Iron fist in iron glove

and

stark warning for

financial future

Tonight’s full meeting of Boston Borough Council has a few more things than usual for the members to get their teeth into.
For once, the gang of eight – aka the cabinet – has allowed the rest of its yes men and women plus the opposition to actually have a vote or two.
Given exceptional prominence is the vote on the change to executive arrangements – which gets a “special” meeting all of its own ... but as it is allocated just 30 minutes, clearly, not much debate is anticipated by the cabinet aristocracy.
In fact the outcome was a foregone conclusion ever since the option of an elected leader with a tighter stranglehold versus an elected mayor was first mooted.
Council members may also get the chance to debate the confirmed minutes of the meeting of the Audit Committee held on September 20th.
Aside from the almost supernatural ability of one councillor to be present and absent at the same time, these contain some interesting titbits.
The meeting was attended by two representatives from the Audit Commission, which we are told recently declared Boston Borough Council to be among the most improved in the country.
Given that when you’re at the bottom, the only way is up, there was no other direction that the council could really travel – but it is interesting to note that the Audit Commission’s man at the meeting back in September (the time the announcement was made) gave certain qualifications.
Whilst he described the report as “positive,” he said the council still had a long way to go.
He was also less generous that was thought with his assessment of the council’s “most improved” status – simply saying that moving from a position where the council was failing in six areas to its present situation was “highly creditable.”
The council was told that a short-term financial plan was “crucial” and to ensure that it had to have a robust medium term financial plan – which implies that it doesn’t at present - and clear funding for the capital programme.
The meeting heard that there might be “real implications” in individual wards, which would be difficult for members, and that the council would have to reduce services down to those it had a legal obligation to provide and other services that it could afford that were important to the public.
Unfortunately, the preferred suggestion to assessing these was to engage the public through consultation – and we all know what that means in Boston, don’t we?
But it was with a sigh of relief that we read that the current coloured strategic risk chart may in future carry an orange section, “to indicate increased likelihood and impact than the medium blue section.”
We can all sleep easier in our beds once that happens, can’t we?

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