North Reading Selectman Candidate Profile: Maureen Harty-Vacca
Maureen served on the Finance Committee for five years and the School Committee for 15 years.
This is the last in a series of articles profiling the candidates running for North Reading Board of Selectmen.
Maureen Harty-Vacca is a registered lobbyist and works with state legislators daily.
"I do research and educate legislators and committees who can't possibly do all the in-depth research on every piece of legislation filed. I have many contacts at the State House and enjoy the opportunity to help develop public policy and set budgetary priorities," Harty-Vacca said.
She was on the North Reading School Committee for 15 years and on the Finance Committee for five, three of which she served as chairman. While on the School Committee, she was on several subcommittees, including contract negotiations, finance planning committee and the athletic subcommittee. She was also chairman of the Elementary School Building Committee during the Hood School Project, which was completed on-time and on-budget, she stated.
"Recently, I was awarded a Lifetime membership with the Massachusetts School Committee Association. I continue to work with the association lobbying on school issues both on the state and national levels," Harty-Vacca said.
During her spare time for the last two years she worked with former Superintendent Dr. Troughton and Town Moderator John Murphy to form a nonprofit organization, the North Reading Education Foundation.
She decided to run for the Board of Selectmen because she truly enjoys serving her town, she said.
"The biggest challenge in the foreseeable future is to find ways to preserve services for all residents, without raising taxes. The voters approved a new high school/middle school project which is admirable, but many families will experience financial hardship in order to pay the additional taxes," she said.
"The financing is spread out over 25 years, and we must minimize the tax burden to residents during those years. This will not be easy, but it can be done with strong leadership."
If elected, she plans to work with board and committee members on the town's budget priorities, invest time in the water capital plan and stimulate economic growth in town.
She believes she would be a good fit for the board because she is an effective team player, can make tough decisions under pressure, possesses leadership skills and extensive knowledge of town finances, and has successfully bargained union contracts, she said.
"If elected, I will serve in an open and constructive way. I will respect everyone's opinion whether I agree or not," Harty-Vacca said.
She hopes that residents will remember her years of service and the positive role she played as a leader in the community when it is time to vote, she told Patch.
Barry
1:17 pm on Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Ms. Harty-Vacca appears to be proud of her role as a registered lobbyist. Her sole lobbying client, as indicated in reports filed with the Massachusetts Secretary of State, is the Massachusetts Family Institute, which claims as its mission to affirm “Judeo-Christian values”, but whose principal goal seems to be to perpetuate hatred of, and discrimination against, homosexuals.
Ms. Harty-Vacca is, of course, free to work for any organization of her choosing. But I think it sometimes is appropriate to judge a person by the company they keep. And we want leaders who exhibit tolerance and respect for all individuals.
JIM
9:32 am on Thursday, April 26, 2012
Thanks for the info Barry I think that we all support "Judeo- Christian values"
Janine Largent
7:30 pm on Monday, May 7, 2012
If voting to preserve marriage as an institution between one man and one woman is hatred then is would seem Mrs. Vacca has alot of company. Every time people are asked to vote on homosexual marriage they vote overwhelmingly against it. If a person's religious faith does not support homosexual marriage asking them to go against that faith is blatant intolerance and denial of their right to free worship. Perhaps the government should not be in the business of marriage? Civil unions for all?
Hello
12:01 am on Thursday, May 10, 2012
Valuable information, and interesting now that we have the results of the election.
Ed Canney
1:30 pm on Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Barry more specifics please. Do you know if Maureen works on any of those issues you cited. I have known the Vacca family for many years. They have never given me any indication of being non-tolerant. That's quite an accusation! "The company they keep" quote seems to me to be a bit over reaching. I have been to the web site for the Family Institute, and there are agendas that I do not agree with, but is Mrs. Vacca lobbying for discrimination? You haven't made such a case.
Barry
4:04 pm on Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Ed, the reports on the Secretary of State’s website indicate which bills Mr. Harty-Vacca lobbied for or against. The texts of the bills themselves are available on the legislature’s website. Her activities included lobbying: against the transgender rights bill (derisively and inaccurately labeled by opponents as the “bathroom bill”); against sexual education in schools; for restrictions on abortion; and for expansion of school prayer.
You are right: this is about more than the company one keeps. These are the activities that she claims prepare her to be a selectman.
Tony DelGreco
6:34 pm on Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Barry
You have it all wrong. First off I don't respect any person whom does'nt give there last name . I guess you don't really know some one until you meet them or know there track record. You cant pass judgement on somthing you read online or in a news artical without confirmation about a relieble source or having heard first hand. Maureen and Joe seem like great candidates and what this town needs to move ahead. Mr Prisco was the first whight move we have made. With these two candidates getting in and the existing members of the board, North Reading will prosper and be better and stonger finacially than ever before. Good luck to you both.....
Maureen Vacca
10:38 am on Thursday, May 3, 2012
A lobbyist's job is to educate legislators on details of proposed legislation. 6500 proposals were submitted last session. Legislators cannot know the details or implications of all. I choose to lobby on legislation that impacts youth & education.
Transgender Equal Rights There was no school exclusion in this proposal.
The definition of transgender includes 'feeling like the opposite sex' which can change day to day. Should schools employ individuals to teach impressionable children that 'present' as a man one day and a woman another?
It did not exclude bathrooms or locker rooms allowing students full access. School groups including MIAA, lobbied against it.
Woman's Right to Know aka Laura's Law a young woman who died during an abortion Her dr. was not required to have an assistant even though he used anesthesia. Medical standards for abortion clinics is nil, women deserve better. Counselors are not required to tell woman of all options including adoption. Women have a right to know.
Comprehensive Health Ed. I advocate for funding to implement age appropriate health ed. courses. The law allows health ed. to be defined on the local level so parents can have input into what is taught & at what age. The proposed legislation would remove local control & force schools to implement the states health framework.
Example of the state program:
Gr 3 for each of the following words write the definition & draw a picture.
1 circumcision 2 ejaculation 3 clitoris
Alice
10:28 pm on Monday, May 7, 2012
I am disturbed by Maureen Vacca's opposition to children being taught by a transgendered teacher. I am not sure how the fact that children are 'impressionable' is relevant. To oppose transgendered teachers sounds an awful lot like being prejudiced. This exact same argument was made in the 70s and 80s about gay teachers. And what detrimental effect will occur if children are taught by someone who has changed their outward gender? Will they grow up 'funny'? Will they be unable to function in society? Of course not!
Hello
11:57 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
I second this and also wonder if her opposition stands as one of the reasons she wasn't elected.
Janine Largent
12:32 pm on Friday, May 11, 2012
Alice and Hello,
We will never have an open dialogue about sensitive social issues if we choose to debate cloaked in secrecy. I would hope you would feel confident enough about your viewpoint to stand behind it. I don't think we should consider the viewpoints of individuals who choose to utilize guerrilla tactics to attack an individual. This is antagonistic and nonproductive. Please reveal youself and debate openly. Then perhaps we can make progress towards ends that truly provide for "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" of all citizens. P.S Alice, The fact that young children are impressionable is perhaps the most relevant thing of all.
Janine Largent
9:38 am on Tuesday, May 8, 2012
The Department of Public Education takes an active role in raising the children of America and parents seem to have relinquished their rights and responsibilities willingly. Yes, children are impressionable that is why the school department keeps rolling back the age in which they begin their "sex education" which seems to change annually as we try to keep up with the latest way in which some people define themselves. The proportion of education toward this "enlightened" viewpoint is disproportionate to the actual population with these issues of gender and sexual orientation. As parents I would like to think that we would be the primary educators of our children particularly when it comes to faith and morality. If we don't teach our children our values the school will teach them what their version of morality is. We clearly can teach our children to love one another and be tolerant without teaching them to accept certain behaviors. It used to be we sent are children to school to become literate and took our children to church to instill the moral values that are important to us. This generation has begun to integrate those vital responsibilities under one umbrella and the result is children who hold high school diplomas in their hand who literally can not read or write and who have a giant void where their faith used to be. I hardly think that is preparing them for their future.
Ed Canney
7:40 pm on Friday, May 11, 2012
Janine, agree completely. These individuals who are cloaked in secrecy are allowed to make accusations and false statements about individuals. How confident can anyone be in such statements, when these individuals only make their views known anonymously. Its not just social issues...but any issue where they make personal attacks. Its shameful!
Hello
10:51 pm on Friday, May 11, 2012
The simple fact is that I don't want you to know my name because I'm a student. Now that I've said that you've likely discounted my opinions, which is what I tried to avoid. Anyway, although I won't speak for Barry, I don't believe these are false accusations - he appears to have a valid source and to be honest, I don’t recall an accusation in the first place. Fact is fact, she lobbys against same sex marriage. There is no accusation there. Ms. Vacca holds an opinion different from mine - that love knows no boundaries. I won't say the gay rights movements is the same as the civil rights movement, because it's not, but I do think that when my generation begins to take charge, we'll realize homophobia, similar to racism, is not an acceptable position to hold. Once that happens, I hope, schools will teach that it is not okay to disallow someone rights, namely marriage rights, because of their sexuality; the same as it is not okay to disallow someone rights based on the color of their skin. Again, African Americans were persecuted before the civil rights movement whereas homosexuals are merely looked down upon by those who...
Hello
10:52 pm on Friday, May 11, 2012
...hold prejudices, so it isn't the same fight - but there are indisputable similarities. Ms. Vacca has lobbied for things I agree with, like "Women's Right to Know," but the majority of her positions are opposite mine and therefore I, personally, don't think she's right for our town.
We also, remember, were voting for two selectmen of a very small town - their opinions on issues like same-sex marriage likely will have no weight on policy-making regarding such issues. But based on her positions, I personally didn't think Maureen Vacca was the right person to represent North Reading.
Debates are just as easily had anonymously as they are face to face, by the way. My name has nothing to do with this, friendly, I hope, debate. Neither does the fact that I’m young.
Hello
10:53 pm on Friday, May 11, 2012
One last thing, the "attack" was entirely political. I've never met Ms. Vacca and hold no personal grudges of any kind.
Ed Canney
10:20 am on Saturday, May 12, 2012
No they were not entirely political, "Hello"!! Not at all. Its all in the phrasing you used. You link ones working for an organization as "homophobic".
As I had said in April when "Barry" raised his moniker..."the company one keeps", I also don't agree w/many of the positions of MFI. I thought Ms. Vacca explained quite well what her involvement is w/MFI.
But its far more than just Ms Vacca. There have been others defamed by these anonymous comments. There seems to be a movement to "out" political candidates for organizations they have affiliations or where their children may go to school.
What some of us are saying, please stay away from then "personal" agendas, and have respect for opinions of others.
Hello
1:40 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Vacca made it clear she lobbys against transgender individuals being legally allowed to teach a school class. It is a basic American right for a citizen to pursue the profession of their choice and Ms. Vacca holds the position that this shouldn't be the case. The proposal she lobbied for infringes on our nation's freedom and that doesn't fly with me.
Attempting to push a law that would effectively limit the rights of transgender citizens, part of the LGBT community, is homophobia. I will not attempt to find in myself respect for the political position of holding a prejudice of any kind, and that includes homophobia.
A politician may argue that they cross-their-hearts-and-hope-to-die aren't homophobic, but when they lobby or vote to confiscate the rights of an LGBT community group, their actions are proof of their prejudice.
Schools avoiding the issue of LGBT equality are proof that the issue is hot right now but we need to break that veil of avoidance. Perhaps, as a compromise, teachers shouldn't teach that LGBT equal rights are essential to freedom but rather show both sides of the issue and let students decide. Once that happens, ignorance will fade generation by generation as young Americans are educated - they'll see that homosexuality and all things like it aren't something to fight. Politicians urging laws that will cut off education like that are the tolerant future's poison, and therefore I won't let them represent me without being vocal about their toxicity.
Joe Veno
2:39 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
To all you cowards that hide behind a first name or or a word. I hope you enjoy taking cheap shots at people who have done more for this town than you ever could or would. If you got something to say about a person, good or bad use your real name coward !
Ed Canney
3:28 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Well said Joe.
Hello
4:03 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
As I've stated, Mr. Veno, the reason for me keeping my name anonymous is that I’m a student. I've already had this debate with Mr. Canney, and don't feel the need to repeat it with you.
I resent the idea you suggested about "taking cheap shots at people who have done more for this town than you ever could or would." I am a citizen that has the right to question my leaders' and candidates' political positions, regardless of what I’ve contributed to local happenings. It was not a cheap shot. Vacca has made clear she lobbys for unequal rights for LGBT community groups by urging laws that take away the right for transgender individuals to pursue the profession of their choice. Read the conversation I was having with Mr. Canney - we've talked about this.
Ed Canney
3:00 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
"Hello", I agree w/your arguments. In Massachusetts we have addressed these issues you cite. I have friends,relatives and acquaintances that are gay and lesbian. What positions they hold in the schools is no one's business. I would hope there is no sex-orientation litmus test to teach! It would certainly be a violation of their rights and violate the Massachusetts Constitution as well as The U.S. Constitution.
I just feel these issues are not best raised in a Selectman's race. I supported Steve O'Leary. Steve and I disagreed on many issues when I served w/him. He listened to my arguments and I his. Its all about persuasion and vigorous debate. I don't know where Steve O'Leary stands on gun ownership. If he were to run for state or federal elective office, I would inquire. But as a Selectman, his view has no bearing to that position on gun control
I just don't see the link to local elective office and national social policies. I thought it was unfair to single out Ms. Vacca on this issue when the question was not proposed to all the candidates.
Your position has great merit. But not in that forum. Just my opinion.
Hello
3:54 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
I'm glad we could come to an agreement on the issue. You're absolutely right in saying what positions they hold in schools is no one's business.
Although I agree, and have actually stated so in past comments, that a local politician's position on national social issues won't carry any weight in policy making regarding such issues, I do think it's important to elect politicians that represent your own personal opinion. For me, this is especially the case with homophobia and LGBT equal rights, because in my opinion they’re in a different class from things like gun ownership. The selectmen of our town will have no say over things like LGBT rights, but they still represent my town, and I personally want surrounding communities to see North Reading as a tolerant place.
Thank you for recognizing that, I enjoyed the debate.
Janine Largent
6:20 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Dear Hello, If by "student" you mean you are a minor then I would agree; do not give your identity because minors hold, as they should, a protected status in our society. I applaud you for making your voice heard. Mrs. Vacca is trying to protect students such as yourself with her lobbying. In regards to Barry's point nobody is denying Barry's source. Mrs. Vacca herself has explained her position on these bills clearly. It is certainly complicated. We need to be sure we protect the rights of all citizens including the rights of homosexuals. We also want to preserve the rights of people to worship as they please. All of the major religions of the world view homosexuality as sinful. Calling the union of people of the same sex a "marriage" is inflammatory to many. This should not be surprising nor considered bigoted. They are trying to reconcile their faith with the will of society. We need to keep this dialogue open.
Hello
8:25 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Thank you for recognizing the legitimacy of my reason for anonymity.
America is clearly defined as having a separation between church and state - laws of religious organizations should not and cannot have any sway over American laws made. Traditional Muslim law states that women's hair must be covered and that is certainly not an American law; most religions state that homosexual marriage can't exist but much the same that should have no relevance to American legality.
Finally, students like myself do not need protection from homosexuality - if I know a number of LGBT people personally, the only thing avoidance of the subject in school contributes is negativity about the subject which leads to bigotry.
I do undoubtedly agree that we need to keep this dialogue open, and I do wish it was a hotter issue for 2012's presidential election. This is a very healthy debate to have on a community website like this one, and I sincerely hope that the unnecessary and simple meanness, if you'll excuse my schoolish term, of some individuals doesn't cloud it too much.
Joe Veno
6:43 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Hello, I do not know if you are a student or not and I do not care. I also do not care about any debates you had with Ed Canney. If you are a student and want to debate with adults that is fine. But I would expect you to act as an adult and identify yourself.
That choice is yours. I am sorry you resent the comment I made about people taking cheap shots, But in the adult word that happens a lot and you are the one who decided to enter into this conversation. You have your rights as a citizen to agree or disagree with what is said and so do I.
Hello
8:10 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
The unbelievable condescension radiated by every letter of that reply leaves me speechless.
I refuse to give you my name for privacy reasons - lots of people read this, I'm a student, and things are different when you're in school.
I don't care, I don't know, I don't care... sounds like you're the kid here.
Don't you dare try to teach me a lesson on the "adult world," Joe. If I hadn't told you I was a student you'd have never known, and just maybe you would have been a tad more respectful in your replies. That's all I have to say.
Barry
6:59 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Bottom line is that the voters spoke on Tuesday. Loud and clear.
JIM
9:03 am on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Yeah if Maureen Spent as much money as the top vote getter spent to get elected maybe She would have been the top vote getter
Janine Largent
7:07 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Hello, In regards to Maureen's opinion on transgenders; we have always had separate bathrooms for men and women. We do this to protect particularly women and girls who are frequently subject to sexual exploitation and abuse. Maureen's concern on the bill was that it is difficult to protect the rights of women if an individual could site the transgender bill if caught being where he does not belong. Be patient. We need to protect the rights of all not just a minority group and taking the time to consider all the facts is not bigotry. Maureen is very thoughtful in her decision making and has been a voice of reason in this community for a long time. It does seem as if those who wish not to have a real discussion do jump to the charge of bigotry very quickly. It has been effective in silencing people for quite awhile. Seems the time has come for honest debate.
Hello
8:00 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
I probably should have specified that it wasn't the bathroom part of the proposal I'm opposed to, but rather the part where transgenders wouldn't be allowed to become teachers.
All includes minority groups, by the way. All includes everyone. All is all, and all is America.
I cannot agree that denying someone the right to pursue the profession of their choice based on their preferences isn't bigotry, however. Maureen may be thoughtful but that doesn't make me believe in her political stances.
Joe Veno
7:08 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Yes they did Barry and I respect that. But I will not sit back and watch people bash a great person like Maureen with out saying something.
In my opinion, Maureen got a slap in the face from NRUE and she does not need another one from people who will not identify themself.
Barry
7:29 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Joe - Ms. Vacca began this by touting her lobbying experience as making her qualified to be a Selectman. It was therefore fair game to inquire as to the organizations for whom she was lobbying, and the issues she was espousing. That's not bashing - that's shedding some light on what she claimed was a qualification. In my view, her positions on those issues disqualifies her from serving. And I'm extremely glad that the North Reading voters agreed. We need acceptance of all people, not marginalization and discrimination.
Hello
7:55 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Total agreement here, Barry. Thank you.
SMS
7:45 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
@Hello, you have spoken your opinion with respect. People think because people want to have anonymity they have no right to speak. The Patch TOS says that your registrationinformation be true without alias, you are allowed any screen name.
Hello
7:53 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Thank you, SMS, for understanding that. I truly do appreciate the support.
Joe Veno
9:54 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
SMS, You do not speak the truth with that comment. I NEVER said to my knowledge that people who do not use there real name should not comment on these pages. I know I never said that and I challange you to show me a post of mine that says that. I have always said everyone has the right to post their opinions on these pages. So one more time, I chalenge you to show me where I said they should not be on these posts.
SMS
10:52 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Joe, your assuming its you I am speaking of? I did not say your name at all in the post. I was commenting that she spoke her opinion well. I feel that anyone who chooses not to post their name is berrated for it and told their opinions or knowledge is not founded because they do not use their full name. Their are many reasons one may not use their name and you are not required to use your full name as your screen name. Also, I am not a minor, I am a college educated, business owner and proud mother of two.
Hello
11:17 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Once again, thank you SMS. I am a guy, just fyi, but I thank you for your understanding immensely.
Janine Largent
9:59 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Hello, First off let me say I generally do not support anonymous posting's. I find them cowardly. I, absoulutely do however,believe you are a minor just as I I believe SMS is. It is blatantanly obvious in the tone of your arguments. As a mother of four I have heard that tone before. I however, love your engagement and your passion.
I would like to know where in the constitution you found the clause on separation of church and state. I couldn't find that clause however I did find: In the establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof". First Amendment.
It would seem that our forefathers were very aware that people are passionate about their faith. Problem is most people would agree that marriage is a religious institution. Beginning to see the problem here? Maybe we aren't the bigots maybe we would just like our religious institutions left alone. The Government should not be in the business of marriage.
Hello
11:49 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
I appreciate and thank you for the compliment.
The phrase isn't specifically written in the Constitution, but the one you cited is interpreted as so by Thomas Jefferson and the Supreme Court.
Although marriage may have originated in Christianity, it has evolved to be a civil institution. This is the reason two people can get married at city hall, and atheists can get married. When marriage is a civil institution, it falls under the law.
Although I'll likely get huge amounts of grief for saying this, the law in Christianity that states homosexual marriage cannot exist is bigoted itself. There are absolutely, I know for a fact, devout Christians who do not follow the rule of being opposed to gay marriage.
However, I'd rather not get into a religious debate. They're exhausting. Anyway, the forefathers may have realized people were into their faith, but they also realized that government mixed with religion doesn't work. That's why they put that little sentence you mentioned in the Constitution. The founding fathers knew they were in America in the first place to escape religious persecution from England, with the Pilgrims made up of the Puritans and the Separatists and all them. There's no way they would let their new government be run by any religion, which led to religious freedom, which led to the evolution of marriage into a civil institution rather than a religious one, which, again, means that no religious law should have any sway over whether two men...
Hello
11:50 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
...two women, or any other sub-group of LGBT people can get married.
One more thing, while still maintaining that I don’t want to spark too much of a religious debate, why is it that you want to keep marriage between a man and a woman? Is it just because your religion says so? Did you always clean your room just because your parents said so, too?
Joe Veno
11:09 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
SMS. I never said you were a minor. Wher did you come up with me saying that? Please show me where I said you were a minor. Also If you check with Patch they request you use your full name when posting. We have been through this several time already.
SMS
11:42 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Joe, I simply stated Hello spoke about the matter very well. Also, if you read the comment from Ms. Largent she said she believed I was a minor. I have read the terms of use about registration I am fully aware of how it is written. There was at no time any assumption or malice in me stating "she".
Joe Veno
11:25 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
SMS, Why did you assume Hello was a female? It seems you read a lot into these posts that is not really there.
SMS
11:35 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Ok, I didnt even realize I wrote "she" and Hello my apologies if I offended you by using "she". Anyways like I said you speak your opinion very well for a student.
Hello
12:06 am on Sunday, May 13, 2012
No offense taken, just wanted to make the correction. Thanks again.
Joe Veno
11:41 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
SMS, That is one thing we can agree on. Hello is very well spoken in his posts.
Hello
12:07 am on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Thank you, Mr. Veno.
SMS
11:47 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Oh, and before I get any comments about "for a student", let me clarify. Hello spoke a great argument for his and many peoples beliefs. At a young age he has demonstrated that he can have a respectful, well-informed debate with adults.
Hello
12:07 am on Sunday, May 13, 2012
I really appreciate that SMS, thanks so much.
Joe Veno
5:42 am on Sunday, May 13, 2012
I agree.
JIM
9:19 am on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Tony, Janine, Joe and Ed, Get over it. If We choose not to use our full names that is our choice. If it bothers You all so much and You dont respect Us and We are cowards then dont reply to Us. This is Patch where we are not required to use our full names. This is America where We have the right to be anonymous if We so choose.We have anonymous voting at the Polls don't We, or do You think that should be changed also? Besides over 65% of Patch participants don't use Their full names.On this blog alone so far it is 50 50. So if we're cowards and You dont respect Us don't reply to Us then.signed JIM whoever I am
Joe Veno
11:47 am on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Jim, Show me where I said I did not respect people who do not use their full name. You can't because I never said that. You are trying to make people look bad by accusing them of things they did not say. i really do not care if you use your name or not and I really do not care what you have to say if you do not use your name. But I will still reply to your posts if I wish to. That is my right
Dave Miskinis
9:26 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
Joe, with all due respect, you referred to them as cowards. I call that disrespectful.
"To all you cowards that hide behind a first name or or a word."
Get a grip.
JIM
9:41 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Oh, Sorry Joe, Do You respect cowards?
Janine Largent
5:13 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Hello, I believe Thomas Jefferson and all of our founding fathers meant exactly what they wrote. Since I presume you have never actually spoken to Thomas Jefferson nor to anyone who ever spoke to Thomas Jefferson you might want to site the reference you used to make your assertion on his intent.
I am glad that you acknowledge that marriage originated as a religious institution. Government should only govern civil matters. Government cannot "bless" your relationship. Government regulates unions for tax purposes and for the maintenance of public health. I would call that a civil union.
I don't understand why so many people are bent on having the term marriage from the government anyway. What is wrong with the term civil union. If heterosexuals would be willing to be use the same label for their civil union as homosexuals wouldn't that keep everybody equal? Or is the insistence on the term marriage seeking some kind of blessing or spiritual legitimacy of the union. If indeed God is a "bigot" why would you want that endorsement anyway?
If marriage originated as a religous term would you say it is no longer a religious term or has government "borrowed" it? If it is no longer a religious term what is the ceremony that occurs between two individuals in a church called?
I realize that these religious debates are exhausting but, you seem like the energetic sort. When a political debate involves religious issues you are kind of stuck having the debate.
Barry
7:23 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
"Site" the reference? I wonder what old Tom would have said about a public education.
Janine Largent
10:02 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
HUH?!!
Janine Largent
10:14 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Barry, when people don't have anything substantive to add to an argument they look for a sarcastic comment or call people bigots. It is easy not to make typo's if you have nothing to say.
Mr White
9:15 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
@ Joe Veno,
Just curious, what proof can you offer on this blog that you are actually the/a Joe Veno as your screen name implies? You huff & puff every day about "full names", "last names", "Patch rules" etc. I think you do this just to get to see your "name" online. You really need to get over yourself, whoever you may really be. For all we know you may even be a woman.
Joe Veno
10:26 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
Mr. White ( Who ever you are) I would expect a question like that from someone who is afraid to be held acountable for what they say on these pages.
JIM
9:43 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Yes, But do You respect Mr White?
Mr White
1:39 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
@Joe Veno,
I'm just demonstrating the absurdity of your constant attempt to police the Patch sites. No one really knows who is who on these types of sites and if you think otherwise, you're a fool.
Joe Veno
10:30 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
Dave, I understad how you feel about my comment. But that is how i feel about the issue. Sorry if it offends you but i am not sorry if it offends them. Look at the most recent post from so called Mr White.
Ed Canney
11:14 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
Joe, I think we're dealing w/an immature bunch here. Remember when we thought were the smartest people in the room?
Ed Canney
11:55 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
To "Hello"..I'm glad we could come to an agreement on the issue."
I don't think we did. Your position is that we should have Selectman that are tolerant w/respect to LGBT rights. But that question was not asked of any candidate in the recent election. You don't know what the elected Selectman...specifically Mr. Foti or Mr. O'Leary's position on LGBT rights are?
Only Ms Vacca was publically questioned about this issue in this blog.
That's where the fairness... that Mr. Veno, Ms. Largent and I are debating.
To make a possible link, that a particular candidate is " homophobic", when the issue is not proposed to the entire field of candidates for that position is quite unfair.
Janine Largent
12:22 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Well said Ed.
Barry
1:32 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Ed, that's only because Ms. Vacca stated above how her experience as a lobbyist and the opportunity she had to "help develop public policy and set budgetary priorities" made her qualified to be a selectman. It was therefore appropriate to examine the public policy that she was trying to help develop. In fact, the hateful views of the ONE organization for which she lobbied disqualified her. And she lost. And it's time to move onto other things now.
Hello
5:50 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
I'm in total agreement that we don't have the other candidates' opinions on the issue, it's a fact I don't argue with.
By bringing up her involvement in the lobbying for limited transgender rights, though, Ms. Vacca opened the door for debate on her stance on the issue. For the validity of the accusation of her being homophobic, the other candidates have no relevance. They could just as well be homophobic, they could just as well not be, but by lobbying for a law that would disallow transgender individuals to become teachers Ms. Vacca is homophobic regardless of the opinions of the other candidates. Obviously it’s just my opinion that lobbying for something like that makes her homophobic – an opinion I do hold strongly.
Honestly, I wish there were selectman debates of some kind. It's difficult to make an informed decision about who you're going to support for selectmen based on articles written and campaigning done by the candidates and their supporters. Then again, if there were debates, the likelihood of national issues being brought up would be very little, which I think is unfortunate.
In order for things like debating a candidate's political stance without questioning the others about the issue to not happen again, I think it's a great idea for debates of some kind to start happening in the next...
Hello
5:58 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
One last thing Ed, by coming to an agreement I just meant you agreeing that transgendered individuals shouldn't lose the right to teach.
'"Hello", I agree w/your arguments. In Massachusetts we have addressed these issues you cite. I have friends,relatives and acquaintances that are gay and lesbian. What positions they hold in the schools is no one's business. I would hope there is no sex-orientation litmus test to teach! It would certainly be a violation of their rights and violate the Massachusetts Constitution as well as The U.S. Constitution."
Genuinely sorry if I misunderstood and you don't agree with that point.
Hello
6:00 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
...elections. Obviously topics like LGBT rights wouldn't have to be brought up, but it would still be great to understand the local things candidates agree/disagree on and the ideas they have for the town.
Ed Canney
1:52 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Ms. Vacca was not "disqualified" from anything. She lost an election. Again your interpretation fails the argument.
Janine Largent
2:48 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Barry, calling people bigots, hateful and homophobic has apparently worked so well for you that you haven't bothered to develop an argument or, for that matter, a subject. Because of that your single minded agenda has lead you to believe the election was soley about the one and only subject that apparently matters to you and even with that subject you haven't been able to offer one shred of evidence toward your accusations. A difference of opinion does not make one a bigot. Mrs. Vacca explained her stance on the subjects you seem to bloviate about. I am quite comfortable with her stance. Apparently 783 other people were to.
Hello
5:55 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
A difference of opinion does not make one a bigot, until someone loses their rights.
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye, Ms. Largent.
Barry
6:04 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Janine, their actions and words speak for themselves. On the MFI website, they admit that they oppose "any efforts ... to normalize homosexual behavior" . They "encourage the healing of individuals who wish to change their choice of lifestyle through the work of Exodus International, Love Won Out and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays". In other words, they want to impose their narrow-minded, bigoted view of what is "normal" on others. That is hateful. If you can't see that, then you are to be pitied.
Joe Veno
4:44 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Well said Janine.
Barry
6:06 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Joe, did you ever think that perhaps there's a reason that you came in dead last in the elections for Selectman in 2011 and 2010?
Joe Veno
5:05 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Good point Ed.
Joe Veno
6:31 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Barry (Who ever you are) Yes I know the reason I was not elected.
Let me help you out with this.
I got the least number of votes DAHHHHH, You understand now?
A person like you could not run for office because you could not hide
who you are and would have to answer for your foolish comments.
Also I do not intend to debate with a no name on these pages.
Joe Veno
6:37 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Barry (who ever you are) Do you realize that one of the elections there was only two people running?
That makes your comment that I came in "dead last" sound real stupid now doesent it?
You may not think so but it does.
Janine Largent
7:26 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Barry, It would seem to me that I could respect your constitutional rights without thinking your behavior is "normal". Or even liking you for that matter.
Janine Largent
7:30 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Hello, I would like to give you the opportunity to explain your comment "It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye". It sounds like a threat to me.
P.S. Neither you not Barry have even once offerered one substantive point to support your tirade. Neither have you answered a single question I posed. Cat got your tongue?
Hello
7:44 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
I was in no way making a threat, Ms. Largent. In all seriousness I apologize if it sounded that way. I'm on this site to debate and contribute with as much civility as possible; I would never intentionally make a threat.
I was responding to a sentence in your reply to Barry, "A difference of opinion does not make one a bigot.” I disagree with that when you’re talking about equality. “It’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye” is a saying. In the comment, I said, “A difference of opinion does not make one a bigot, until someone loses their rights” and compared that sentence to the saying I just spoke of. I was using it as a metaphor – “fun and games” being debate and difference in opinion about equal rights, and “someone loses an eye” being people losing rights, in this case, potentially losing the right to pursue the profession of your choice.
Again, it wasn’t a threat. I am truly sorry if I offended you. I would appreciate a response to the comment now that you know it’s not a threat, though.
In response to the PS. This is absolutely not a tirade. I'd appreciate it if we treated it more like a friendly debate, which is what I'd really like it to be. Even though I know I'll get grief for sounding like a kid when I say this, can we attempt to keep this about an issue we disagree on and not jab each other with insults?
Janine Largent
8:42 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Barry and Hello, Should bathrooms be coed? In order to accomodate the minority of transgenders we would have to make ALL locker rooms and bathrooms coed. Wouldn't we? Seriously, how do we regulate such a thing? Or, do you think we shouldn't regulate it? Help us out here. I do support your civil rights but, does anyone else have any?
Ed Canney
8:02 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Interesting point Janine. The regulatory body for that issue is the State Plumbing Board. Restrooms must be designated...men's & women's each w/handicap provisions. There is a "co-ed" provision(uni-sex handicap), and designed for disabled who need assistance. The Plumbing Board is very strict, as any one who has dealt w/them may know. It would be interesting how they would deal w/this issue. When it comes to Building or Plumbing codes, even the Legislature has limited authority to the regulatory mandates of these boards.