Too much secrecy implies something to hide

The announcement of tonight's special meeting of the cabinet appeared on the borough website like a rabbit popping out of a magician's hat - so quickly in fact that we wouldn't mind betting the some councillors found out at the same time we did - if not after.
Certainly, we know that some of the items in our week ending feature last Friday came as news not only to our non-political readers but to some elected members as well.
The special meeting is yet another "call in" - when a decision by the cabinet steamroller is questioned and opened up for wider discussion and debate than it gets from the gang of eight behind closed doors.
You might think that this is a celebration of the often trumpeted "openness and transparency" that we're told we now enjoy with the BBI led council.
But no.
The first motion on the agenda is:
Section 100(A)(iv) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information)(Variation) Order 2006, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1, 2 & 4 of Schedule 12A of the Order.
We do know that the two items under discussion are "Confidential Minutes from the Cabinet meeting of 2 June 2010" and "Police Charging at the May Fair Report by the Legal Services Manager" - an issue that at one time threatened the future of the historic fair ... and for all we know, still might.
Following the paper trail back to 2nd June, there is again an item "Exempt Minutes of Cabinet meeting of 21st April 2010" which was discussed in secret, whilst a visit to the minutes of 21st April finds "Confidential Minutes from the Cabinet meeting of 24 March" together with "Appendix 1 to the report on the Update On Boston Health Lifestyles Hub (Cafe)" and a "Management Restructure Report by the Chief Executive."
At the risk of labouring the point, a further trawl through the past in the minutes brings up confidential debate on issues such as the Haven Gallery and public conveniences, outstanding borrowing, and a long running judicial review.
And eventually, emerging from the mists of time and confidentiality comes the news that the council has given away the town's first bank in the High Street to the Heritage Trust of Lincolnshire for restoration - losing more than £40,000 along the way and ceding any future commercial benefit from the property.
Yesterday, as we browsed the borough's valuation documents, we found mention of a report to the cabinet in December ... but of the report itself, we could find no trace.
What is it with the BBI and secrecy?
Obviously a small number of matters need to be kept confidential - but only for a while.
Management restructuring, for example, is sensitive in the planning and commissioning stage, but as the people who pay the wages, surely at some point we ought to be told the outcome of such a change, and who is now who within the council. If you've ever tried to discover who the senior officers are at West Street, you're in for a shock - because you can't.
And what's this judicial review? It sounds serious and expensive, and surely something we should know at least a little about.
And one final question: what on earth can be so confidential about the planning of a health cafe that it needs to be withheld from the public domain?
To claim "openness and transparency" in Boston Borough Council is a joke.
The reality is that much of what the council does is done in secret when it need not be - and it makes us wonder what the BBI and its cabinet have to hide.
You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Numbers highlight borough's weaknesses

Boston Borough council's assets are worth a grand total of £27,290,116 according to figures going before the council's Policy and Projects Committee tomorrow night.
The committee is being asked to scrutinise a draft strategy for the future; comment on its suitability and sufficiency; consider the relevance and appropriateness of its strategic objectives and refer the whole kit and caboodle to the cabinet for adoption.
Basically, the idea is that over the next three years there will be a basic review of the council's property holdings and exploration of options for underused, costly and inefficient assets.
Office accommodation needs will be looked at - including exploring options for sharing premises, making better use of what the council already owns and seeing whether better opportunities exist elsewhere. The review will also look at how the council works and whether opportunities exist for mobile and home working.
There will also be a review of community asset holdings and the long term options for their use - including "consideration of community asset transfer alternative uses that may better meet corporate objectives." That could be good news or it could be bad news, depending on what it means, as the bulk of our community assets seem to be public open spaces and recreation areas.
Looking down the list of the council's assets is an involved and time consuming process.
The council seems to be rich in car parks and public conveniences, whilst the two assets which comprise the bulk of its worth will soon be beyond its reach in terms of realisation should the need arise. The Princess Royal Sports Arena, valued at £11,242,000, is already designated as a freehold asset that is let, whilst the Geoff Moulder Leisure Pool and fitness suite, at £4,300,365, is still listed as the council's freehold property, but is of course, due to be let as soon as another couple of million quid of our cash is thrown at it.
Certainly a review seems to be long overdue.
Looking at the list of council income from assets shows the age old practice of letting your mates have something for nothing is still very much en vogue.
Why else does Lincolnshire County Council pay £1 annual rent for an asset that a private individual might be asked to pay £5,000 for, whilst East Midlands Electricity rents chunks of land around the town for less than £50 a year? Here's an area where market forces shiould be introduced.
Not only that, but why - after all the investment made in "affordable" industrial units here, there and everywhere - are so many vacant ... six of the 18 units on the Riverside Industrial park alone are earning nothing, which says little if anything for the people charged with bring business to the borough.
We shudder to think what the situation is at the £3.6 million Boston Enterprise Centre on Endeavour Park, which at the last count had an occupancy of a meagre 17%.
The really interesting thing about all the figures and statistics in the report to the Policy and Projects Committee is not so much how they add up, but what they show us of the shortcomings of Boston as a business operator.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

South Holland puts the record straight

Last week's blog about the cuts facing Boston Borough Council provoked a comment from Councillor Roger Gambba-Jones, the portfolio holder for Sustainable Communities on South Holland District Council.
At first, we thought he was taking us to task for getting it wrong - but then we realised we were merely guilty by association.
Councillor Roger Gambba-Jones wrote:

"I read with some surprise the inaccurate blog comments regarding the Local Development Framework and was intending to set the record straight based on the reasonable assumption that those outside of the process can be forgiven for not understanding some of the challenges involved in producing this highly complex and detailed document.
"However, I now see that much of the comment included in your blog, is a direct quote from an 'official' entry on the Boston Borough Council website, so I will need to choose my words extremely carefully!
"The new government has made clear its intentions regarding the LDF process - scrap it! However a replacement of some sorts will be needed, as the alternative is mayhem and a development free-for-all in both our districts. Therefore, given such an assumption there would still be clear advantages to both council in pursuing this work jointly.
"The Local Development Framework is NOT a government initiative. It is a replacement for what was previously and may soon become again, the Local Plan.
"The LDF is not a service. It is a planning document produced by the planning policy unit of the council - no more no less.
"The 'service' bit comes when you apply the policies contained in the LDF; it's called development control and there is no suggestion of merging this as part of this work.
"The joint working between South Holland and Boston Borough is not a merging of a 'service' or anything else that might be seen as a day to day function of the two councils. The joint working will be between equal partners and will focus on the work required to collect evidence.
"This evidence is needed to demonstrate that development of a particular type is both suitable and sustainable in a particular location and this will be tested by a public examination at some point in the future - just as the document produced by Local Plan process was.
"Collecting planning evidence is a time consuming and expensive exercise - witness the cost of producing the Strategic Flood Risk Assessments that both councils currently use and have recently updated. If we can work together in order to produce this evidence, we believe that we can achieve substantial savings for both our councils.
"Even if, by working together, we do no more than produce the evidence required, there are potentially significant savings to be made. If we could actually go to the next stage of producing a joint document, be it an LDF or a Local Plan, then the savings for both councils would be even greater. Public Inquires for this sort of work are costly and time consuming affairs.
"To summarise:
"The LDF is not a government initiative
"The LDF process is not a council service
"Producing a joint LDF document does not equate to the merging of any type of council service.
"Finally, whatever local animosities (as alluded to in your blog) might exist outside of the two councils, South Holland District Council is committed to seeking the best and most cost effective way to maintain council services whilst keeping the cost to the tax payer as low as possible. We have much in common with our neighbours in Boston Borough and I believe that we can work well together, as equal partners, to deliver a document that will benefit both councils in the long term."

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Week ending 25th June

Our Friday miscellany of the week's news and events
Puzzle pieces ... We're told that the mystery of the £1 million pound loan has been solved. Target columnist George Wheatman says that one of the council's "newest" officers found it was for the refurbishment and extension of the municipal buildings in West Street - perhaps our new S151 financial wizard. And nobody remembered that until now? We calculated that at the time the loan was taken out in 1991, the council's annual budget was of the order of £4 million. So did someone really borrow an extra quarter of its annual budget for such a purpose? Not only that, but at today's prices, £1 million in 1991 is worth today between £1,610,000 on the retail price index, to £2,420,000 using the share of GDP. It's not enough simply to solve this mystery. It needs to be established whether the money really was borrowed for this purpose - and if so who borrowed it and on whose authority. Then even more serious questions can be raised.
Easy come, easy go ... More Freedom of Information requests on how much Boston Borough Council pays the Boston BID show that it stumps up for six properties in the BID area. These are: the bus station and premises in St George's Road , the now closed Haven Centre, the Assembly Rooms, South Square car park, the Market Place, and the Municipal Buildings. Since the BID started in December 2008, we, the taxpayer have poured £8071.16 down this pathetic drain. What on earth do we get in return for this? Perhaps someone could tell us.
Empty vessels ... The Empty Property Project aimed at privately owned homes empty for six months or more, which was announced this week, has undertones of busywork about it. Surely, the councils involved - which include Boston - already know where empty properties are, because their owners are not paying council tax on them. The idea of inviting whistleblowers to "report" empty properties smacks of Big Brother, and whilst the problems of empty properties are stressed in detail, there isn nothing about what "help" is available for their owners - just a hint of jam tomorrow.
Thanks a bunch, garden centre ... We are rightly exhorted to support our local businesses, but after the advert below appeared in this week's local papers, we feel that perhaps some local businesses ought to consider the idea of a little reciprocity.

Of course we all know that Boston has traffic problems, but to suggest avoiding the town because of them is a step too far. If the advertiser were Tesco rather than Johnsons we know what the reaction would be.
Great escape ... we note that Australian-born "psychologist" Kris Murrin has been appointed to David Cameron’s office as director of his" implementation" unit in charge of ensuring policies are delivered and that staff work effectively. Bostonians will recall Ms Murrin as the woman who boasted that she would get the town's motorists out of their cars and end traffic congestion at a stroke. Despite Boston Eye's warnings, and ably abetted by the Boston Bypass Independents, all she did was produce a TV show for Channel 4 called "The woman who stops traffic" which depicted a town filled with obese imbeciles who would rather die walk if they could otherwise drive. Since then, Ms Moron's triumphs have included helping a food retailer come up with sales ideas by getting staff to imagine they were ingredients in a stir fry in a "wok" made of beanbags and chairs. At least one Conservative MP has already said he is not prepared to be subjected to a "mumbo-jumbo psychobabble experiment." How sad that Boston lacked such prescience. And what happened to the apology we seem to recall the BBI was demanding from C4 for its pathetic programme?
Signing off ... How embarrassing for the local businesses whose names are still associated with the apparently defunct "Boston in Bloom" project . Outside the Post Office, two patchy strips of grass are all that are left of the once beautifully tended flower beds maintained by the borough as part of the sponsorship deal. Out of kindness if nothing else, those responsible should remove the name plaques ... unless of course the unsuspecting companies are still paying in the belief that they are helping make the town a prettier place.
How time flies ... It's six months to the day to Christmas Day. Surely the leader's New Year message on the borough's website ought to be considered well past its sell-by date by now? Presumably he's got nothing new to say, rather than being too busy to put pen to paper for his adoring public. But for someone who not that long ago announced a blog that fell flat on its face, the Leader has fallen eerily silent.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Cuts may well have little effect

A day after hearing that Boston Borough Council apparently not only administers services for the Boston Business Improvement area at no charge, and also pays a small fortune to be a member, it's interesting to learn that the council is "preparing for the cuts" according to the borough website.
Local councils have to chip in £1.166 billion towards total government savings of £6.2 billion, and whilst Boston's general grant is not being reduced in 2010/11, it will suffer a series of salami slices to a series of grants.
But is it as bad as it looks?
A grant of £330,000 towards community cohesion funding will be cut by £78,000, which means there will be less money to award grants to the voluntary sector.
Whilst this will generate the usual squeals of outrage, history shows that often, all manner of grants are made to organisations who often do not use them wisely - and equally could manage perfectly well without them if they had to.
An expected £22,000 Local Authority Business Growth Incentive funding has been cut, but had not been allocated to a specific purpose, and given the way the borough is wasting the £52,000 awarded by the previous government's Communities and Local Government Department "to improve the appearance and vibrancy of town centres," it clearly lacks imagination in this department, so again this cut back is of little significance.
Then, there's the £216,000 which had been expected from the Housing and Planning Delivery Grant. This money would have supported "development of the local development framework" - a Government initiative to manage how local development takes place in towns and the countryside. The appearance of the word "development" twice in one sentence is a warning in itself that we're just looking at a talking shop here, and the news that Boston Borough Council is talking to South Holland District Council about saving money by merging this service further reinforces the belief.
We all remember what happened last time Boston spent months planning a merger with SHDC - it all fell apart.
Add to the the fact that South Holland regards Boston as something nasty looking found on one's instep after a walk in the long grass, we don't hold out much hope for any great developments there.
We're told that the council has already carried out a review of its top management structure, which has now been slimmed to the bare minimum of a chief executive and two directors - although lots of fancy titles still seem to be in evidence, and an early major review of "everything the council does and how it does it" has been initiated.
Meanwhile, it's hold-your-breath-time until July's cabinet meeting which "will lead the way for prioritisation and programming of the council’s work to ensure it can balance the 2012-13 budget and beyond."
We await the deliberations of the Magnificent Eight with bated breath.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Questions over borough link with Boston BID

Our recent criticism of the Boston Business Improvement District (BID) has brought a detailed response and some very important questions from Darron Abbott ... a self-employed accountant who has lived and worked in Boston all his life.
Mr Abbott began enquiring into Boston BID after one of his clients was summonsed by Boston Borough Council for non-payment of the levy raised by the organisation.
"My client passed the summons to me to investigate as the levy was for an empty premises, one which Boston Borough Council acknowledge that no business is being run from as no business rates are being charged.
"My first port of call was Boston Borough Council, which stated the BID levy was payable - despite the property being empty. The council then referred me to the BID manager Niall Armstrong. Once again he confirmed the levy was payable for empty properties, and during the discussion he mentioned the Annual General Meeting was to be held on the 15th June.
"Businesses that are in the BID levy area have since received a letter that states 'unfortunately it has been necessary to cancel the General Meeting.'
"What is not explained is that the misfortune was due to the fact that the Boston BID had breached Companies Act 2006 section 307. This deals with the notification of members (businesses within the BID area - these businesses are made shareholders of the company upon payment of the first year's levy.) Section 307 states all members should be notified of the date and venue of the AGM not less than 14 days prior to the meeting. It soon became apparent that no notifications had been sent out, The cynical amongst us may suggest that the officers of the company did not want anyone there.
"Next call was Companies House, and the request for a copy of the annual return dated 29th January 2010. Upon inspection it appeared only 31 shares had been issued. I knew for a fact that some of my clients had paid their first year's levy before the date of the annual return. One other concern was the fact the chairman of the company did not appear to have paid the levy on his two businesses within the BID area.
"The BID business plan states the first £1 of the first year's levy would buy the business paying the levy a share in Boston BID. Section 558 of the Companies Act 2006 states - 'shares in a company are taken to be allotted when a person acquires the unconditional right to be in the company’s register.'
Basically when the levy was paid a share should be issued - so everyone who paid his or her first year's levy should have been issued a share certificate immediately. Section 555 of the Act requires a company to inform Companies House of any allotment within 28 days using form SH01. After viewing the annual return it was very apparent that the officers were in breach of this section and also the company had filed an incorrect annual return.
"Then on to Boston Borough Council - and a freedom of information request.
"Boston Borough Council issue the demands, collect the levy and issue summons for non-payment. Surely they charge for this service, as Boston BID is an independent private limited company.
"The reply came back that they do not charge a penny. They do have a statutory duty to collect the levy on behalf of Boston BID Limited, but it does not state that the council cannot recover its costs. Someone within the council has decided not to recoup any of its costs, therefore all businesses and council tax payers of the borough are subsidising Boston BID.
"Then another thought struck me - as all of Boston Borough Council properties (Municipal Buildings, Guildhall, Assembly Rooms, car parks, etc) have a rateable value - are they liable for a BID levy. "Guess what? Yes they are, and yes they do pay it!
"Considering the rateable value of the Municipal Buildings alone is £211,000, this is a levy of at least £2,110 paid by the council taxpayers of the borough. I have issued a further freedom of information request to ascertain the amount of the levy paid by the council.
"Finally I exercised the right of one of the shareholders of Boston BID and attended Boston Business Centre to inspect the books and records of the company. The financial records were not available. I could not, therefore, ascertain the financial position of the business. The non-availability of the financial records is deemed as a refusal by Companies House, which is a criminal offence, deemed to be committed by each of the directors. After inspecting the register of members, it became apparent that towards the end of March some realised that lots of shares should have been allotted and share certificates issued. Unfortunately the relevant form SH01 had not been submitted to Companies House, once again in breach of Section 555.
"I have concerns regarding the management of Boston BID.
"If the officers of the company cannot complete statutory forms and comply with the Companies Act 2006, are they capable of running a company that has statutory powers to demand a levy from all businesses in an area defined by themselves?
"I have concerns as a council tax payer as to the extent that the council are subsiding a private unassociated company at a time when we will be facing cuts in services. Can we afford to continue to throw money at yet another organisation?
"I would urge all shareholders of the company to attend the new AGM on 14th July. If they are unable to attend, complete the relevant part of the notice they have received appointing a proxy, and get them to attend and vote on their behalf.
"If enough unhappy shareholders turn up they can force a vote to have Boston BID wound up - and say goodbye to future levies.
"Any shareholder unhappy with the running of the company should contact Dominic Roberts from Companies House at dfroberts@companieshouse.gov.uk or phone 03031234500.
"All council taxpayers who are unhappy with their money being used to subsidise this company should contact their councillor - I hope they have more luck than I did ... she said I was making wild unfounded allegations and was not interested. I would point out that other organisations such as Boston Chamber of Commerce, and Meteor Parking are not afraid to charge Boston BID for services provided by themselves, so why should Boston Borough Council not recover their costs?
"Also we should find out which officer of the council decided that no costs be recovered.
"Council tax payers can also attend the AGM as observers, as they have a vested interest as Boston Borough Council hold a share in the company and should respect the views of the council tax payer when they vote on any issue."

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

"So many questions remain about PRSA"

Whatever the ruling Bypass Independent Party way wish, the issue of the Princess Royal Sports Arena is not going to go away.
Their approach to sweeping the issue under the carpet following the decision to write off almost two million pounds of taxpayers' money was to ridicule the walk out of Conservative and other opposition councillors who demanded greater investigation of the whole affair by describing them as a "rather bizarre, dysfunctional coalition of opposition councillors" and sending their sanitised version of events to the editors of the local papers.
Now, Wyberton's Independent Councillor John Storry has hit back in an open letter offering his own "expanded explanation for the actions of the 'offending councillors.'"
Councillor Storry, a one-time member of the BBI who quit to become an Independent , and who interestingly is the joint representative for Wyberton with none other than the council leader Richard Austin, says:

"Last week's peevish, ill-informed letters about the councillors' walk-out over the PRSA's financial situation provides dramatic evidence that the town cannot handle the truth. "It's odd the majority party voted down the opposition's exit strategy because writing off the £1.9m won't be the end of it!
"For a start a £200k loan repayment is missing, as well as the ongoing running costs and yet another bill for delayed repairs before any third-party handover occurs! "Questions which need to be asked include :- Why were the Charity's audited accounts mostly not published until 9-10 months after each year-end, which made accurate profitability assessments almost impossible to achieve?
"Who didn't do their homework and lost £600,000 worth of sponsorship overnight?
"Why have no third-party donations been received since 2005? ... but perhaps the most important secret of all is that the Opposition Councillors recently convened a special meeting of the Audit Committee to uncover the truth!
"What happened next?
"BSI Directors politely declined their invitations to attend!
"So now that the moaners have had a go at the Independents and Conservatives who were actually trying to protect the town's interests by limiting the write-off to a specified amount, how about some public disapproval being pointed in the other direction if only to level the playing field?
"Who's going to be brave enough to demand that the Audit Commission (7, Lewis Court, Enderby, LE19 1SU) and/or the Charity Commission (PO Box 1227, Liverpool L69 3UG) convene a Public Enquiry to settle the argument once and for all?!"

Boston Eye says bravery shouldn't really enter into it, as this whole affair needs exposing to the daylight of an open and transparent (recognise the phrase?) investigation.
We understand that the Interim Chief Executive is also playing some sort of part in the internal wranglings of the council, and look forward to hearing something by way of progress soon.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Is Boston's pension pot the next financial time bomb?

Tonight, people far cleverer than us will sit down to discuss and approve the borough council's unaudited statement of accounts for 2009-2010 - at least ... we hope so!
It has been said several times during the ongoing debate about the decision to dump the Princess Royal Sports Arena - and thus write of the the equivalent of ten times the gross domestic product of Butterwick - that councillors are not accountants, architects or builders. They are just ordinary folk who trust and rely on the professionals employed by the authority to tell them the direction known as up.
And what a pile of paper sits before the Audit Committee at tonight's meeting.
The meeting comes just as David Cameron's Chancellor George Osbourne is expected to target public sector workers in his bid to tackle the nation's record £155 billion deficit.
At the weekend, the Prime Minister said that whilst there was no agenda against public sector workers ... "There are three large items of spending that you can't ignore and those are public sector pay, public sector pensions and benefits. We revere and want to stand up for people working in the public sector. There is no animus against people because they work in the public sector. It is just a question of how do we best deal with this budget deficit in a way that is fair."
So, given Cameron's reassurances, expect public sector workers to be squeezed until their pips squeak.
Having said that, we note that even though the number of staff employed at Boston Borough Council has reportedly been cut from 355 to 295 since the BBI took power, there was a significant increase in the council’s pension fund net liability.
Whilst the estimated assets value rose by 25%, estimated future liabilities rose by over 50%, resulting in the doubling of the pensions liability and pensions reserve figures on the balance sheet.
This is when we start to lose touch, as the report goes on.....

The net worth of the Council at the year end was (£7.034m), a decrease of £18.486m on the restated position at the end of 2008/09. The main contributing factor to this reduction is the increase in the estimated net Pension Fund liability, which increased by £16.952m over last year. This increase reflects changes in the assumptions made by the Fund’s independent actuary, and although the value of investments held by the pension fund increased in the year, the liabilities increased by a much greater sum due to changes in the discount rate and mortality figures. This does not immediately impact upon the Council’s resources, as sums payable to the Fund are assessed on a three yearly basis, the next revaluation being in March 2010 with any change to ongoing budgets being effective from 2011/12. This is explained further in note 34. In addition, the annual asset revaluation exercise, coupled with adjustments to the classification of a small number of fixed assets following a review of their treatment, meant that the carrying value reduced by £3m. Again, this does not have an impact on taxpayers as the reduction is accounted for within the Revaluation Reserve and Government Grants Deferred balances, therefore not affecting the General Fund Balance.

We don't like the sound of the the phrase "this does not immediately impact on the council's resources" - and fear that it may well be the next time bomb of financial disaster to follow the PRSA and join the million pound loan debacle.
All we know is that it sounds like a lot of money, and something that needs addressing as a matter of urgency.
Never mind, in the meantime the gravy train goes rolling along.
Although we are told that the number of senior posts has been reduced, the returns show that in 2009 - 2010, six officers earned between £50,000 and £95,000 a year, the same as in the previous financial year - with the exception that last year there were two in the £55-£60 thousand whereas the year before one of those was in the £50-£55 thousand category.
In 2009/10 the borough employed one Strategic Director on £82,000, another on £78,500 and an Assistant Director and Assistant Director & S151 officer on £57,300 - presumably the same post advertised as Director of Resources & Section 151 Officer at £87,500 during the year.
In the council's rope manufactory section, we note that former Chief Executive Mick Gallagher, who departed the council within a week of a highly adverse Audit Commission report on Boston Borough Council was paid £114,663 including employers pension contributions of £21,382 in 2008-09.
We can find no mention of any payoff being made to Mr Gallagher, but as this is the public sector, where such payments seem obligatory and excessive, we are sure that one must have been made.
The total of Members’ Allowances payable for 2009/10 was £121,179 - which isn't bad considering, and was in fact less than the previous year - although one or two councillors in particular seem to do little, if anything to earn their attendance money.
The year has been one of gains and losses of another kind.
Between March 2009 and March 2010, the borough has gained a "conferencing system." Presumably this was the £28,000 sound system designed to help hearing impaired members of the BBI pay more attention at council meetings. If so, then we should ask for a refund.
We've gained 11 items of street cleaning plant - and hopefully we'll start using them at some point so that the streets will look a little cleaner.
We've gained one "miscellaneous" property, and lost one public facility building.
Bad debt provision increased by £13,799 in the year, resulting in a total bad debt provision at the year end of £223,000.
But the good news is, Boston's family silver is safe.
Our historic collection of artifacts and civic regalia - valued in part only for insurance purposes at £1.4m - has been deemed to be a community asset with "a strong presumption" against disposal, to be held in perpetuity, they have no determinable useful life and there are restrictions on their disposal.
Hopefully we need not anticipate their appearance in the window of one of the town's burgeoning gold dealerships in the foreseeable future?

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Read the borough's accounts in full by clicking here.

Week ending 18th June

Our Friday miscellany of the week's news and events

Fingers crossed ... The Boston Bypass Independents' blog is nothing if not amusing. Pages appear and vanish like leaves on the trees between spring and autumn. The latest was the faux apology to Councillor Anne Dorrian, whose writer thought it hilarious to repeat the link to the dating site that she had complained of. The page lurked online for a few days making light of pornography as entertainment and then abruptly vanished. Presumably someone somewhere among the Bostoninnies decided to demonstrate a modicum of commonsense and basic courtesy for once. Let's hope that it's the start of a trend.

Seeing red ... News that drivers who jump red lights in Lincoln have paid fines totalling more than £50,000 over a five-year period, makes us think of the potential income for Boston, where ignoring the traffic lights is a way of life for local drivers. We noted with interest that the Superintendent in charge of Lincolnshire Police's operations support department was quoted as saying that the force would "always" bring red light violators to book in the interests of safety. We wish he could be persuaded to pay a visit to Boston, where the offence is endemic and the risk of a serious accident increasing daily.

Cabinet pudding ... We wonder whether the Mayor was behind the idea to recall the role of the Guildhall as a "British Restaurant" during the Second World War, as we recall him mentioning some while ago the fact that he used to dine there as a schoolboy. For those not in the know - as the borough website doesn't take the trouble to explain - British Restaurants were communal kitchens created to ensure communities and people who had run out of rationing coupons were still able to eat. The Guildhall event is part of the Heritage Open Days being staged on the weekend of September 9-11 the theme of which is "Lincolnshire at War." On the Friday there will be a "reminiscence session," which we are sure the Mayor will attend to share a cup of tea and a slice of cake with his contemporaries. We wonder whether the price will be no more than the maximum 9d (4p) that was charged in those days!

The end is not nigh ... We couldn't conceal our delight when we saw the headline on the letters page in the Target headed "Roadworks nearing end." But our joy quickly turned to angst. Signed by the Beloved Leader, Richard "Papa Dick" Austin, it went on to tell regular users of the A16 Spalding Road northbound that the roadworks are expected to be "substantially complete by the end of September." Can this man get nothing right?

Lesson to be learned ... Still with the local papers, we note that the to-ing and fro-ing about the PRSA debt write off is now being conducted in the letters pages after attempts to discuss it in the council chamber ended in chaos. Surely there are lessons to be learned here for a council that persists in boasting about its openness and transparency. If they had got it right in the first place, none of the unseemly rows that have developed would have been necessary.

Tome it may concern ... Lincolnshire County Council's threat to terminate mobile library services where fewer than three people use it is really rather silly. The argument is "use it or lose it" - but people either want to borrow a book or they don't, and the concept that we should all queue up to take one out for the sake of it it just plain daft. We also question whether the county council would have the nerve to apply similar rules to rural bus services, which are notoriously underused in some areas. We bet they wouldn't.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

So what's it all about, then?

There's nothing like taking the issues to the people, and as far as we can see, the equality scheme consultation announced by Boston Borough Council just over a month ago is precisely that - nothing like taking the issues to the people.
We wonder exactly how many punters have taken the trouble to respond, and of those who tried, how many of them failed because some of the questions were incomprehensible.
The borough mused: "We need your views to help us develop our equality and diversity priorities. We need your views on how accessible our services are and how we can be more inclusive. We want to make sure that our services meet the needs of all our customers, both now and into the future and would like to understand the views, experiences and perspectives from as many groups (sic)."
The list of groups whose input was requested comprised people from different racial or ethnic backgrounds, different nationalities, men and women, people with a disability, people practising different religions or beliefs, people from rural areas, of different sexual orientation, transgender people, older people, and younger people."
The list alone highlights the argument we have made against catch-all surveys such as these ... the big point being "who isn't included?"
And if, put simply, "equal" means the same and "diverse" means different, what in earth is an equality and diversity priority?
Be that as it may, the questions go on to ask about general views and comments on council services and the improvements that could be made to improve access to and quality of them.
"Reporting, dealing with and eliminating harassment, hate crime and violence" includes possible issues such as "improving reporting and dealing with homophobic and racist hate crime, improving reporting and dealing with hate crime against those with a disability, domestic violence and abuse. Working pro-actively to reduce forced marriages, sexual violence and rape. Eliminating harassment in the workplace."
Without doubt, some of these crimes occur in Boston, but based on what we see from the court pages in very small amounts, and the problem with serving up issues on survey like this is that it tends to create complaints where no real issues exist.
And, we wonder, how many forced marriages are there each year in the borough?
Then there's the whole issue of understanding.
Whilst the borough offers translations of its webpages in a variety of languages, it tends not to bother about making things clear in English.
For instance, we are told that possible issues which could be included to enhance "equalities stakeholder involvement" include: "Capacity building. Involvement in planning, reviewing, procuring and evaluation. Commission involvement. Pro-active work to communicate with more excluded communities. Consultation with children and young people. Developing survey arrangements with individuals and voluntary sector memberships (to measure some scheme outcomes.)"
That's ok then.
And if you want to improve procurement and commissioning of services, consider possible issues such as "developing the provider market to include agencies run by equalities communities. Ensure contracts include equalities requirements and performance against such requirements is monitored with appropriate sanctions."
C'mon, ignoring the fact that surveys like these are by and large unnecessary, because anyone with an issue to raise will take it up without being asked, they cost money - which is wasted when the folk at Worst Street can't take the trouble to translate from councilspeak into common English.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Cost of BID is just to keep it in existence

Last week we promised a further look at Boston BID - the so called "Business Improvement District."
In a couple of recent blogs we have queried the worth of this organisation, which came into existence on the minimum of votes required, yet can demand a "levy" from every business in the district whether they voted for it or not, and whether they think it is worth the money or not.
There is an impressive list of objectives the BID plans to meet in the five years of its existence - it is now approximately 18 months in.
But in terms of achievements to date, its chief claim to fame is the creation of the town rangers and some minor weed pulling here and there.
We took a look at the BID "business plan" to see if we could find out more about what could be on the cards,
Over the five years that the BID will run, it will generate a total of £650,000 from the levy and a further £25,000 from "voluntary external funds" - with the promise of a further £650,000 if bids for "external additional funds" are successful.
However, based on the figures in the plan, which excludes these extra monies, the accounts include £300,000 for the town rangers plus £7,500 for their kit, £150,000 for the BID manager, £99,500 for marketing and promotions, £45,000 for office expenses, £30,000 for "street scene, signage enhancements", £28,000 for advertising, and £15,000 for admin.
The business plan claims that BID members will not pay for services already provided by business rates - includes policing, "town enhancement," road and path maintenance and street cleaning.
Try as we might, we cannot think of the town rangers as anything more than ancillary and largely ineffectual policemen - so that's one promise down the drain.
Surely, clearing weeds comes under the heading of road and path maintenance - or if not then it certainly qualifies as street cleaning.
And what about £30,000 for street scene, signage enhancements - again that is on the list of items that BID members should not be asked to pay for.
The BID spending over five years allocates the lion's share of it's income in staffing and admin costs which total £517,500 of the £675,000 being contributed, and on justifying its existence - although we have seen little by way of marketing and promotions.
In short, it needs the money from the levy to pay for the fact that is there.
If Boston BID did not exist, we would not notice the difference.
We really feel that there needs to be a serious reappraisal of the need for this organisation before it is allowed to swallow up hundreds of thousand of pounds of money which could certainly be better spent.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Apparently, they forgot!

After its week-long flirtation with imposture and pornography, the BBI's official blog is slithering back to what passes for normal.
Under the headline "Lest we forget" it claims: "BBI is having a huge effect on Boston Borough Council for the benefit of the people we serve.
The list of nine "achievements includes the claims that:
"The ‘world’ now knows that the prime wish of the people of Boston is for a bypass or distributor road. That is the essential first step to achieving one. That is the only firm promise BBI ever made on this subject. We have achieved this in full measure."
"We have stabilised BBC finances."
"BBI has changed the culture of Boston Borough Council; a very difficult job to do. In particular it is now an open and transparent organisation."
"We have re-invigorated democracy in Boston as shown by the significant increase in the number of candidates and turnout of the electorate at the 2007 elections."
We assume that the Bostoninnies must believe this tosh because they wrote it.
However, we seem to recall something rather more impressive in respect of a bypass that the mere promise than to tell "the world" that Boston wants one.
Finances stabilised? The Boston exchequer is scraping along the bottom. Refusal to make even the smallest increase in council tax simply for the purpose of showing off has made matters worse.
Open and transparent? More council decisions are discussed and voted on in secrecy than ever before. The cabinet system has been seriously abused so that the council is now effectively run by just eight people with the rump of the BBI being cowed into going along with their decisions. Opposition is crushed by the BBI majority iif it isn't merely ignored.
More candidates? Well, wouldn't you want to try to get the BBI out if you could?
Rewind to May 2007, and the Bostoninnies other blog.
Prominent on the list of "What we stand for" is the promise of a "full investigation of the affairs of the Princess Royal Sports Arena."
In the light of the walk-out debacle for the BBI last week, perhaps someone could tell us when this full investigation occurred, and also point us in the direction of the "open and transparent" area where we might read all about it.
One final point:
"Lest We Forget" is a phrase popularised in 1897 by Rudyard Kipling, and formed the refrain of his poem "Recessional." It is used as the final line to "The Ode of Remembrance," taken from Laurence Binyon's "For the Fallen", and is recited at Remembrance Day services throughout the British Commonwealth. That the Boston Bypass Independents hijack the phrase to self-aggrandize their puny achievements places them beneath contempt.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Sound of silence from uncivil servants

This time last week, all was calm on the Boston political scene - but, as they say, a week is a long time in politics.
Just hours ahead of a full council meeting, no-one could have known that a walk out was on the cards that would plunge the council into controversy, along with allegations that - in a major change of content - the ruling BBI was promoting pornography from its web page ... adapted to fool casual readers into believing that it was the Boston Eye blog.
When the issue was raised by Better Boston Group Councillor Anne Dorrian, she found herself shouted down by the "impartial" Mayor Peter "Old Grumpy" Jordan, a former deputy leader of the BBI and a member of the crisis-ridden cabinet who has pledged to make the council "a more cohesive, positive and efficient force for good."
Eventually, Councillor Dorrian's question managed to penetrate the consciousness of BBI Leader Richard Austin, who denied the existence of any link to pornography - which if nothing else suggests some knowledge and approval of what occurs his party's official blog.
In the past, we have honoured the Beloved Leader with the sobriquet "Papa Dick" as a nod to the late unlamented Haitian president, whose management style seemed so similar in many respects - but in light of these latest developments, we wonder whether "Papa Dick" might now acquire an entirely new significance.
"Papa Dick's" denial of any impropriety was followed immediately by the removal of the offending link and the restoration of the layout to its original state - clearly the act of a group that has nothing to hide.
Notwithstanding, we took issue with the BBI stunt, and wrote to the deputy chief executive Phil Drury, whose response was short and sweet.
"This is not a matter for the council and you should take up any concerns that you may have directly with the group concerned," he wrote on Wednesday in reply to our e-mail of the previous day.
Despite waiting patiently, our reply suggesting that this issue did in fact form part of his domain has been ignored by this uncivil servant.
So we followed his advice and wrote to Councillor Austin.
Not for the first time, the leader employed his time-honoured ostrich impression, burying his head in the sand, and ignoring the e-mail entirely - something we predicted would happen when we wrote to Deputy Dawg Drury .. which is probably why he suggested that we take it up with Papa Dick. Perhaps they both attended the same local government charm school.
At this point, a sane individual would imagine that the BBI would retire hurt and hope that their stupidity might eventually be forgotten.
But we're talking about the BBI here, and it seems there is little or nothing that the sniggering schoolboys who write their blog won't stoop to.
On Thursday afternoon, the site launched a snide attack on Councillor Dorrian, purporting to apologise to "for outraging her delicate sensibilities," and adding "we realise that not everyone has quite adapted to the 21st century yet and for those people we offer the BBC's article on how internet dating has empowered women from, errrr, 2002."
We wonder what reaction the five female members of the BBI might have to this - assuming that they are allowed to speak!


You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Walkout was "act of caution"

Someone who probably knows more than many about the Princess Royal Sports arena is Councillor Brian Rush - now a member of the Better Boston Group - but who for several months was the BBI's portfolio holder for Sports, Parks and Amenities, until he was sacked more than two years ago for criticising the leader and his deputy.
Councillor Rush has this to say about the events of the past week:-
"The controversial 'walking out' of opposition councillors regarding the £1.9m write off of a council loan, of which I, and other Better Better Boston Group members supported, was, as with other groups, an act of caution, should any future investigation take place as to the legalities of the proposed action being recommended.
"The observation by Chief Executive, Richard Harbord, in his attempt to indicate frustration that some 27 meetings had been held, which specifically examined the background and validity of funding, was in itself flawed.
"He appears to misunderstand the reasons for such constant challenge, in that, whilst these meetings have indeed been convened the fact is that explanations, advice, figures, and suggestions made by officers were either incomplete, inaccurate, or simply unsatisfactory.
"From 2007 there has been deep mistrust and suspicion surrounding statements made, figures presented, and lack of proper accountability, from those charged with overseeing the management and day to day running of the arena, and a lack of strength within the council in their demands for required information.
"There have been endless 'last and final support payments' made; the council have fulfilled, and gone beyond, their obligations to the arena which were to finish in September 2008.
"Councillor Dungworth has frankly let everyone down, his lethargic reliance on information provided by 'officers' was confirmed by his own admission when responding to my questions in council.
"I asked if he could assure me that, because of past failings, he had not simply relied on information provided by the Deputy Chief Executive Phil Drury, and if he had tested the accuracy of this information by presenting them to other agencies that were available to him?
"He stated that he had complete trust in the officers information advice and guidance, and saw no need to take any further action.
"Yet he continually condemns 'the old guard' for not having taken proper care, choosing to ignore the fact that those councillors also had acted 'trustingly on officers information advice and guidance' now considered flawed.
"I find this confidence strange, in light of the fact that the guidance he accepts with such trust is being provided by the same officer who advised and guided that 'old guard!'
"It is such scenarios that have haunted this council for over 10 years. I think accusations of incompetence during planning and construction must be considered unfair.
"I rather believe that promotion and responsibility beyond capability were the rocks upon which we now suffer. Personal ambition to progress is an acceptable desire, but admission of failure is also an admirable virtue.
"Finally, forgive me for harking back to Councillor Dungworth's Election Manifesto, which stated that 'An immediate and full investigation will take place, on the financial affairs of the PRSA.'
"We will never know, but one wonders, had this promise been kept, the chances are we may have long since relieved ourselves of the burden, and been richer for it."

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

PRSA "Why was money held for future use?"

They say that every picture tells a story, and for those of you who like mathematical puzzles, we offer this snapshot of the Boston Sports Initiative accounts to the Charity Commission for the year to March 2009 - the latest available - which you might like to peruse over the weekend.
Just click on the photo to enlarge it.
We have to be honest and say that we can't make head nor tail of things like these.
But a reader who recommended a look at the returns wrote to say:
"I suggest you look at the figures for income over expenses. Why has the council paid over the odds? The cost of governance as £66,000 plus change seems a lot for ONE employee.
"Finally, the figure of £814,000 plus change as retained for future use? What is this for?
"Therefore the council should not have handed over 1.19 million plus the 200 thousand plus the PRSA running costs.
The BSI could have paid off its own loan to Medlock Trust (£1 million) with a smaller loan of £85,000 from the council - not the whole million.
How’s that for a START...someone is misinforming someone somewhere."
So what's the score? If you think you can work it out, please write and let us know.
The Charity Commission page, from which you can read the accounts in detail, can be found here  just follow the links on the left hand side for the detailed accounts.



You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Week ending 11th June

Our Friday miscellany of the week's news and events
Not me guv ... Despite Councillor Richard Dungworth's claims on BBC Radio Lincolnshire, Conservative group leader Raymond Singleton-McGuire points out that he does not form part of the "Old Guard" referred to in the current debate on the funding of the Princess Royal Sports Arena. He tells Boston Eye:

"There is no denying that I was on the last administration, however, I question Councillor Dungworth's sweeping statement, which includes myself when he refers to 'these are the people who voted things through, they gave an open cheque to the PRSA to spend whatever they wanted.' In light of the seriousness of these allegations by Richard Dungworth, for example, if what he claims is true then surely the Financial Regulator should be called in, perhaps the Electoral Commission in light of political irregularities with public money, or even a complaint to the Standards Board, and, least of all, I would expect no less than to be reported to the police! I would like to set the record straight where Councillor Dungworth’s naivety is concerned. In my previous period as a councillor I never had to make a decision or vote on any issues regarding PRSA. Clearly Councillor Dungworth has illustrated yet again how he gets things so wrong! Perhaps Councillor Dungworth should recall in 2008 at full council when it was claimed within nine months the PRSA is likely to break even. But how much extra ratepayer’s money was it he wanted to support the PRSA in the meantime? It’s now added up to be in the hundreds of thousands of wasted ratepayers' money. Incidentally, Richard Dungworth voted for it, and I voted against it (as did all the others he’s now trying to shame.) Also at full council in November 2009, he stated that the PRSA was now in profit. Funny how the PRSA was suddenly in a loss when I requested repayment of loans. I have some precious and sound advice for Richard Dungworth, 'People who live in glasshouses shouldn’t throw stones’.

Billed for what ... ? After our recent piece about Boston BID, an e-mail from Darron Abbot raises an interesting point. "Dear Boston Eye: Perhaps you may be able to come up with the answer? I have asked representatives of the council and Niall Armstrong this question. Why does an empty business premises have to pay the bid levy, even if the Borough Council acknowledge no business is being run from it, and are not charging business rates because it is empty? One of my clients has just received a summons - should be an interesting day on 21st June when we attend the court." More about Boston BID - and how it spends its money - next week.
Road to nowhere? ... News that the £130 million eastern bypass for Lincoln could be under threat after the Government refused to guarantee it would be spared from cash cuts comes as no real surprise. But we wonder what the implications are for Boston. Certainly we think we can wave goodbye to any possibility of a bypass or distributor road - certainly for the five years of the present parliament. But we wonder whether someone in Whitehall might question whether the pointless £10 million spend that has just begun is now worth the candle.
Shaky start ... New Mayor Peter "Old Grumpy" Jordan's professed aim to make the council "a more cohesive, positive and efficient force for good," got off to an inauspicious start at Monday's full council meeting. Attempts by Councillor Anne Dorrian to raise issues concerning the BBI and its decision to embrace pornography were routinely shouted down by the man whose job is supposedly to ensure that council affairs are conducted impartially and with decorum. Management is notoriously difficult, but perhaps when he's had a little more practice ...

Beats walking the beat ... We note that Boston West Urban Neighbourhood Policing Team - famous for holding "drop in surgeries" rather than trudging the mean streets of their patch - are continuing their work avoidance programme by manning a display stand in ASDA to "support" National Child Safety Week. The event is the responsibility of an organisation called the Child Accident Prevention Trust and it is completely beyond us why the police need to poke their truncheons in. Unless, or course, the long term plan is to drag out the Marler Haley for every appropriate "national" week. This month alone there are 25 such awareness days or weeks including "National Insect Week" and "Wrong Trousers Day." Plenty of scope for Boston's Keystone Kops, then?
Flat spin ... Try as they might, the Boston Bypass Independents cannot seem to capture the hearts and minds of the people who elected them. Sample headlines from this week's local letters pages include: "Spare us the bypass drivel," and "Enough of the spun truths and waffle, where's our bypass?" So it's true - you can't fool some of the people some of the time...
Extra, extra ... So much is happening that Boston Eye will be publishing throughout the weekend. Tomorrow, look at the PRSA accounts returned to the Charities Commission - and ask yourself why more than £800,000 was earmarked as "retained for future use" when so much debt was outstanding ... And there will be more on Sunday. As the old News of the World slogan once said "All human life is here" - and if we include some members of the BBI, sub-human life as well!


You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

PRSA - "should police be called?"

Yesterday's piece about the PRSA lack of debate and subsequent walk-out has produced at two responses from Boston Borough councillors.
The first, from veteran Independent Councillor Richard Leggott, (named in a raido interview by BBI Councillor Richard Dungworth as a one of the councillors in the "old guard" who "gave an open cheque to the PRSA to spend whatever they wanted") says:
"I did not intend to further this debate through your pages, but seeing I, and others of the 'Old Guard' have been mentioned therein, please allow me to now contribute.
"The council meeting itself. Questions were asked as to financial regulations being strictly followed in the matter of writing off BSI debts. The answers failed to convince some councillors - mainly opposition members.
"There was then a proposition put forward and supported by all opposition councillors - basically 'no write-off of BSI debts before appearance of BSI to answer councillors' questions.'
"This was voted down by a solid BBI vote.
"So council returned to the write-off everything - past, present and future - proposition.
"While, as an Independent, I cannot say exactly why the other opposition groups left the chamber at this point, I had my own reasons for withdrawing from taking any further part in this decision making.
"These were: the fear that if there had already been a contravention of financial regulations, all who were party to any decision being culpable of wrongdoing.
"The inclusion of future, undefined, liabilities without any explanations from BSI, in recommendations that were clearly going to be pushed through by Boston Bypass Party left me feeling that any further participation in such decision making was, again, less than wise.
"So much for the reasons for withdrawal from participation in that particular decision-making.
"I would also make the following relevant comment for your readers.
"The ignorant, and/or less than truthful, attempts by Councillor Richard Austin and Councillor Richard Dungworth, at the council and elsewhere, to blame previous administrations for the present sum to be written off was a bit rich when we recall the BBI party's determination in 2008 to renew funding for PRSA despite opposition, including the 'Old Guard', votes against so doing - at that time and since.
"And where the figure of reducing Boston Borough Council sports facility spending to £500,000 comes from must leave many councillors baffled when the figures originally given were a saving of £154,000 from a spend of approx £1.3m. Then add back in future maintenance costs of PRSA (£70,000 budgeted in '10/'11) plus other facilities which will so qualify. Any one else get this to £500,000 total?"
Meanwhile one of Boston's newest councillors, BNP member David Owens, writes to tell us that he has written to Interim Chief Executive Richard Harbord to say:
"It is no wonder that issues have not come before full council from scrutiny, as from my shortish time as a member, scrutiny has been curtailed, obstructed and ignored so as not to rake up the past, despite efforts driven from the opposition benches to get this matter out into the open.
"John Storry tried last year, however, support for this was not forthcoming from the ruling group or officers at that time, and as such a rather pathetic "scrutiny" meeting failed miserably to get off the ground and really dig into the issue.
"I for one, feel an urgent need that this whole matter to be brought under investigation by the relevant persons in order to be certain no illegal practice has taken place.
"I am not entirely convinced that the police should not be involved in this matter at the earliest opportunity.
"Until such time as a proper investigation, I will stand opposed to the concept of writing this debt off whilst NO ONE is held to account.
"This simply is unacceptable."

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Lunatics take over asylum - official

In the not-too-distant future, when the PRSA again starts running up huge maintenance bills, which must be paid under the deal with management company Leisure Connection, someone will doubtless contact a former member of the Boston Bypass Independents, to ask them about it.
And for once, there will be no-one to blame but the BBI.
By leading his Conservative group and other opposition members in a protest walk-out at the writing off of millions of pounds of ratepayers' cash without democratic debate, Councillor Raymond Singleton-McGuire shrewdly left the BBI as the sole proprietors of this ticking time bomb of debt alone in the padded cell they have created for themseves, which used to be known as the council chamber.
The move at Monday night's council meeting left the BBI's Richard Dungworth huffing ineffectually about publicity stunts on yesterday's BBC Radio Lincolnshire breakfast show, but certainly it was the Tories and the other opposition members who joined the protest who made their point and won the day.
Things might gone better had someone from the BBI persuaded the directors of the Boston Sports Initiative - the architects of the debts - to have had the courtesy to attend and offer something by away of explanation or apology.
Instead, they had earlier chosen not to, and added insult to injury by saying they had nothing to contribute to the debate.
Councillor Singleton-McGuire's request to the council was fairly simple: "That before we agree to anything, the council explores all routes and holds the Director of BSI to task for the management of the running and finances of BSI in relation to the PRSA."
But, of course the BBI's majority on the council is such that they can steamroller through anything they like, and it was this by now standard operating procedure that led ten opposition councillors in total to leave the meeting.
Having heard that the debate was to continue outside the council chamber on BBC Radio Lincolnshire, we eagerly tuned in.
But the BBI it seems is not the only organisation to do things in its own idiosyncratic way.
Whilst the spectacularly ungifted Scott Dalton was "live" outside the West Street offices at both 7am and 8am, he must have cut a sad and lonely figure, as although he "asked" for comment from Councillor Richard Dungworth and Councillor Singleton-McGuire, the answers were clearly ones me made earlier and played into his rambling contribution.
Councillor Dungworth's offer on the walk-out was one of bemusement: "I just found it very very odd. They're got the recommendations in front of them - for them to walk out when they have gone through it all, every line through 24 meetings and then they walk out - I've no idea why they did it. It's just a political stunt, that's the only thing I can think."
Raymond Singleton-McGuire: "It's not intended to get the headlines. It's not intended as a stunt. This is purely sending a message to Boston Borough Council that we are unhappy with how they have managed this situation. I'm very much aware that going forward for Boston Borough Council we have to go from point A to point Z , but in light of what has happened, and our requests which appear to have fallen on stony ground with regard to the directors of the BSI, there are many steps which have not been taken which would to some degree have made tonight's council meeting run a lot smoother, and would have given a number of other councillors a degree of comfort."
Meanwhile, despite the fact that the borough must pick up the bill for refurbishment of the Geoff Moulder Leisure Centre before Leisure Connection takes it over, and must also pay for the ongoing maintenance of that upturned wooden colander known as the PRSA, Councillor Dungworth was adamant that at long last the public purse can be snapped shut.
"It stops from here. What's going to happen is that the PRSA will be part of the new Leisure Connections (sic) contract with the Geoff Moulder Leisure Pool and we're providing a much better controlled situation we've got a sports strategy going forward Leisure Connnections (sic) are the biggest provider of leisure provision in the whole of the county and it's a tried and tested formula and it's a way forward."
He said that when the BBI came into power they were spending £1.2 million a year on both facilities ... now it will be less than £500,000 a year and "it will go down."
But he couldn't resist banging the same old drum of blaming the previous administration, singling out Councillor Singleton McGuire and Councillors Michael Brookes, Maureen Dennis, and Richard Leggott who were all in the old guard and who "gave an open cheque to the PRSA to spend whatever they wanted."
Councillor Singleton-McGuiire repeated the point he'd made in the meeting, that previous advice was wrong, but had been taken on trust.
Are we happy with the way the BBI has handled matters?
We leave the answer to you.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Busy Bs ... but they produce no honey!

By a strange co-incidence, our blog last week questioning the worth of the Boston Improvement District (BID) was followed by a piece in the Target written by the group's "new manager" Niall Armstrong.
He looks ahead to the BID annual meeting on 15th June which promises a preview of the projects that are planned for the year ahead, and promises members the chance to put questions to the board and offer suggestions for projects they would like to see undertaken.
We are hopeful that this will be the case, as Boston BID certainly seems short on ideas and imagination and struggling to justify its existence.
When the BID was still a gleam in a quangoist's eye, an item on the Lincolnshire Chamber of Commerce website unimaginatively headlined "Boston Bid Putting Boston On The Map" told readers that:-
"A vote – Yes – will enable Boston businesses desire to drive forward in a commercially organised way to solve the top six issues holding back growth.
"A vote – No – would suggest that businesses are satisfied with the current conditions, footfall, the town's appearance, services, reputation and the constraints which the town now experiences."
The six issues mentioned in the BID aims and objectives are to make Boston, safe and secure, clean and attractive, to improve the perception and image of Boston town centre, improve accessibility and to be parking friendly, promote a strong and active network amongst the business community, and to deliver matched funding.
Whilst all this is laudable, it is not earth shattering, and all it has boiled down to so far is the employment of the town rangers and a bit of weeding in West Street.
Mr Armstrong's report goes to talk about the progress of the Community Hub project with which the BID has only a peripheral involvement, and which it certainly did not devise.
"Look out for the Boston BID directory over the course of the next month or so," he trumpets.
This will be a directory listing all the businesses located in the BID area, together with additional information such as the location and cost of car parks in the town, and should serve to further promote businesses within the town."
We're not sure how a glorified 'phone book is going to do that, and we are less excited by BID's "main project" for the year, which is to "promote Boston to a wider audience primarily through the heritage of the town.
"Boston has a rich and varied history which is not promoted in a cohesive way and the BID would like to rectify this," says Mr Armstrong. "The ultimate aim would be to provide an offering that would attract people not only from the UK but also from overseas. If we are successful this would invigorate the local economy by increasing visitor numbers which generates additional sales for retailers, provides custom for the hotel and guest house sector and increases the awareness of Boston Lincolnshire. A thriving tourist economy would also enable further grant funding to be applied for which would improve the infrastructure of the town for the benefit of residents as well as visitors."
Again, all very fine.
But as we've already said Boston BID is simply duplicating the work of existing organisations - principally, in this case, that of Tourism Lincolnshire.
Whilst we agreed that this group could do a lot more for the area, time and again we come back to the fact that Boston in all honesty has very little to offer - and most of what is on the menu is fairly standard tourist fodder.
Last October we wrote about the glut of organisations beginning with "B" that exist to promote Boston. Since then we have lost a couple, BARC and the Boston Conservative Business Network, which came and went in the blink of an eye.
But there is still the Boston Area Partnership, whose raison d'etre appears to duplicate that of Boston BID, the Boston Town Area Committee (BTAC) and the Boston Area Chamber of Commerce which must have similar objectives.
All we seem to be doing is throwing time and money at duplicating each other's efforts, which means lots of meetings, lots of talking, pages of minutes - and little by way of results.
Boston BID's offering seems more like busywork that a genuine effort to come up with something different.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Richard to Richard ... You took the words right out of my mouth ...

These day's it's rare that Boston Borough Council Leader Richard Austin shares his thoughts with we mere mortals. In fact those who crave his pearls of wisdom have had to make do with his New Year's message on the borough website for almost six months now.
But like Deep Thought - the computer which took seven and a half million years of serious cogitation to come up with the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything, the Beloved Leader has stirred in his slumbers to speak to us once more.
In a letter to the Boston Target headed "We're prepared for a difficult future," he writes: "The public sector as a whole will find the next few years extremely challenging but here at Boston Borough Council we are doing everything we can to be well prepared," he tells us.
After the usual blame game of condemning the previous administration for all the ills the borough faces, he goes on to outline how the Boston Bypass Independents plan to confront the challenging times ahead for local authorities.
He tells us that there will be "a major review of everything we do and how we do it. Each service is being further examined to see if there is any duplication of work or
whether all we currently do is necessary."
Later, his letter says: "We will be looking at purchasing and procurement, better IT support and at staffing costs throughout the organisation. The whole purpose of this
is to maintain and improve the service we offer our residents and customers whilst being as efficient as possible.
"This programme is currently in its early stages. Ideas and views of staff and members are being sought on areas for particular review. These items will go to Cabinet for discussion in July and we will then prioritise and our work programme to ensure we can balance our 2012 budget and beyond. "
These are fine and inspiring words, but as we read the letter in the Target of 2nd June, we had one of those eerie feelings of deja vu.
Was it possible that we had heard them somewhere before?
It was indeed.
In the delayed second issue of the borough's electronic bulletin delivered to subscribers on 24th May, headed "Planning for the council's future," Interim Chief Executive Richard Harbord set out in some detail the problems facing Boston Borough Council, and the solutions it was considering.
The piece included the news: "We have therefore set in train a major review of everything we do and how we do it. Each service will be examined to see if there is any duplication of work or whether all we currently do is necessary, we have already carried out a review of the top management structure of the Authority which now just has a Chief Executive and two Directors. We will be looking at purchasing and procurement, better IT support and at staffing costs throughout the organisation. The whole purpose of this is to maintain and improve the service we offer our residents and customers whilst being as efficient as we possibly can.
This programme is currently in it’s early stages. Ideas and views of staff and members are being sought on areas for particular review. These items will go to Cabinet in July for discussion and we will then prioritise and programme our work to ensure we can balance our 2012-13 budget and beyond."
Mr Harbord's article ends as Councillor Austin's began: "The public sector as a whole will find the next few years extremely challenging but here at Boston we are doing everything we can to be well prepared."
It strikes us as sad that after almost six months without addressing his adoring public, Councilor Austin should blatantly hijack Mr Harbord's article for a good half of his "letter" to the editor.
They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but we would have hoped that the leader could have come up with some thoughts of his own on such an important issue.
He also has the cheek to add: "Borough residents will be pleased to note that the BBI will continue its policy of not increasing the borough council tax, and I am pleased to see that this is now the coalition government's plan."
Call us naive, but we had the feeling that decisions about council tax were generally taken in a more democratic manner, rather than being arbitrarily announced by the leader ten months before the tax is next due to be set.
The fact is that the BBI made a catastrophic miscalculation by not imposing a small increase over the past two years which would have generated a reasonable income at little cost to taxpayers.
Because other authorities have imposed increases in excess of inflation the government is now freezing rises for three years. The BBI's boast of a zero per cent "increase" in council tax has simply left the borough further behind in income terms and grappling with finance problems that are partly self inflicted.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Week ending 4th June

New kid on the block ...? As we wrote last week's piece about the warnings for the future from Boston's Interim Chief Executive Richard Harbord, we got to wondering about what the future has in store. Mr Harbord was appointed in August last year for a six month tenure, which was later extended until this October. Unless another extension is planned, can we expect to see an advert appear for the post in the not too distant future?
Unbalanced ... We note that three of Boston's seven county councillors are on the rota to meet and greet punters at this year's Lincolnshire Show. All of them are Conservative members, and the one independent will not apparently be there. Although the Tories dominate our representation at County Hall, it would have been nice to have seen what little balance there is represented for visitors.

Stuck in the depot ... It's now two years since Boston borough council spent £7,000 on a machine to remove chewing gum from the town's pavements. At the initial PR photo opportunity council leader Richard (Papa Dick) Austin said with characteristic understatement: "This is great news for Boston. Tidying up the town centre is something I am passionate about." Then the machine disappeared from the public gaze. After we mused over what had happened to the great gum remover, it suddenly reappeared - then vanished again. Ready for the next appearance?
Words fail them - 1 ... as regular bloggers, we have to say how disappointed we are at the decline of blogging by our local political representatives, which has shrunk to just an occasional posting. What's happened? Have they been nobbled? Let's not forget the furore over blogging by our borough councillors, and the ban on them linking from the borough's website to any external sites they maintained. Now, contributions are coming at intervals of weeks rather than days. What a shame that after an initial burst of enthusiasm, one of the few avenues of insight into the workings of our local authorities have fallen silent. At the moment three councillors blog - one borough, one borough and county and one county councillor. The Boston Bypass Independents also have two blogsites, - one of which has been mute for three years, and the other too trivial and idiotsyncratic to mention.
Words fail them -2 ... It's not only our county and borough councillors who've been struck dumb. After delighting us with regular updates about what's going on in the borough, the council's website has also fallen into an early summertime lethargy. The most recent entry was the announcement of the appointment of the mayor more than a fortnight ago, whilst a visit to Boston's Facebook pages still regards as news the fact that there have been no recent posts. All of this seems nothing like the declared aims of making the workings of the council become "ever more transparent and open." Ironically, we note that whilst the borough can only manage half a page of dry old stuff for its "noticeboard" in this week's Target, Louth can manage an entire page that - if nothing else - looks a lot more interesting.
Ten out of ten ... to whoever took the decision to close London Road later this month for roadworks that are so "essential" that although they are only expected to take a couple of days are made under an order lasting for eighteen months. London Road is currently serving as a useful pressure valve for those days when unanticipated work on the town's major road scheme causes tailbacks. We can guarantee that the worst day of the week for queues will co-incide with the London Road closure.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Well, maybe just this once ... or twice ... or ...

Another of those spellbinding examples of hypocrisy with which we've become so familiar since May 2007 is due to emerge in the next few days.
It's a couple of years since the BBI fell head over heels in love with the concept of the Designated Public Place Order, which makes it illegal to tip a tinny in certain specified areas of the town - most notably Central Park.
At the time Councillor Ramonde Newell, the borough’s community safety portfolio holder, said: "We are excited about the implementation of this order. There has been a lot of public support and we hope it will have a positive impact on the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour in the area."
Whether that is in fact the case is open to debate.
However, for some, the introduction of DPPOs seemed like a lifeline to rescue them from their specific local problems - especially when the booze ban appeared to drive drinkers to new pastures ... much in the way that CCTV cameras are said to herd criminals to areas where they can't be filmed.
But when a recently formed residents' group called Boston North West Action Group asked Boston Borough Council for action in their area, they were told there was not enough evidence that the Designated Public Place Order in force in the town had caused "displacement of the problem of alcohol being consumed in the streets to other areas" and that there was no case for extending the DPPO to their particular ward.
That was despite five of them collecting more than fifty bags of alcohol based litter from the West Bank of the Witham alone during the recent Big Boston Clean Up.
Fast forward to the public notices in our local newspapers and an application for a "premises" licence certificate posted by Fake Festivals Franchising, to sell booze by the gallon in the "premises" known as Central Park for an event to be held on the August Bank Holiday weekend. The company advertises a boozer's paradise with "lager, bitter, Magners cider, red, rose and white wine, WKD Blue, Smirnoff Ice, Vodka, Bacardi, and Jack Daniels" all on the menu.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if Boston North West Action Group decided to test the waters by objecting to this licence. They have until 7th June, but we would advise saving their ink, as Boston Borough Council will certainly reject the considered protests of a properly constituted residents' group in favour of letting a thousand people congregate in Central Park and probably drink themselves silly during a twelve hour binge dressed up as a music festival.
In so doing, they will have to temporarily suspend the DPPO that was declared so essential to the safety and security of the town.
Contradictorily, the self same councillor Newell who was so gung-ho about banning drinking in the park, has said he was "massively" in support of the festival, and predicted: "This could be the start of something big, they could be held on a regular basis."
So be assured, this licence application is a token piece of pantomime that will go through on the nod.
Having said all that, we think the DPPO is is by and large unnecessary.
There was never any truly serious problem caused by drinkers in the park.
Granted, clusters of boozers gathered on benches were unsightly, but we aren't convinced that they ever really caused a fear of crime and anti-social behaviour.
Particularly conspicuous by its absence is any chortling from the BBI about the success of the DPPO scheme - most likely because it has had no impact at all.
We see nothing wrong with letting people enjoy a can of beer in the park on a warm summer's day.
What we do object to is a council that employs double standards and hypocrisy to get its own way regardless.
We're with former Prime Minister John Major on this one, when he characterised Britain as the country of long shadows on cricket grounds, and warm beer - preferably consumed wicket-side.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.