will have definite problems.

Imagine Coach Bill holding a press conference and having to explain virtually every aspect of what he has done. Or fielding calls from concerned citizens who have helpful suggestions on what should be done. Better yet, try and picture the Patriot coach presenting his budget to Congress and having to lobby for their approval. Like football, government takes a team approach to success. But unlike football, government does not concentrate the power and authority to make the key decisions in the hands of the professionals.


Government is not a business. It is not an entity that is supposed to make a profit. If a government worked perfectly, it would provide for the basic needs of its people and spend exactly what it brings in and not a penny more. It doesn’t try to win, it doesn’t manufacture a product, it doesn’t get handed down from generation to generation (unless of course your last name is Kennedy or Bush).


Government is something unique. It doesn’t have shareholders, it has citizens. It doesn’t have bosses, it has leaders. Government doesn’t have many of the luxuries that businesses enjoy. For the most part, governments can’t “go out of business”. They can’t just wake up one morning and decide they are no longer going to be in the education business or put forth a strong military because it is costing them too much money to do so. When businesses have a product or service they can’t produce profitably – they drop it. They operate under the principle of supply and demand.

When you operate a business, you can make difficult decisions in private. Your deliberations are between you, your staff, and your owners or shareholders. They aren’t on television, there aren’t reporters sitting in the audience ready to write down everything you say. Your every mistake isn’t broadcast to the public at large. Is it any wonder good businesspeople hesitate to commit to public service?

There is no doubt some of the principles of good business also apply to government. But when you run a business and need to buy a piece of equipment, you go out and make the best deal you can. When you need that same piece of equipment in government (at least here in Massachusetts), you have to go out to bid. You find yourself at the mercy of bidders who know they have a captive audience. Just look at the cost of constructing a public building as opposed to a private one.

We say we want government run like a business, but we really don’t. We give our government rules that prevent that from happening. Of course, the reason for those rules is that without them government often falls prey to corruption and cronyism. But the price for transparency in operation is often quite high.

When businesses have great years and do well, they often expand. They add product lines. They employ more people and increase their technological capabilities. They grow into new areas. Government expands too, sometimes to do what the private sector chooses not to do. But the reason is providing service, not making money.


If you want your leaders to treat government like a business, then we all need to act like employees rather than citizens. I don't believe that's really what we want.

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

My Selectmen Take on the UN

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

While reading this fine newspaper recently, I came across a riveting article.  It told how the Norton Board of Selectmen had reversed a previous vote and decided not to locally promote United Nations Day this year because, in the words of my good friend and veteran selectman Bob Kimball, “They aren’t making any effort whatsoever to protect the citizens of the world”.

Well, thank goodness we in Norton have the board of selectmen to protect us from these foolish endeavors.  I shudder to think what could have happened were not the selectmen standing ever vigilant at the gates of town, preventing ineffective organizations from gaining the huge advantage and supreme status of being specificallyrecognized in the global community that is Norton.

Having served as a Norton selectman, I know the tremendous pressure board members are under to issue these much sought-after royal proclamations honoringcauses and institutions.  There can be little doubt adding the Norton selectmen’s approval elevates them to the next level.  

I join our distinguished selectmen in saying I do not think the UN has done a great job over the last decade or so.  And as the selectmen do, I also believe the UN’sintentions are good.  But good intentions won’t get you recognized on your 67thanniversary from this Norton board, not by a long shot.  This group only pays off forresults.

Sure, we all know the UN is an organization formed for the purpose of establishing peace, protecting human rights, and saving children.  But what have they done for us lately?  They let almost anyone speak there - even those who don’t agree with us.  It’s obviously a good thing selectmen won’t fly the UN flag in recognition of their efforts (successful or not) for peace over the past seven decades.  Heck, I might not even contribute when those pesky kids come to my door on Halloween trying to collect pennies for UNICEF, the fund the UN sponsors to feed starving children across the world.

Some radicals think perhaps selectmen should have taken the larger view.  They could have recognized the tremendous goals of the United Nations, the ideals on which it was originally created, and celebrated that.  I suppose they could have urged the UN to improve on its performance while still managing to honor the fact there is a placenations can go to try and avoid wars by agreeing to communicate with each other in an orderly fashion.

They probably could have set aside a day to honor the many troops and diplomats across the globe who work hard to make the UN better, despite living in a world where most shoot first and ask questions later.  But hey – selectmen can’t beseen as saying the town supports some organization that simply isn’t getting the job done.  Norton can’t just honor every organization out there seeking world peace.  Selectmen must stand on their principles.

Let’s just hope all those Eagle Scouts the selectmen rightfully and properly recognize every year understand why they no longer get citations and proclamations.  No doubt the kids deserve it for their outstanding work and efforts.  But the Boy Scouts organization hasn’t really gotten the job done lately, and that could not have possiblyescaped the eagle-eyes of our local board members.  

Using the same sound logic and principles on which they based their decision to not promote the UN locally, selectmen will no doubt also shun the scouts.  With the recently released list of suspected sexual predators they kept secret for decades, thusexposing kids to harm that could have been prevented, the Boy Scouts must rank right up there with the UN on the selectmen’s list.  Continuing to recognize the scouting organization and not the UN would be hypocritical, political and silly.  It’s pretty clear the selectmen are way above that sort of thing.

Here’s hoping the Norton board gets all the attention they so richly deserve for their debut on the world stage.  All our local issues must be completely under control,since they have now shifted their efforts to global matters.

You think this means Town Meeting has to get involved in trade talks with China? I need to find my Mandarin/English dictionary…

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

Foxboro Officials Biggest Obstacle to Important Negotiations

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday, October 22, 2012

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

In all fairness to the Town of Foxboro, negotiating with an organization like the Kraft Group is very difficult.  While the two entities share a lot of critical interests, they also have some that clearly divide them.  It is to be expected that coming to agreement on the myriad of issues facing both would take a great deal of time and effort.

But frankly, Foxboro’s biggest problem negotiating seems to be – well, Foxboro.  It’s not that the town is doing a bad job of negotiating on behalf of its good citizens.  But town officials keep acting like they can’t find the negotiating table with a map and a flashlight.  It’s not that officials are saying or doing the wrong things, but rather that they can’t decide who should say or do the right ones.

It would take more space than is available here to review the complete history of these negotiations.  To summarize, selectmen in particular have issues over the last agreement which included liquor licenses and other incentives for Patriot Place in exchange for increased revenues in general and some complicated billboard revenue sharing.  There was also the matter of $7 million promised to help the town construct a sewer plant, which it later decided not to build.  Some selectmen believe they are still due that funding.  Now the Kraft Group is seeking more help in further developing their property for their benefit and that of the town.

However, they can’t seem to find anyone who wants to talk to them.  Selectmen weren’t happy when the town negotiators consisted mostly of water/sewer folks, so this time they appointed a special committee to do the job.  They included first one, then later a second of their own members to make sure they had control of the negotiations.  They scheduled meetings with the Kraft Group, bringing them before the board in public session on several occasions.  Foxboro has now canceled the last two negotiating sessions, the first without prior notice to the Kraft Group.

Now town counsel Richard Gelerman has advised the board to dissolve the committee.   By putting two selectmen on it and controlling the appointing of the others, they in effect made it a sub-committee subject to the Open Meeting Law.  Since much of the negotiations need to be done in private due to their nature, that would involve executive sessions where minutes must be kept.  Gelerman consulted with the state attorney general’s office and based upon their advice suggested appointing one person – Town Manager Kevin Paicos – to represent Foxboro.  Paicos would then be free to negotiate in private and bring help with him as he deems necessary.

But selectmen apparently either did not like what their own attorney had to say, or did not believe him to be correct.  Selectman Brue said she would not approve moving forward without a written statement from the AG’s office.  The board then voted to delay appointing any new negotiators until at least October 30^th, despite their attorney’s assertion that setting up the process “is not all that complicated.”

The bottom line is the Town Manager/Administrator of a community is the person who should be running high-level negotiations like these.  That is how it is done in most towns, with selectmen and Town Meeting ultimately having final approval.  The board usually makes clear their priorities to the town administrator, and he or she does their best to represent the interests of the entire community.

Kevin Paicos damaged his ability to do this by his very political and personal actions during the Great Casino Debate.  But as long as he holds his current position, he is the person who should be representing Foxboro in negotiations.  If his board members do not trust him to do so, they should find another town adminstrator. 

Foxboro needs professional representation at the bargaining table, not just well-intentioned volunteer officials doing the best they can.  Professional negotiations are not conducted in public.  Those who want it done that way are either trying to sabotage the efforts, or simply don’t understand the process.  This is not about “transparency” but rather about using common sense.

It takes two willing parties to come to an agreement.  Thus far these negotiations have included only one. 

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

Voters in November Need to Come Out in April Too

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on Friday, October 19, 2012

AN INSIDE LOOK
by Bill Gouveia

In about three weeks, voters in our area and across the country will flock to the polls primarily to elect the next President of the United States. In the process they will decide important congressional races, choose their senators and governors, and elect their state legislators.



All indications are voters here are taking their responsibility very seriously. Town clerks throughout the area have been swamped with citizens registering to cast ballots. They are even doing so early, taking out absentee ballots and making sure they have a say in choosing their leaders. They want to make sure their vote matters.

And that is a good thing. What our leaders do and how they vote affects our lives and our futures. Those leaders need to know voters out there are willing to exercise their sacred right and participate in the electoral process.

But while as many as half of those registered may cast ballots on November 6th, they tend to take a break come spring. When our area communities hold their local elections to choose selectmen, school committee members, and other officials who directly affect their lives on a daily basis via their decisions and policies – many of these same dedicated and determined voters are nowhere to be found.

Local election turnout in most area communities has hovered between 8-15 percent in recent years. Unless there is a Proposition 2-1/2 override to be decided, this has become the norm. The huge exception was Foxboro, when the possibility of a casino pulled in voters who hadn’t bothered with town elections in decades. Other than that, getting voters to participate in local elections is like pulling the proverbial teeth.

The question is – why?


Here in Massachusetts, the issue of which presidential candidate will win the electoral votes at stake was pretty much decided long ago. There is a red-hot race for senate that has attracted national attention, and some interesting state senate and representative races. But although the old axiom of “every vote counts” remains very true, the fact is our local impact on the presidential race is negligible at best.


Most of our selectmen and school committee races are decided by a few hundred votes. The people we elect set our local bylaws and regulations, control the education of our children, and directly influence our property taxes. They answer when we call them on the phone to complain, they live in our neighborhoods, and their actions affect our lives almost every day.

Mathematically speaking, our votes in local elections have a larger effect on those contests than state or national campaigns. We become bigger fish in a smaller pond. But that pond is where we live, it is our home. If our local problems can’t be overcome and solved, our national ones sometimes become less critical.

But our local candidates don’t spend millions upon millions trying to win our support. There are no Super Pacs spending non-stop to influence how we think and act with regard to most local issues. Our national defense and the balance on the Supreme Court are not dependent on how we vote in town elections.

But it will be your selectmen who decide if you will face an override vote in your community. They will hire your town manager, who will be responsible for budgeting for things like your public safety departments, maintaining your roads, and making sure an ambulance is ready to roll when you need it.

It will be your elected school committee members who will oversee the education of your children. You will trust your most precious possessions to the system they sit atop for five days a week. They will hire the superintendent, who will hire the teachers who will shape the very lives of our young people.

So by all means, get out and vote on November 6th. Your vote is more important than ever. You can’t make a difference if you don’t vote. Your country works best when the people in it do their job.

But come spring, do it all again. Come out and vote in your local elections. Play an active role in shaping your community. Be that bigger fish in that smaller pond. After all, government – like charity – begins at home.

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

Boards of Selectmen Need More Women Members

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on Monday, October 15, 2012

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

I have a question, and I’m hoping someone out there may be able to give me a good answer:  Why are there so few female selectmen in our local area communities?

I did a rough count the other day and determined there are 41 selectmen seats in the nine Sun Chronicle area towns that have them.  Of those 41 seats, just nine – or 22 percent – are occupied by women.  Since the ratio of women to men in the general population is at least equal, it begs the question – why are so few women holding local leadership positions?

Now, there are no quota systems.  We are supposed to elect leaders without regard to their race, creed, sex or religious beliefs.  Office seekers should be judged by their qualifications and leadership abilities, not their gender.  We should be choosing the best candidates, whether men or women.

Having said that, the gender gap with regard to selectmen seats is still surprising.  Only one local community (Foxboro) has a board of selectmen where women make up the majority, and that is a recent development.  Three area towns (Mansfield, Seekonk and Norfolk) have no women serving on the town’s highest elected office.  Rehoboth has two female members, and Norton, North Attleboro, Wrentham and Plainville each have one.  Is there any particular reason for this? 

The problem is not that voters are rejecting female candidates.  Women are simply not running for the positions.  There are decidedly fewer female office-seekers than male candidates.  There are many theories as to why this is.  Their validity is very much open to debate.  Let’s look at a few.

Women don’t like local politics.  This argument is difficult to believe.  Women arguably are affected on a day-to-day basis more by local government than their male counterparts.  They still make up the majority of stay-at-home parents, and they must deal more directly with local budget issues such as school-related cuts, reductions in library hours, and public safety manpower issues.  To allege there is something gender-specific that accounts for interest in local affairs seems sexist and wrong.

Local governments tend to be mostly “good ole boy networks”.  This is a good point, although certainly attitudes have changed over the years.  Still, a much smaller percentage of voters cast ballots in local elections as compared to state and national campaigns.  This means a certain small block of voters – generally comprised mainly of longtime political activists and citizens – determine who gets elected selectman.  They tend to produce their own candidates from within their ranks, who are usually men and often difficult to defeat.

Women are more family-oriented than men and thus don’t volunteer their time in the political arena.  This was probably true for generations, but now is insulting to both men and women.  Parenting is an equal opportunity partnership today.  Men no longer automatically go off to work, leaving their domestic goddesses to tend to the household chores.  The stereotype of a working woman somehow being less of a parent has pretty much been shattered.

Local voters still have a bit of a sexist attitude towards electing women.  You would hope we are long past this also.  Nonetheless, we live in a country where women do not always get equal pay for equal work.  Prejudice and discrimination will never be totally eliminated in any area.  There are no doubt some who just somehow feel “better” being represented by a man.

Women in general are just too smart to subject themselves to the abuse that comes with local office.  This is one of my favorites.  Women are certainly influential in all facets of life.  Do they prefer being the “power behind the throne” when it comes to local affairs?  Do they generally believe they can make more of a difference behind the scenes?  Are they simply disgusted by what goes on in local politics and unwilling to put up with it?  There could be something to all that.

I’m not sure why there are not more female selectmen, or selectpersons if you will.  But I believe we all suffer as a result of having far too few.  Leadership is hardly an exclusively male trait.  Here’s hoping that 22 percent figure rises in the very near future.

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

Big Bird and Politics - Quite a Surprise

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on October 9, 2012

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

In my never-ending quest to bring the latest information to you good readers, I was able to secure an exclusive interview with one of the key figures in the recent Presidential debate.  After exhausting nearly every contact in my intricate political network, I managed to get the inside scoop from the famous personality who took the biggest direct hit in the televised event.

No, I didn’t interview President Obama.  I spoke to Big Bird.

That’s right, the gentle giant and I sat down (well, I sat down – he couldn’t find a big enough chair) and had a long discussion about his sudden impact on the presidential race.  Although now in his mid-40’s, I found him almost child-like in his approach to his new found political status.  Having been thrust into the primetime limelight now by candidate Mitt Romney, many want to know just where Big Bird stands on the issues of the day.

I began by asking the international celebrity if he was surprised by his new political notoriety.  “I sure am”, he replied with that wide-eyed innocent look that has made him the target of ultra-conservatives everywhere.  “I’ve pretty much been talking to kids for four decades on Sesame Street.  Now all of a sudden there are adults who seem very concerned about me.  I think it’s very nice of them.”

When told that Gov. Romney wants to eliminate the federal funding which subsidizes PBS, the public network which produces Sesame Street and many other educational programs, Mr. Bird professed surprise.  “I know Mr. Romney is a very smart man, so he must be right to worry about how much money the country needs.  I’ve spent a lifetime helping kids learn to do things like count.  I don’t know if he learned from our show or not, but someone must have done a good job of teaching him”, the eight-foot tall character said earnestly.

The TV star said he understands the need for financial security.  “I certainly have built my own nest egg over the years”, Big Bird noted.  “But it’s really hard to believe our show and our network are hurting this great big country.  If this means I have to eat a little less seed every day, I’m willing to go along.”

“Still, I have to worry about my flock”, Bird told me.  “Maybe Mr. Romney and all the smart people around him could find somewhere else to save some money?  I mean, this can’t be because they don’t like me, or Bert and Ernie, or Elmo.  Mr. Romney even said in the debate that he loved me,” the feathered character smiled proudly.

When told some think his sponsoring network has a liberal bias, Big Bird just look puzzled.  “All my friends and I do all day long is talk to kids and teach them things”, he said in a hurt tone of voice.  “I don’t teach them to distrust, or discriminate, or hate.  I’m not a member of any political party.  I don’t campaign for any candidates.  I just talk to kids every day, sometimes to kids who really have no one else to talk to.  I’m no expert, but I think that’s a pretty good way to spend money”.

The bird said he is willing to forgo his own salary if that will help save his network.  “They tell me I have deep pockets, which I don’t understand since I really don’t have any pockets at all that I can find”, he said somewhat sheepishly.  “My wardrobe budget is pretty low, I don’t need any make-up, so it’s pretty clear I’m not just trying to feather my own nest”, he exclaimed.

When told that some of his network’s programming is considered controversial by some and causes discussion throughout the country, Big Bird just shrugged.  “Isn’t that what they are supposed to do?” he questioned.  “I tell all my kid friends that talking about things is good.  If we put stuff on the air that gets kids and adults talking, how can that be a bad thing?”

In the end, the iconic yellow bird says he just wants to get back to talking only to kids.  “They tend to make a lot more sense sometimes than adults do”, he noted wryly.

A wise bird, indeed.

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

Town Hall Buildings Always a Tough Sell

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on October 5, 2012

AN INSIDE LOOK


By Bill Gouveia



Talk to area town officials about what capital expenditure is hardest to get voters to approve, and you will get different answers. Some will say it is getting a new school built. Others will point to improving various infrastructure projects. But one item that makes almost everyone’s list of the most difficult to get public support for is the building of a new town hall.



There are several reasons for this. First and foremost, taxpayers don’t like to spend money on things that – in their minds – do not benefit them directly. While they certainly care about the employees who work for them, they are a bit removed from the actual working conditions as well as the shape of the physical plant.



If you think about it for a moment, it makes sense. Town Hall is more a concept than an actual location for most of the voting public these days. Though town employees still have plenty to do, fewer people actually go there anymore - and with good reason.



In this highly technological world, you can perform most of your town-related business online. You can pay your taxes via your bank or your computer. Selectmen and other municipal meetings are televised on local cable access. Most town charters and bylaws are also linked to town websites. You can email departments with various questions and download forms, all while saving valuable time and gas.



So when local officials outline the problems plaguing their aging buildings, voters are skeptical to say the least. They tend to compare town buildings to issues with their own homes. They can’t afford to replace their aging and inefficient heating system? The town should make due also. Their worn carpeting has to last longer? The town should do the same.



Norton’s town hall adjacent to the fire station is a converted gymnasium built on the cheap with a federal grant (and no property tax dollars) in the 1970’s. It was a disaster when it opened, and has gotten progressively worse over the last 35 or so years despite efforts to maintain it. The use of space is terrible, the heating/cooling system a nightmare, and the air quality questionable to say the least.



In Foxboro, their 48-year-old town hall has some similar issues. The town manager there has a plan to replace the building for about $8 million, and some believe it can be renovated for about $5 million. Town Meeting may be asked to approve a transfer of about $500,000 from available funds to start the process. Officials originally planned to do this last year, but the feeling was “the timing wasn’t right”.



I’ve always loved that argument. Have you ever seen a “good” time for a town to spend millions of dollars on a municipal building? In all fairness, Foxboro voters have recently funded some other expensive projects. .But imagine taxpayers sitting around the local watering hole saying, “You know, this has been a pretty good year – let’s spend a few million bucks on a new town hall”. That just doesn’t happen in these parts.



But in communities like Foxboro and Norton, town hall (the building) has been a problem for quite some time. Poor air quality and just the passage of time have turned these edifices into gigantic headaches for both employees and officials – the former getting them literally, and the latter virtually.



Just about every time any community starts to talk about replacing or renovating their town hall, you hear some residents state they are trying to build “ a Taj Mahall”. While that may be true in some places, taxpayers in this area tend to keep their officials pretty honest on their building projects. Drive around and you don’t exactly see a lot of political castles rising majestically towards the clouds.



Still, the financial ability of any community determines whether or not they can afford to build or renovate. With millions in revenue coming from the local NFL franchise each year, Foxboro has a much better chance than Norton of securing funding. Norton has no active plans to replace or renovate their building at this time.



So take a deep breath, all you local town hall employees. Well, maybe not too deep. At least not just yet.



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

Writing is Great, Newspaper Writing is Better

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday, October 1, 2012

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

I have a confession to make.  I like to write.  Please try to contain your shock and astonishment.

            These days, a lot of people write.  It seems nearly everyone has a blog where they express their feelings and speak to those they know as well as those they don’t.  The styles vary, the formats are different, but getting your thoughts out to the world seems every bit as important today as it has always been.

            But I like the actual printed word.  I enjoy seeing the phrases I have arranged shown in ink (or whatever it is that passes for ink these days) and on paper.  Of course, I particularly like seeing them in this newspaper – and my editors did not make me say that.  I guess at heart I’m just a newspaper kind of guy, though I fully admit to being a slave to my computers and smartphone too.

            But writing for and in a newspaper is still special to me.  Somehow it seems more substantive, though statistics may show those who paint on the internet canvas receive a wider audience.  And in fact, most papers including the Sun Chronicle are online these days as well.  It’s a sign of the times.

            I maintain writing for newspaper is an art in and of itself.  It is writing at its technical best.  It is not as sophisticated as penning poetry, or as prestigious as creating the next great American novel.  But filling the pages of a daily newspaper requires great writers who seldom get recognized for their work.  Most don’t make a lot of money, don’t become famous or terribly popular, and aren’t always the first ones invited to the big social events.  They just do their jobs and enjoy the results.

            Writing in a newspaper has a certain rhythm, a feel that is both a personal and a collaborative effort.  Whether a beat reporter or a columnist, you always understand your job is to produce something worthy of your profession and your paper. 

            Of course, there are differences in the individual responsibilities.  A reporter has the unenviable job of giving people an objective view on things that have for the most part already occurred.  They often toil in relative obscurity.  If they do their work exceptionally well, most people who read their stuff will not even remember their names.  They are seekers of truth, and get lied to and misdirected regularly.

            Columnists are a more narcissistic bunch.  By the very nature of their job they are more visible to the reading public.  They must have opinions and express them in a way that will get people to read.  Whether they are liked or not is pretty much irrelevant.  They put themselves out there.  They have less of a burden than reporters when it comes to presenting facts and being objective. 

            All of which explains why I enjoy writing a couple of times each week in this fine publication.  While all columnists who work for reputable newspapers must remain within the bounds of reason and good taste, it provides a freedom of expression that is different from all others.  You get to reason, to express yourself, to engage your audience in conversation.  And believe me, they do talk back.

            While I can’t speak for all columnists, I can report this one relies heavily on the fine work of reporters just to be able to do my job.  Reading the crisp and informative writings of good scribes is one way I gather information and form my own positions.  They do the hard stuff, and I often get to enjoy the fruits of their labors.  I thank them for doing their job so well and making mine so easy.

            Writing a regular newspaper column is a personal thing.  It produces a tangible result which can be judged on its merits each and every time.  And no one is a tougher sell on its worthiness than the writer.  Each week brings a new challenge, and meeting each challenge is both exciting and satisfying.

            I enjoy sitting down, feeling the pages of a newspaper between my fingers, and reading what I have written.  It is a satisfying experience – and a lot cheaper than a psychiatrist.

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