North Attleboro's Government Getting Worse

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

AN INSIDE LOOK
By Bill Gouveia

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Riding Out The Blizzard Wasn't All That Easy

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

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republican Winslow Following Brown's Path

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

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Norton to Dediciate Park to Local Hero

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

AN INSIDE LOOK


By Bill Gouveia


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


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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

In Foxboro, there ain't no free lunch

By Bill Gouveia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Columnist and Wife Divided Over Cell Phone

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

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Controlling the Question Key to Gun Debate

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

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Time for Baseball to Fess Up to What It Is

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

AN INSIDE LOOK


By Bill Gouveia

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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

Selectmen Prey on Voter's Fear in Foxboro

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

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Year's Eve - Old Guy Style

This column originally appeared in The Sun Chronicle on Monday, December 31, 2012.

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

            It’s New Year’s Eve.  Pardon me if I don’t get too excited.  I think it might be an age thing.

            As someone firmly ensconced in their mid-50’s, I’m not exactly ready for the title of senior citizen (at least, not chronologically speaking).  But if the way I celebrate the arrival of the New Year is indicative of my current status, then I can’t possibly be far away from being classified as “old”.  I believe I’ve officially passed “sad” and am approaching “pathetic”.

            Truth be told, I’ve never been a big partier.  My teens and early 20’s were hardly a testament to the pleasures of excess in anything but food.  Sure, I had my share of alcoholic beverages in those days – after all, the drinking age was 18 then.  But I was married at 21, a parent at 23, and “celebration” was not exactly a high priority except at birthdays, anniversaries and holidays.

            Still, we managed to have some fun.  We would have New Year parties at our home, starting after the kids had gone to bed.  We managed to be festive while still making sure they stayed asleep, but it was difficult to keep our many unmarried friends who did not have children coming back.  It’s funny how your range of active friends is affected when you start having children.

            So we started inviting people who – like us – had young kids.  All that really accomplished was generating a larger crowd of tired people who cared more about keeping the kids asleep than celebrating.  Boy, were they boring.  I was sure it was them, and not us.

            Watching the ball drop in Times Square has been a big deal since I can first remember.  I was hooked the first time my parents let me stay up for the big event.  I’m not sure if Dick Clark was the host that first evening (I can’t believe they are still using his name), but the magic of the lights and the electricity of the crowd guaranteed I would always think of this as the official way to usher in the New Year.

            But as I have gotten older, the emphasis has changed from gearing up to watch the ball drop, to simply trying to stay up to watch the ball drop.  Not only has my intake of alcoholic beverages dramatically decreased, but the beverages themselves have changed.  No more beer – it no longer sits very well in my stomach.        Hard liquor and I have never really gotten along, unless the drink containing it also has a fair amount of fruit juice and an umbrella. 

            So these days I start off with wine, and not exactly the top-of-the-line vino.  I grew up on my grandfather’s homemade stuff, and that forever shaped my taste in this area.  So my beverage of choice tends to come in a jug rather than a bottle and cost less than ten dollars.  At least I’m a relatively cheap date.

            For the last few years we have volunteered to babysit our grandson (did I mention his name is William?) so his parents could go out and enjoy the evening.  That is much more our speed, and truth be told they have been among the best New Year’s Eves of our lives.  We take him out to eat with some of our friends, enjoy a fun dessert, then put him to bed and do our best to stay up.  We often fail miserably on the last part.

            This year he will most likely be spending the night at his own home.  And our granddaughter will be with her family many hours to our south.  This is the way it should be, the natural order of things.

           

            So we are once again likely left to our own devices, celebrating in the staid and stodgy style that has become our custom over the four decades we have been together.  But at the end of this evening, I get to fall asleep (even if it is a tad early) next to the woman I love and who for some strange and unfathomable reason continues to loves me back.

            There sure as heck are a lot of worse ways to usher in 2013.  Happy New Year, good readers.

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

Critical Time for the NRA

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on Friday, December 28, 2012

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

            Wayne LaPierre is the leader of the National Rifle Association (NRA).  He appeared on the popular Sunday morning television show “Meet The Press” last weekend to discuss the NRA’s response to the renewed call for stricter gun control laws in the wake of the horrific Connecticut school shooting. 

            Mr. LaPierre’s response on behalf of one of the nation’s most influential lobbying organizations was both predictable and disappointing.  He had no problem apportioning blame for what most everyone agrees was one of the most tragic events in American history.  He blamed a lack of security in schools, he blamed a lack of morals in the country, he blamed Hollywood, he blamed the video game industry, and he blamed the nation’s mental health system.

            He blamed pretty much everyone – except guns and their availability.  He apportions absolutely no blame there.  Not a bit. 

Far worse, Mr. LaPierre and his organization refuse to even discuss the subject.  They will not contemplate the possibility – however remote in their minds – that tougher gun laws could possibly result in a somewhat safer and less violent America.

            Of course, that’s what Mr. LaPierre gets paid to do.  He is a hired gun (pardon the pun) for the NRA.  His job is to blindly and politically support their narrow view of the 2^nd Amendment and help elect officials who will do the same.  He has one solution and one solution only to the problem of violence with guns – more guns.

            The NRA is proposing an armed guard be placed in every school in the United States.  He says it is a common sense solution that is obvious and reasonable.  He says parents want and deserve the security he claims this would provide.

            He may be right.  Personally, I have my doubts.  I’m not sure it will work, I’m not sure it is practical, and I’m not sure it is intelligent.  But in the wake of 26 dead people killed by an assault weapon taken from a private home, I’m willing to discuss it.  I’m willing to consider it.  I’m willing to have it debated on the national stage.

            If only Mr. LaPierre and his devoted followers were equally willing to debate that with which they do not agree.

            The head of the NRA and his organization refuse to agree to debate the possibility of stricter gun control laws.  He dismisses out of hand the possibility it might prevent even one death.  He says the NRA will not participate on the panel to be convened by Vice President Biden.  He refuses to even consider any changes to current gun laws because he claims they will not work and will not help.

            It is outrageous this man, representing millions of honest and responsible gun owners, would go on national television and say such things.  He knows there were armed guards at Columbine.  Yet he pushes the solution of armed security wholeheartedly, while dismissing any attempt at banning the awful weapon that killed 20 innocent schoolchildren. 

            I’m not asking Mr. LaPierre or the NRA to agree to any new gun laws right now.  But I hope they care enough to at least join in the discussion.  They have made a good suggestion, one that deserves honest consideration.  It should be given respect because it stems from what I believe to be a sincere desire to save lives and protect children.

            Now it is time for the NRA to give gun control advocates that same measure of respect.  Mr. LaPierre and his organization should be a vital part of the national discussion on gun safety and availability.  They know and understand better than anyone the power and importance of powerful weapons.  They bring a perspective to the table that is both invaluable and representative of many Americans.

            They do their members and the country a grave disservice by merely retreating into their familiar and thus far invincible political shell.  They need to do more than arrogantly tell us laws which have not even been formulated yet will not work.  They need to talk to us, instead of at us.

            This is a moment of truth for the NRA.  They now must choose to be either a part of the solution, or a part of the problem. 

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

My 2012 Local Christmas Poem

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on Monday, December 24, 2012.

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

Christmas Eve is one of my favorite nights of the year.  After all, celebrating an evening where you expect a fat guy to drop by is right up my alley.  And like Santa, people pretend to be asleep when I come visiting.

            This is a day and a night for joy, reflection and celebration.  It is also the time I revive what has become something of my own personal Christmas tradition, offering up my stilted version of the famous yuletide poem “The Night Before Christmas”.  I know you’ve all been waiting breathlessly since last year.  Well, maybe not all of you.

            So once again with never-ending apologies to Clement Moore (and my thanks to our local governments and officials), I give you the latest local political version of the greatest of all Christmas poems:

T’was the night before Christmas, and the political scene

Seemed to be quiet, though not quite serene.

In Attleboro, Councilors met and ate Christmas cookies

While rehashing arguments from both Veggies and Bookies.

The taxpayers were settled all snug in their beds,

While nightmares of fiscal cliffs danced in their heads.

Your esteemed local columnist was preparing to rest

And soon would be snoring away with great zest.

Then from the front yard there came a big boom

That rattled the house and shook every room.

I ran out the front door and stifled a yawn,

Amazed at what rested upon my front lawn.

The moonlight was reflecting off the newly fallen snow,

As workers on overtime plowed the white streets below.

When suddenly, plummeting down through the night

Was a sleigh with five people engaged in a fight.

They were arguing and griping, and disciplining their elves.

They were Seekonk selectmen (they never blame themselves).

They were delivering presents for towns nearby,

They were running very late, but they still had to try.

Their gifts to North Attleboro were supposed to be free,

But everything there now comes with a fee.

They left a few presents and a very warm greeting,

And tried reducing the size of Representative Town Meeting.

When they hit Plainville they made it a point

To fly over the site of the proposed gambling joint.

Over Wrentham and Norfolk they continued to soar

As through the still night their complaining did roar.

Norton’s present was a school boss who really might stay,

And finally those search committees can just go away.

The selectmen’s present was nothing to fear -

They’ll  go to New York for UN Day next year.

In Mansfield, Comcast Center gets a new sold-out show

Featuring Dentino and Montgomery just rarin’ to go.

A true gift would be a year with no more tragic losses,

But that requires cooperation between all of the bosses.

An area democrat as state rep was past due,

So they gave Attleboro citizens new Rep. Paul Heroux.

Our other state reps got a gift for their quirk –

They get per diem payments just for going to work.

Sen. Scott Brown was not the voter’s selection,

So his gift is – yes, yet another election.

For Rep. Frank, who chose not to run,

It’s a retirement of torturing Republicans for fun

Their stop in Rehoboth was very, very brief -

Selectmen have stopped handing out as much grief.

Some see that as town government starting to snooze,

They have let Seekonk take over as the town in the news.

They saw me and considered just running me down,

Then settled for glaring, and a serious frown.

In executive session, they then took a vote

To totally ignore anything I ever wrote.

They finished their deliveries (the DPW was last),

And headed home to reminisce of Christmas’s past.

But I heard them exclaim as they rode out of sight,

“There’s Bingo at the Senior Center tonight!”

Merry Christmas, good readers. 

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist, town official, husband, parent, grandfather, and terrible poet.  He wishes you all a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, and can be reached at aninsidelook@aol.com.

Today I Stop Being a Coward About Guns

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on Monday, December 17, 2012.

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia

            I have been a coward.  Today, I stop.  Starting now, I will step up and be counted.  I will make my voice heard on the most important issue of our time.

            I want stronger gun control laws.  I want them now.  I want us to start working on them immediately, before any more innocent lives are lost.  No more excuses, no more bowing to political pressure, no more wasting time and costing lives.  This gun craziness must stop.

            I know the guns that killed 20 beautiful children and 6 brave adults last week in Connecticut were obtained legally.  I know the murderer who did this might have gotten guns no matter what the laws say.  I know you can’t stop every nut-job out there who decides to kill with guns or any other weapon.  I know all this.  You don’t have to tell me.

            But I know – and you know – there are too many guns in America.  There are automatic and semi-automatic weapons in the hands of people who should never have them.  And please, spare me your definitions of “automatic” weapons.  Guns that shoot a whole lot of bullets in a short amount of time should not be available for sale to the public.  That is a simple fact that has been ignored too long, because politically-oriented people like me have let it happen.  No more.  It stops now.

            President Obama needs to convene a national discussion on gun control today.  All leaders of congress from both parties should join him.  Every governor in every state should form similar panels.  Mayors, town councils, and selectmen should bring folks together for a discussion on what local laws can be enacted.  And it should be done now, not a day later.

            The NRA should call for national gun control laws that maintain the right of private ownership but restrict the number and firepower allowed.  Second amendment fanatics need to understand and admit that the framers of the Constitution never imagined guns shooting hundreds of rounds in seconds.  More guns equal more violence.  That is an indisputable fact.

            How do I know?  Critics say gun laws today are tougher than they have ever been.  If they haven’t worked so far, why should we believe stronger ones will make any difference?  After all, as we are often told – “If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them”.

            That’s crap.  I know what hasn’t worked - doing absolutely nothing.  Sitting back and letting gun advocates intimidate and bully politicians.  Ignoring statistics clearly indicating a correlation between the number of guns and the level of violence.  Standing by and blaming others.

            I believe the second amendment as written was a good idea in the late 1700’s.  But I think it should be adapted to the present.  The world is a different place.  People are different.  Guns are different.  Bullets are different.  Slavery is dead, and women can vote.  It is time we realized our attitudes on guns need to change too.

            To those who suggest we start arming teachers and principals in an effort to make our children safe, I say you could not be more wrong.  The answer is not more guns.  We’ve tried that.  I find it difficult to believe so many are willing to turn our schools into armed camps rather than accept reasonable and rational limits on gun ownership. 

            You want to partially blame the lack of morals in society today for tragedies like Connecticut?  Ok, that’s fine.  You want to partially blame video games and lack of parental influence?  I’ll buy that.  But you also have to accept the undeniable fact that guns themselves play a major role.

            You can’t legislate away crazy or evil.  Those things have existed since the beginning of time.  All you can do is try to limit the opportunities crazy and evil people have to obtain awful weapons.  And we as a people have not done a good enough job in that regard.  Just because we know stronger laws won’t stop all these incidents is no reason to not try and stop at least some of them.

            Today I stop being a coward.  I support common-sense gun legislation, and I support the politicians who promise to make that happen.

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

Another Norton Character and Old Friend is Gone

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on December 14, 2012

AN INSIDE LOOK
By Bill Gouveia
Every town has people in their history who are simply unforgettable. Some are community activists, some are curmudgeons, and others are simply unique characters. My hometown of Norton has had many of each type over its 300 year history.

Paul “Zeb” Rich would properly fit into all three categories, but the one that most reflects his life is being a unique character. He was one of the last of a dying breed, a throw-back to the days when politicians slapped you on the back, knew the name of everyone in your family, and could practically recite the voting list in their sleep. Zeb was a true politician, and I mean that in the good sense of the word.


I’ve known Zeb for about as long as I can remember, and his death last week really hit home. My first memories of him are from when I was just an elementary school kid, and he was the teenager racing the fancy sports car up and down Route 123. We thought he was pretty cool, though probably not as cool as Zeb himself thought he was. From an early age, the one thing Zeb never lacked was self-confidence.


His father was a selectman during the 50’s and 60’s, and Zeb learned a lot about town affairs at his own kitchen table. It was inevitable that he would get involved in local politics. With his keen sense of humor, wide grin and outgoing personality he was a natural. And with his hard-nosed determination, way with words, and ability to remember and file away every enemy who ever crossed him, Zeb was a force to be reckoned with in town and elsewhere.


His first local election was a run for school committee. I was a student at Norton High at the time, and we were holding a mock election. Zeb came to me and wanted to know what the students cared about, how he could appeal to them. It may have only been a pretend election, but he still wanted to win it. He did, and went on to be elected to the committee and serve several terms. He recruited me to write some of his campaign fliers, and a lifelong friendship was begun – though we did occasionally have our differences.

Zeb went on to win a selectman’s seat in the mid 70’s, continuing his family’s tradition. This was in the days when Norton selectmen meetings were true events, even before local cable television. Remembering some of the shirts and ties Zeb wore to those meetings, it is probably a good thing there were no viewers who could watch back then. He was a hard worker, and never more than at election time.


Watching Zeb running for office was a real experience for this future local elected official. First of all, the entire family was involved. Each parent, brother, sister and cousin had a job to do and people to call. At the center of the effort was Zeb, who would stand at the polls all day and in his mind keep track of who had not yet voted.


At 5 pm he would turn to one of his family members and say “I haven’t seen John and his family yet – call them and make sure they get here to vote.” He didn’t have a list, or checkers, or a computer. He just knew, and he was never wrong. He never forgot a face.


Zeb was a huge sports fan and a longtime referee and umpire. He was also a big guy who loved to eat, and paid the price for it when his weight ballooned. Then you would see this huge hulking man jogging, even on the hottest day of the year, with sweat pouring off him like a waterfall. But he kept at it, and his weight slowly was reduced. Unfortunately, his health over the latter stage of his life was not good.


But I will always remember the smiling Zeb, the bearded Zeb, the one who would walk up to you and loudly say “Let me tell ya something” while slipping his arm around you. He was a true Norton Townie, and will forever be a part of the Norton I love.

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

Weak Explanation on Legislative Expenses

This column originally appeared in the Sun Chronicle on Monday, December 10, 2012

AN INSIDE LOOK

By Bill Gouveia


The topic of state legislators receiving and filing for “per diem” travel, meal and lodging reimbursements simply for showing up to do the job they were elected to perform is a touchy one. Some folks believe lawmakers are entitled to these expense payments, and others believe it constitutes an abuse of the system.

I believe it can be both, and respect the validity of the arguments on each side of the issue. But I have a hard time swallowing those who want to have their cake (or per diem) and eat it too. A little consistency goes a long way.

Per diems reimbursements are in addition to a legislator’s salary. They are intended to offset expenses for lawmakers who actually show up at the statehouse and who file for them. Many representatives and senators who live far from Boston file for them regularly and generally receive the highest totals. Lawmakers from Pittsfield, Provincetown, Nantucket and Lenox are all in the top ten list of those receiving reimbursements.

But some local area representatives also are not shy about receiving the per diem payments. With the Sun Chronicle area generally less than an hour’s travel to Boston, this raises legitimate questions about whether or not their acceptance of the payments is fair and reasonable to taxpayers.


An example of this is Rep. Steven Howitt (R–Seekonk), who was re-elected to second term last month and represents Rehoboth and parts of Seekonk and Norton. The affable lawmaker took per diem payments two years ago, but had not yet filed for this past year by election time. However, he did say he was planning on doing so in the near future.

But Howitt explains his acceptance of the payments by saying he donates the money to charities. He said in his first year as a state rep he actually donated all the per diem money he received – after taxes – to local food pantries and other charities.

At a debate with his opponent in October, Rep. Howitt did not back away from his acceptance of these payments in any way. In fact, he was proud to have donated the funds to worthy causes. He said that if he had not taken the money, it would have been “swallowed up” at the end of the year and gone who-knows-where. At least this way, he pointed out, the state funds did some good for his local constituents. He adamantly said he planned to accept them again and do the same thing this year.

To which many say – are you kidding me?

While Howitt’s charitable inclinations are certainly praiseworthy, they should be done with his own money and not state-funded reimbursements. It is fine if the good representative wants to donate from his pocket to local charities. But he should not do so from the pockets of those he serves.


If he is not keeping the money he takes for per diem payments, then he should let it remain in the state budget. While not a lot, it would help to offset the expected deficits in state spending. If Howitt wants the funding to go to local charities, he should file a bill to do so. Granted, the odds of it passing would be slim to none. But so are the odds of most people accepting this weak and silly explanation.




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