Our piece last week on the mysterious million pound loan has prompted this contribution from a reader who wishes to remain anonymous.
Four and a half administrations.
The half is not just a time thing, in terms of the BBI - it is also descriptive of the quality of their administration. Even that may be flattering, only reaching such heights when measured against their forerunners.
In defence of the explanations of the Chief Executive Richard Harbord, and given your exoneration afforded to the BBI, it is true that this vast and increasing sum is thankfully for once, not the fault of the current council.
But it is still hard to believe that we mushrooms, for so long have been deafened by silence, and oblivious to the existence and reasons for a loan of this size. To say nothing of the magnitude of such a crippling interest rate.
Your point is well made about the identification of past financial advisers employed by Boston Council, who one would hope may still be treading the planet.
If they are, it must surely, in this global village age, be possible and expected that someone is charged to seek him/her/them out and simply ask the question.
But why do such actions need to be taken, why is there so much mystery surrounding the source and reason for this borrowing?
Clearly it seems to me that no one knows very much about the 'councils' need for the sum of money.
One assumes that even in 1991 records of meetings would have been necessary, ledgers of expenditure and income listed and configured.
It beggars belief that, over 19 years, no one has questioned the 'massive interest payments' that were being paid out monthly.
If they didn`t, how were 19 annual budgets set and agreed upon without question?
My comments are not going to help us escape the repayment, nor should it: a deal is a deal. I do however worry that having entrusted these public servants with our taxes, paid employees and elected members casually threw this hard earned cash into some unidentified abyss without record, explanation or accountability.
So what would the effect have been on the fabric of Boston had such a loan not been taken?
The finance officer of the time must have been some kind of numbskull to have accepted such a rigid, extended, inflexible and expensive deal?
What was it that we so badly needed at that time, that convinced the councillors of the day to approve such a loan and terms without question?
For £1m it must have been quite a project in 1991.
Here are a final few simple lines of enquiry that should be followed,
Who was the Chief Executive at the time?
Is it not normal practice for applicants to declare the purpose for which any such finance is required, and wouldn't it be indicated on the application form?
Surely we have a copy of the loan agreement, haven't we?
If not, why not, and can we get one?
If the council's loan agreement is a public document within the Freedom of Information Act, then surely the council is duty bound to have the documentary facility to provide all information surrounding this?
Nineteen years and no questions asked or noted or documents or admissions or knowledge. You couldn't make it up.
You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.
Editor's note: Although these are very broad brush figures, Boston Eye has been taking a stab at how much a million pounds would have represented as a slice of Boston's budget around the time this loan was taken out. When council tax was introduced in 1993, the average county charge was around £550 for a band D property. Today, Lincolnshire's total band D charge is £1,400 - broadly two and a half times as much. Boston's share today with grants added generates £10 million, so dividing that by 2.5 suggests a budget in the early 90's of around £4 million. So what on earth did the borough need to borrow an extra quarter of its annual budget for - two months before the end of its financial year?
No comments:
Post a Comment