We’ve quoted the poet Robert Burns on these pages before – and here’s another of his particularly memorable bon mots – “O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us."
Well, in the case of Boston Borough Council, its officers, members, and the public, this is exactly what has happened.
The outcome of this interesting piece of navel gazing appears in a report called Bridging the Mismatch – another of those talking shops that councils like so much – but which this time may have delivered some useful insights.
In particular, it has exposed quite big differences between what the council thinks about certain things, and how public opinion - in the shape of  Community Champions selected to discuss the issues - differs.
Tellingly, officers were aware of local views that people think they are “featherbedded faceless bureaucrats‟, that people have a low opinion of the council, don’t know what it does and that there is a lack of trust.
And in a blow for the former leadership, everyone agreed that the promise of a bypass did not help with the council’s reputation.
But on a more basic level, wide gulfs between the council and the public emerged.
One example was the Party in the Park – now almost beatified in local history - where officers thought its demise was much lamented, but residents did not agree.
The same was true with the Placecheck scheme – where, although everyone agreed that it was a good way to focus on local issues and involve residents, officers effused about it, but residents, some of whom had been involved, had become sceptical.
Officers also felt the Community Showcase – this year’s speciality is Hate Crime - was highly valued … but there were mixed feelings about this amongst the champions.
And whilst officers noted four columns in the local papers about council activity every week, this did not strike a chord with residents, who felt that officers were trying to move away from human transactions which was not welcomed.
Officers also felt they tried hard on communication - which again wasn’t felt by the champions.
Even more interesting was the news that officers felt residents were generally complimentary about the borough’s troubled refuse collection service. However the Community Champions did not agree. The champions accepted that residents could be “moany” whilst officers felt that there was a “pool of serial complainants” - which quite offended the champions.
On the question of which groups were hard to get messages to – the agreement was that it comprised migrants, other minority groups, older people, younger people and rural communities – which represents something of a hill to climb as that seems to take in just about everyone!
Worryingly – as this is something we have been banging on about for years – it emerged that people don’t think much of the area; they think it’s gone down hill. Interestingly, officers and residents alike also agree that local people have a low opinion of the areas though outsiders appreciated it – which suggests to us that too much is being done for the benefit of visitors and not enough for residents.
The upshot of all of this is a list of things to make and do.
The highlights are:
• Exploring the potential of alternative communication methods, including social media such as Facebook and Twitter, to facilitate communication with groups less responsive to traditionally used methods.
• Improve “traditional” engagement by making customer service staff more visible in the community.
• “Buddy” residents and officers: the potential of “buddying” up residents with officers, creating longer lasting and replicated relationships should be taken forward. Words fail us.
• The idea of community communicators – well-connected individuals who act as information conduits and dispersers - was well received and should be taken forward.
• Councillors should also play a “mediating” role between residents and officers to facilitate communication.
It all looks good on paper. But as with the creation of Boston BID – which we mentioned yesterday – we need to bear in mind that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Somehow, we see much of the proposals as taking up more time and serving very little purpose.
We’ll wait and see.

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