In the red .. £650 for this

Why keeping mum

 is self defeating

On Monday’s blog we drew attention to the increasing outlets of information that are forcing councils to be more open and transparent with their taxpayers whether they want to or not.
Councils are now forced to list all expenditure over £500, which is producing some interesting information,
At the lower end of the scale, for instance, who would have though that a Gerda “premises information box” in a poppy red would have set us back to the tune of £654.95.
What is it? Basically, it’s a fireproof box in which information is stored that will help the fire brigade if a blaze breaks out. Surely, something similar must have been available for a much lower price?
Higher up the spending ladder, we wonder what sort of benefit was gained from the £11,100 spent with consultants Vanguard for a look at the refuse collection service under the expenditure heading “Lean Project Costs,”
Another source of information can be found at sites such as “Openly Local,” where visitors can see how taxpayer money is spent. And we have already mentioned “What do they know?” which lists Freedom of Information requests to local authorities together with their responses.
Boston Borough Council’s attitude to confidentiality seems to be that if at all possible, matters should be kept from the public – and even fellow councillors as well.
It seems less that the BBI feels we are not mature enough to understand - merely that the ruling group enjoys secrecy for its own sake.
We recall that some while ago, when Boston Eye reported the job share arrangement with East Lindsey District Council for the services of the borough’s Director of Resources and Section 151 officer, the view from the Chief Executive’s office was surprise that the ELDC report on the issue was not confidential.
The answer – in a nutshell – is that East Lindsey feels that when public money is being spent or saved, the people who foot the bill should know about it.
Shocking, isn’t it?
More recently we had the debacle at the full council meeting at which the decision to discuss Boston’s leisure services was scheduled for discussion in the absence of the press and the public.
The outcome was a press conference a couple of days later at which it was announced that the “bright new future for leisure services” trumpeted a year ago had become little more than a lick of paint in the Moulder Leisure Pool changing rooms.
The borough did its best to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat with an upbeat announcement at the heart of which was the news that a planned £2 million refurbishment had been slashed to £280,000 and that, in the face of serious cash cutbacks, the public should consider itself fortunate to continue to have access to a swimming pool in the town at all.
This is what happens when you try to pull the wool over the eyes of the punters.
If the borough had kept people reasonably informed all along, the news would have been the same – but the headlines might have been more sympathetic and supportive.
We sincerely hope that lessons have been learned – and whilst it is now too late for the BBI to change its ways – that the new incoming party in charge of the council from May 5th will learn from the error of the BBI’s ways.

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