Who else will throw tricorn in the ring in bid to be elected mayor?

English Democrat councillors David Owens and Elliott Fountain seem to be undergoing something of a mixed set of fortunes at present. Whilst Boston Borough Council is treating them in much the same way as it did when Councillor Owens was first elected for the BNP in 2008, the other BBC – the British Broadcasting Corporation - sees them as a valuable source of news.
Friday’s Look North highlighted a planned campaign by councillor Fountain to become the first elected mayor of Boston.
The idea of an elected mayor was an option that was discussed and rejected by the borough council last year – and it then went on to adopt what’s been called the strong leadership model … the rules of which it has already flouted.
However, it appears that the public can still request a referendum on the proposals if five per cent of the borough’s population petitions the council - and with an “official” population of 85,000, just 2,950 voters would be needed … a not impossible number to find.
It’s reckoned that a referendum would cost between £50,000 and £75,000
Enter Councillor Elliott.
He told Look North's political editor, Tim Iredale, that he believes mass immigration has not been good for Boston, and would like big local firms to employ at least 50% of English workers.
It’s a view that we think might well strike a chord if it became a counter in the political game of snakes and ladders.
It’s also interesting to speculate on who might come out of the woodwork if the public called for a referendum.
We are sure that there are many members of Boston’s self-appointed elite who would want to throw their hats – or hairnets – into the ring for the chance to run Boston for four years … and who would not sit idly by and risk letting someone else snaffle the local crown jewels.
We shall see.
Meanwhile, it seems that the English Democrats are still struggling for acceptance by the rank and file within Worst Street.
Councillor Owens has previously reported “a few challenges” trying to get information from officers at the council “due to the Chief Executive apparently banning councillors and officers speaking unless it’s through the head of department.”
He tells readers of his blog: “Now of course, I expect that the heads of each department are very busy people, so the last thing they need is councillors constantly calling them to seek advice and/or clarification on ward matters … the upshot of that has been having to wait days to get calls returned and emails answered.”
Councillor Owens reports that he e-mailed the Chief Executive for a reply and was told that it has always been "protocol" to conduct matters in the way he described.
“Well that's news to me, as I have numerous emails from officers over the years where that was not as per the ‘protocol’ he describes,” says Councillor Owens.
We questioned this attitude the other day.
The English Democrats nationally seem to be political pariahs – but at a local level, the people who represent them are councillors first and foremost, and should be treated as such.
More than 3,600 people live in Fenside Ward, and they are entitled to unhindered representation from their councillors.
This cannot happen if judgemental staff are allowed to hamper a councillor’s efforts through reasons of personal - and unprofessional - prejudice.

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

Week ending 27th May

Our Friday miscellany

of the week's

news and events

Despite our best efforts to get the new ruling Tory elite to see some sense and share more equitably the duties of councillors representing the borough on outside organisations, it again showed itself as the BBI in blue on Wednesday night.

The Conservatives snaffled 59 appointments, plus fourteen reservations for cabinet members. The Independents gained seven appointments, and the BBI two. Labour – with just one nomination - got no appointments at all, and the English Democrats did not receive any nominations. There were also three non-council member appointments. This makes things even worse than they looked when we blogged on Wednesday. According to our maths there were a total of 73 Conservative appointments and nine from other parties. The other parties broadly represent 40% of the council’s composition, yet received only 14% of the jobs.

It seems that sorry really is the hardest word. We reported last week that former BBI leader Richard Austin had breached the council’s Code of Conduct by disclosing confidential details of a meeting with a member of the council to an officer of another council. As a result, the council’s Consideration and Hearings sub-committee censured Councillor Austin and ordered him to send a written apology to the complainant. Despite that, we hear that an apology has not been forthcoming. We wrote last week that – although the hearing took place on 20th April, we understood that the publication of the ruling was withheld until after the elections, and asked if there was one law on Boston Borough Council for Councillor Austin and another for everyone else. Given his contempt not only for a fellow councillor, but now apparently also for the judgement and ruling of his peers, we see no reason to change that view.

Our quest last week to find an appropriate collective noun for groups of leaders – as Boston Borough Council now has so many – brought a helpful response from Councillor Richard Leggott, the Independent group spokesman. “Please refer to our deputy appointments as - a new word coming up here - a  logicality of leaders,” he requested. “Logical, because group leaders/spokespersons are often accompanied to appropriate meetings by their deputies. Such deputies, unless they have been officially nominated, can be challenged. Often a single nominated deputy spokesperson will not be the group member with the most knowledge of the meeting’s theme. Therefore, to the Independents, it is logical to have a multitude of nominated deputies to overcome these problems in order to be able to serve the council best.” We are sure that Mr Spock would approve.

We scanned the local “newspapers” in vain this week for news of the plight of the Boston Chamber of Commerce, which we hear has run into difficulties – but yet again, it appears that another important local story has been missed. If what we hear is correct, then local businesses will find themselves without the useful co-ordination that such groups provide. And there may well be knock-on effects for other organisations as well …

Way back in March we reported that the borough council’s list of payments over £500 revealed how much the council’s Chief Executive earned  - sorry, was paid - between November last year and February. Richard Harbord was paid through his company, Mrf UK Ltd, rather than the normal payroll system – in which case the amount would have not been sullied by the public gaze. However, we note that all reference to Mr Harbord and his company has vanished from the payments list for March and April. Does this mean he has gone “on staff?” We somehow doubt it. But we think it is noteworthy that - when people think you don't know what a payment is for, they are happy to publish it - but once the details are exposed they are somehow made secret again. Unless, of course, Mr Harbord is doing it all for love!
A very wise letter from someone whose name has been associated with law in Boston for many years appeared in the Daily Telegraph newspaper earlier this week. The letter, from Richard Tinn, read: “The law, those who pass laws, and those who administer the law and give judgment are all servants of the people and not their masters. If the law is allowed to be manipulated by those clever enough and with money enough, it is (irrespective of the outcome for them) the reputation of the law that suffers, and with it respect for the law. Respect for the law is already low. It must not be allowed to sink lower, otherwise it is law and order itself that is at risk.” In the wake of some of our recent writings, we thought how well this summarised things if - broadly speaking – the word “council” replaced the word “law” in the letter.

In these desperate days, it seems that local estate agents will try every trick to make a house for sale look more attractive to a potential buyer. However, we thought we heard the sound of the bottom of a barrel being scraped when we read that among the owners of one delightful property was “the noted Boston historian, G.S. Bagley.” The team remembers George Bagley – even though he was in his prime half a century ago. In those days he was the “local editor” of the Lincolnshire Echo – which then produced a Boston edition. This was not an especially arduous task, involving as it did sitting in court or attending meetings of Boston Borough Council – which left plenty of time for extra-curricular activity. As a result, George produced Boston: Its Story and People (1986) – arguably his best effort, although hard going in places – plus the arcane Behind-the-scenes Story of a parish: Skirbeck Quarter, Boston (1982) Floreat Bostona : History of Boston Grammar School from 1567, (1985) and Samuel Partridge : a Lincolnshire minister and magistrate (2003.) It’s scarcely Simon Schama but if it sells the house …

Speaking of desperation, this week’s Boston Standard wins that particular award. “Look what’s packed inside” screams a front page headline. “91 LOCAL news stories, leisure reports and pictures; 235 LOCAL faces featured – is yours one? - and 57 LOCAL sports stories and pictures. We feel sorry for the sad sack who had the job of counting this lot up. But far from being something to brag about, we think that it highlights just what a poor job the paper is doing when it can come up with so little content from a borough with a population of at least 59,000. And given that most of the photos are of groups, who can they be sure there are exactly 235? We counted at least 237!

Having said that, the Standard continues to entertain – albeit unintentionally. The following items caught our beady eye. The first, headlined “Hip hip hooray for patients” tells us

"Returning home more quickly than ever, eh?  Probably because they can now run, whereas before even walking was an effort!.  And  a “… fractured neck or femur,?" We think that “neck of femur” would be more likely.
And then – this being Boston – an advertiser wisely chose to exercise caution when seeking what we assume to be toys.

Better to be safe than sorry, though. As we said, this being Boston you might end up with someone’s cuddly but unwanted rottweiler!
That’s it for this week. We wish you an enjoyable Bank Holiday weekend. We won’t be publishing on Monday, but will be back as normal on Tuesday 31st.

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

At last, some things on which we all should agree

As we said before the election, probably the most ambitious manifesto was the one drawn up by Labour – but our cynical side (yes, we have one!) told us that this was fairly easy to do, given that the party was not contesting enough seats to gain control of Boston Borough Council, and would not therefore be able to deliver on its promises.

Having said that, ideas are ideas, and Labour is now putting flesh on the bones by expanding on a few of their proposals.
Most important of these is the call to make Strait Bargate pedestrian friendly again.
On its website, Labour reminds us of the broadcast debate ahead of the election at which all parties -apart from the Bypass Independents - agreed that Strait Bargate should cease to be a bus lane which pedestrians are grudgingly allowed to use.
“It is no longer a place of relative safety, where children and older folk can walk without worrying about vehicles. It is no longer such a pleasant place to take visitors to our town, or to sit and talk to friends and neighbours, or munch on a bag of chips,” says the website. “The incessant sound of beepers has put paid to that, along with the seats turned in towards the shops rather than to what SHOULD be the pedestrian walkway.
“The plain and simple truth is, there was never any need for the buses to run through Strait Bargate and the fact is – they don’t come through Strait Bargate during May Fair and still manage to function perfectly well.”
The newly-elected Labour councillors promise to campaign to make Strait Bargate a pedestrian area once again - and given what everyone said on the wireless, we cannot see why this should be a problem.
But we bet that it will, and that the buses will still be menacing pedestrians and polluting the air with noise and fumes in four years’ time.
Another item on the list is the eradication of dog fouling – which again should be something that can be agreed by all.
“Our new councillors will be urging the new Conservative administration to reinstate a dog warden, as this would have a major impact on our estates - firstly by removing stray dogs; and secondly enforcing the horrific environmental blight of dog fouling in our streets and parks.”
Boston is very fortunate in that it probably has more pedestrian access to waterside walks than most other towns in Britain.
In places like Cambridge, this benison is seen as a huge asset, and exploited to attract visitors.
In Boston, we make nothing of it – except to treat it as a handy loo for Rover, and it is right that this should be stopped.
Finally, Labour tells us: “We have started campaigning to bring back Party in the Park.
“Over the last couple of years, people have been telling us how much they have missed Party in the Park as they felt that it was the social event of the year.
“The origin of Party in the Park was that it was conceived and campaigned for by your previous Labour councillors because they understood that Boston had a heart, and that a cultural event such as Party in the Park created a great sense of pride in our community. Nobody could deny how successful it was.
“Sadly the miserly Boston Bypass Independent Party councillors never supported it because it wasn’t their idea and they axed it saying it was ‘a waste of money.’ We promised in our manifesto that if elected, we would resurrect the issue of Party in the Park. Well some of us have been elected and we intend to keep our promise. We will campaign vigorously to reinstate Party in the Park. Sadly – we are likely to be too late to reinstate it this year, but we believe that 2012 would be an excellent year, as it is also the Queen’s Golden Jubilee and the Olympics year, to bring our local communities together.”
This is where we part company with Labour's ambitions.
Our recollection was that the Party in the Park (it needs a definite article) was created as part of the celebrations to mark the millennium – and also because of an almost childish love of fireworks by certain senior council members and officers at the time.
The year the BBI seized power they neglected to check whether or not the event had cancellation insurance – and as bad luck would have it, it didn’t, and it was called off due to bad weather.
It was kicked into touch – rightly we believe – because in the worsening financial climate it became increasing untenable to justify such a huge expenditure of taxpayers’ money.
The only way it could be reintroduced would be if it was privately funded. This would inevitably mean introducing an admission charge – and also lifting the completely unnecessary ban on drinking in the park for the weekend in question.
We think that the first action would wipe out the party’s appeal overnight.
The second would be yet another piece of hypocrisy by which the council breaks its own laws when it feels like it – as will again be the case with the Fake Festival in August.
However, Labour’s plans are a start – and two out of three ain’t bad!
In the meantime, we were interested to see an appeal on the borough council website calling for an end to the dumping of garden waste in Staniland Road. This has been a long standing Labour cause célèbre, and we are pleased to see that it has at last been taken up officially – without acknowledgement of course!

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

.

Let's share the jobs

 a bit more fairly

As Boston Borough Council resumes business this evening, it gets on with the job of making appointments.

As well as appointing the Leader, councillors will also be selecting members of committees, chairmen and vice-chairmen and making appointments to outside organisations.
This latter group comprises more than forty groups with which Boston Borough Council has a relationship with in one way or another – ranging from organisations such as the local Age Concern, to tourism organisations, drainage boards, health groups and the tiny and obscure local charities.
Surprisingly, the number of people wanting to do jobs like this is over subscribed rather than the reverse.
Whilst enthusiam is good, it also shows a worrying tendency for ruling council groups to want to hog the lot.
Of the total of 69 nominations – give or take, as the precise figure is unclear - 53 nominees are Conservative councillors, six are Independent, five are from the BBI, one from Labour, and none at all from the English Democrats.
If all this sounds familiar, one only has to cast one’s mind back four years – when the BBI pulled off precisely the same stunt to howls of protest from members of the various opposition parties.
The problem now is who to appoint.
Representing the council at an outside organisation would better be considered in the context of horses for courses rather than a desire to seek political dominance at all levels.
Given the composition of the council, it is clearly inequitable for so many Conservatives to be on the list.
After all, there are only 19 of them in total – constituting just over 60% –  so the level of nominations is clearly unfair and disproportionate.
Between now and tonight, we think that it would be a good idea for some of the nominated Tories to consider whether they really want some of these jobs, and how the council may in fact be better represented if a wider political spectrum was presented to outsiders.
Quite a number of BBI members have more experience than many of the newly elected Conservatives, and the same is true of members of the Independent and some of Labour ranks.
And why, we wonder, are the English Democrats getting the cold shoulder?
Don’t bother to answer that.
We had hoped that by now, the powers that be might have realised that at the local political level, people are councillors first (or should be) and party members second.
Whilst we wouldn’t impugn the motives of many nominees, newly-elected councils often see a stampede for jobs like these without the people who want them realising what is involved in terms of time, work and knowledge.
The end result is that people fall by the wayside, fail to turn up at meetings, and deprive the council of a say in an organisation which often needs it.
We hear of one such example with former Councillor Peter Jordan, who failed to attend the twice yearly meetings of the Rural Commission for three years until he was replaced by Councillor Richard Austin (whose attendance record is unknown.)
Let’s not forget that first and foremost, our councillors serve the people, not themselves, and that there is still time to try to balance out these appointments more fairly – and possibly more appropriately.

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

Parking, rescue boats and roadworks on  Boston's county agenda

Friday saw another full meeting of Lincolnshire County Council, where Boston got more than its fair share of attention.
The headlines:
• Resident parking schemes could be here soon.
• Boston may get a dedicated rescue boat
• And Boston’s finally paid its dues for the road improvement scheme.
First with a question was Conservative Councillor Mike Gilbert - who represents Boston East - asking Highways supremo Councillor William Webb to update the progress of decriminalised parking in the county and the development of residents’ parking zones.
How timely, Councillor Webb replied, explaining that a proposal will be put to the Highways, Transport and Technology Scrutiny committee in June, with proposals going to the Department of Transport in December with a view to implementing the scheme in June and July of 2012.
“One of the concerns which has been raised is the issue over off-street parking, and I want to make it absolutely clear that Lincolnshire County Council has no designs whatever on off street parking or car parking charges in any of the districts or boroughs in the county. We are only concerned with on-street parking. Allied with this will be - in certain parts of the county and certain of the towns - residents’ parking schemes which will run alongside the CPE (civil parking enforcement) concerns and will be dealt with hopefully as a package deal.”
Next out of the trap was former Boston BBI Councillor Ramonde Newell, representing Boston West as an Independent at county level, with a blood-curdling account of a recent accident in Boston when a car ran through the metal crash barrier on Willoughby Road, and fell 15 feet into the Maud Foster Drain.
“I understand that the fire engine from Boston was on the scene in about four minutes,” said Councillor Newell, which led him neatly to a subject which has become a hobby horse on his visits to Lincoln.
“Unfortunately, the Swift Water Rescue Boat and team had been removed from Boston to Spalding some time ago. The rescue boat and team were thus 16 miles away in Spalding. Miraculously, the three young men in the car managed to get out of it as it sank. They swam to safety. They were clearly very lucky to escape a watery death. “My questions are: has an investigation and a report on this very serious matter been carried out, and has an updated risk assessment been carried out to see if the Swift Water Rescue Boat and team should return to Boston?”
A good question for Boston – but one which fails to take into account what might have been asked had the boat been moored in town and the accident had occurred in Spalding.
But there was light at the end of the tunnel.
Councillor Peter Robinson, who looks after the county’s Community Safety, replied:
“Swift water assets in Lincolnshire are extremely stretched and their deployment is obviously a difficult decision. There is deep water in many places in Lincolnshire, and frankly, in this particular case, from what you’ve explained, I think it unlikely that the nearness of a swift water rescue team would have actually arrived to save lives of people in that car had they not made their own escape. However, on a much brighter note, I am glad to say that as a result of Exercise Watermark we have received the promise of extra funding from central government for a further nine or ten water rescue units, and when we get those, then I am sure that we will be in a better position to spread adequate water rescue services around much more of Lincolnshire - and I hope that will include Boston.
It was left to Tory Councillor Andrea Jenkyns, of Boston North West, to close the local questions with another for Councillor Webb, asking him for comment on the recently-completed improvements to highways in Boston - were they satisfactory and had all the work been completed?
We never quite understand the point of questions like these – other than to give the portfolio holders the chance to brag about what’s been going on in their department – and Miss Jenkyns has ‘previous’ with this type of question.
“I have been to Boston several times in the last few days” declared Councillor Webb, as though this depicted him as somehow either brave or foolhardy.
“I am sure all those who go through Boston will agree that the Spalding Road, Liquorpond Street and Sleaford Road improvements have worked very well indeed. “We’re not finished yet by any means. We’re now working on Spilsby Road. We’re doing the junction, we’re turning two sets of traffic lights into one – the Leader will be pleased about that - and we have more work still to do in other parts of the town. “So please bear with us, but we are delighted that the due funding from Boston Borough Council has arrived and as far as the future public transport infrastructure is concerned that will be largely under the control of Boston Borough Council, but the County Council continues to give a good service we hope and believe to the people of Boston in improving the circulation of traffic.”

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