Slamming the door on information

Back after a week's break, and sadly Boston seems little different than before we went away.
The same old Christmas lights are hanging limply in place once again, with stars that look more like starfish than sparkling symbols of peace and love.
Browsing the papers and the council's website is a depressing experience.
The papers seem to have little by way of news sense or interest in what's going on.
Our "new look" Standard has solved the problem of working by increasing type sizes so that there is now even less space taken up by stories.
And ironically, in a week which sees the paper celebrating the 100th birthday of a former proof reader, it boasts a higher number of literals (typographical mistakes) than usual.
Tonight sees the full council meeting, and once more we are disappointed to see that the two most important items on the agenda are again being discussed out of the sight and hearing of the press and public.
The issues under debate are market testing on cultural and leisure services, and a report on the council's management structure.
For those not in the know, this is done under Section 100(A)(iv) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information)(Variation) Order 2006, on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1, 3 & 4 of Schedule 12A of the Order.
We checked out the exact definition of what constitutes exempt information , and it comprises:
INFORMATION ...
... relating to any individual or which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual ...
... relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) ...
... relating to any consultations or negotiations, or contemplated consultations or negotiations in connection with any labour relations matter arising between the authority or a Minister of the Crown and employees of, or office holders under, the Authority ...
... in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings ...
... which reveals that the authority proposes a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or b) to make an order or direction under any enactment ...
and information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime.
Put like that, a council could pretty well stop telling the ratepayers anything at all, and claim that it was justified under the section of the act - and there are doubtless many in office both appointed and elected who would dearly love to be able to do this.
Not only that, but we suspect that a large number of councillors don't even know the terms and conditions under which such prohibitions are placed on council agenda items, and if they did, would find it hard to justify them.
We recall a time when items like the ones now excluded from the public arena were discussed up to the point where the rulings of the act began to impinge - at which point the press and public were excluded.
Now, however, the door is firmly slammed in their faces.
The two issues under debate tonight are of great concern to the people of Boston.
If we are to be treated as unworthy of inclusion, then - at the very least - the council should tell us what went on as soon as possible after the meeting.

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