He is of course the Chief Executive, Richard Harbord, the
subject of countless contract extensions since August 2009 – at least the last
two described as “final” – who was brought in to get the council back on its
feet … a task completed some considerable time ago.
Mr Harbord will continue as Chief Executive until 31st
July 2015 “to provide stability and oversee any changes that may
occur at the next election in May 2015,” which must make him one of Boston’s
longest serving bosses since the days of
town clerk C. L. Hoffrock-Griffiths in the fifties and his successor R.
Ernest Coley a decade later.
His appointment has long been controversial, as he is
employed on a peppercorn contract for
£10 a year with his main terms of engagement through a contract for services via
his private
company – MRF (UK) Ltd … the
erstwhile Modular Raised Floors.
This form of a payment gives him certain tax advantages,
as you will see later on.
His monthly payment of £9,500 is for fifteen days’ work and
equates to £114,000 a year.
Given that this is only for working half-time, at an
annualised rate it is equivalent of £228,000 – more than the prime minister
earns, and among the highest local government
payments to chief executives – even though in terms of size, Boston is
ranked 331st out of 354 English local councils.
This method of payment has long been frowned upon in the
bigger boys’ corridors of power, but it seems not to matter to Mr Harbord’s
cabinet paymasters in Boston.
Looking back over the debate on the appointment, we note the
words of Council Leader Pete Bedford, who in a radio interview on the subject
said: “Our Chief Executive is only a part-time position. He is perfectly at liberty to work for other clients
on the days he does not work for us. The council’s contract with the company
means that the council has no liability
for holiday pay, sick pay, national insurance or pension contributions. There is also no question of employment rights and the
cost arising from that.”
However, a report on the future of the chief executive role
in September 2011 contradicted this, saying: “As the Chief Executive has been
employed continuously since August 2009, albeit on a series of short term
contracts, there is a risk that he will have acquired statutory rights.
This broadly means that if the Chief Executive were to be dismissed, the council
would have to have a fair and legally recognised reason for dismissal (e.g.
conduct, capability, etc.) and would have to follow a fair procedure. If an
employee does not have unfair dismissal rights then these steps are not
necessary, although with an organisation the size of the council, these steps
should not be omitted even where they legally can be.”
This raises a few questions – especially as we would think
it unlikely that the council will replace Mr Harbord with a full-time chief
executive because of the growing trend to share this particular role – and we
recall mention in Worst Street that the next chief executive will not be
full time.
One local(ish) example is that of South Holland District
Council and Breckland District Council – which are some distance apart – but
which share a chief executive paid in the band between £100,879 and £124,004
... which on a fifty-fifty share trims costs considerably.
So, looking ahead to July next year …
Mr Harbord’s contracts have until now been extended ahead of
expiry almost automatically for almost six years – so what if it was felt that a decision not to carry
on with the mixture as before constituted a form of dismissal – as after such a
long time, during which praise has continually
been heaped on the post holder there could clearly be no grounds such as those
cited in the report?
We think that it is worrying that the present arrangement
leaves a poisoned chalice lurking amongst the civic regalia to await
what might be a drastically different council if the elections cause a
shake-up.
Think of such a decision in the hands of a divisive
bunch of untried Ukippers if you want to imagine a worst-case scenario.
We do not think that it is right to sweep this issue under the carpet and leave it there until after the elections,
as it is not the sort of task for a newly appointed – and possibly newly-led
and inexperienced council – to have to deal with after a mere two and a half
months in office.
Any questions about what might arise at the end of Mr Harbord’s
“final, final” contract need asking during the rump of this
particular council – although we are certain that the less-than-magnificent-seven
cabinet of curiosities would much prefer it to land in anyone else’s lap other
than their own.
If there was an opposition in the Worst Street council
chamber we would expect it to raise the issue.
But there isn’t, is there?
***
Mention of our Chief Executive, and his incredibly generous
pay packet, reminds us that by an unlucky piece of timing the filing of his
two-person band company’s annual accounts for the year ending September last
year occurred at about the same time as the strike by local government union
members protesting at what Unite – the country’s largest union – described as
“poverty pay” which would see the national minimum wage soon overtaking local
government pay scales.
“Members are choosing between heating and eating.”
No such problems for the dynamic duo that apparently
comprises MRF (UK), as the figures speak for themselves.
 |
| click on photo to enlarge it |
***
And still the Quadrant simmers on …
After last week’s blog, we heard from Mike Borrill – a
former Boston bypass pressure group campaigner, who told us: “I am not against
the idea behind the Quadrant scheme, but the way it is being pushed forward without a
full investigation into other sites.
“It is well understood that Boston United Football club will
be without a ground unless action is taken quickly. Most people will also
understand that investment in the town is badly required and the idea of the
Quadrant could be a quick start. But, will it?
“Infrastructure: Although football matches will only take place
once or twice a week there other activities at the site are proposed. The
proposed house building of 500 will generate at least that amount of vehicles.
Access to these places will be via the A16, London Road or from the A52 and
onwards via Chain Bridge and West End Road. The latter is already heavily used
both for access and “rat run” procedures.
“Doctors: Most practices in Boston are now overrun and to get a
quick appointment with your doctor is nigh impossible. In view of this, any
application on the scale envisaged should have a surgery incorporated into the
scheme. If not, any planning application should be declined.
“Schools: Kirton primary school is having a new classroom built
for every child's school year. Many new homes are planned for Kirton, and if
those houses are occupied with several young children and then the proposed 500
houses at the Quadrant, where will the places be? Perhaps
someone in office will explain how they will overcome this. It is not long ago
that people of wisdom suggested closing one of our two high schools!
“Distributor road: The Boston Transport Study found that a
bypass for Boston was not suitable but a distributor road was and any funding
of this long awaited road should be from ‘developers contributions’ I was
always mystified why the ASDA development was not subject to this, but here we
have a large scale development planned and yet a sum of £4.75m is given to the
developer. This should, of course, in a sensible and fair way be put
towards this road and together with a developer contribution could go a long
way towards the first part from the A16 to the A52. So why are we giving this amount
of taxpayers’ money to a company when the overall grant to Lincolnshire gives
money to Grantham for their bypass (when it was advertised that money would be
from developers) and also to Skegness although this is shown as a part of a
parcel.
“Questions need to be asked and we also need to know why money
is being spent on meetings etc. if the deal has already been reached. But then ...
this is
Boston!”
***
And perhaps only in Boston could the focus on such a huge
potential development be so narrowcast as to allow the local football club to dominate
the agenda despite the fact that there are only 1,300 supporters at the
club of which just 400 are season ticket holders.
Headline from the Boston
Standard website screamed “No Quadrant means no Boston United!” Pilgrims
chairman David Newton puts forward his case for ‘community asset.’”
We’ve encountered some interesting ways of putting one’s
case over the years but this one reeks more of threat than persuasion.
The piece went on: “No Quadrant means no Boston United, Newton told those gathered at a packed Pilgrim
Lounge.
“We’re not just doing this for Boston United, we’re doing
this for Boston United and the town of Boston.
“We think this is a fantastic development for the whole
town.”
He added: “People are complaining about having a football
stadium on their doorstep, but the reality is that the amount of time that
football will be played there is in fact very rare.
“What you’ll have for 11 out of 12 months every year is
nothing but a community asset which will also create jobs.”
We wonder whether Mr Newton has ever considered a
career in PR, as we have never before thought of developers as the sort
of people who do anything for others than themselves and their balance sheet.
Mr Newton said that the club lost £130,000 this year, but
believed the additional income which would be generated by the proposed new
site would help the Pilgrims back into the black.
And if it doesn’t work that way?
Remember the PPRSA and be afraid … be very afraid.
And again we ask … what are the plans for the site currently
occupied by Boston United once the new stadium is nodded through, as we are
sure that they are on some developer’s agenda.
***
Meanwhile, campaigners against the Quadrant proposals have
attacked the choice of venue for the special planning meeting that will approve
the plans.
Oops! Did we say that? What were we thinking?
An e-mail to borough Chief Executive Richard Harbord from
Brian Rush – a former councillor and now a leading light in the protest group –
criticises the choice of Haven High School as “a most unsuitable venue.”
“I am therefore putting this on record as an observation,
which I believe is detrimental to democracy,” he writes
“The location, does not, in my opinion, address or take
account of the age, condition, and transport availability for many of our local
and most affected residents and families.
“The rule of Democracy should be equally available and
accessible to all.
“The selection of the Haven High School cannot be thought to
address those issues, nor the concerns of older or less mobile residents, to
say nothing of the difficulty of location and distance from Wyberton.
“I understand that all of Boston may have an interest in
this issue, but I am sure you will agree that the site of the development must
no doubt be of most concern.
“Therefore with this in mind, I believe that the seat of
local democracy, namely the Municipal Buildings, despite certain
accessibility issues, is a proper and more acceptable location, despite
your misgivings.”
In a further message, Mr Rush adds: “I respectfully request
that both you, and the Leader of the Council, give these further observations
your urgent attention.
"I, nor the group I represent, are pleased nor indeed
convinced by the reasons, given by you, or your officers for this relocation.
“The strength of feeling regarding this ‘proposal’ may, I
admit, be high, however, relocating members, and the public of Wyberton, to what has to be a much less familiar location does not, I
suggest, serve the interests the democratic rights of those residents fairly.
“It is only fair that we inform you that, in light of your
decision to relocate we reserve the right to seek professional
guidance, on the propriety of such an action, should your response to
this notification be thought unacceptable and/or unhelpful.
“In fact, I am not surprised, that some residents of
Wyberton, appear to have already drawn a different opinion of the motives that
might lie behind this ‘relocation.’
“I concede, it is difficult to disagree with other less
trusting individuals, when they arrive at a different conclusion, some have
even suggested that this seems an unfair, if not deliberately cynical attempt,
to influence the outcome.
“In fact it has been mooted by some, that the selection of
the venue is more to do with the residential accessibility for supporters, who
are ‘town’ residents. Thereby the
outcome could be seen, by some, as a desire to create and accommodate larger
and stronger support, in favour of the project proposal, rather than those who
may, for their own very valid reasons not be in favour of it being given
permission.
“You must surely also agree with me, that many of the
potential attendees of Boston United are more likely to reside in Boston, and
as a consequence, be better able to access Haven High School, much easier than
for the people of Wyberton.
“So it must be accepted therefore, that this location
provides less of an ‘accommodation’ for those who, will doubtless, stand to be
most seriously affected by the proposal, should it go ahead.
“It also should be accepted, that were this proposal granted
permission, it will, we believe, create serious access consequences for all
residents not only in Wyberton, but also in Boston and the surrounding areas.
“I believe therefore, that the public interest is in fact
better served by the meeting taking place in the Municipal Buildings, and would
beg that your officers and staff be instructed to make, as best they can,
extended facilities available.
“I look forward to your speedy and courteous response.”
***
Mr Rush also requested a response from Councillor Bedford,
and received this eloquent e-mail – which we reproduce untrammelled by such
tiresome things as the use of capital letters, punctuation, fluency or sense –
by way of reply.
 |
| click on photo to enlarge it |
It read: “Dear Brian
our officers at Boston have looked at our own buildings and we do not have any
rooms capable of seating up to Two Hundred Fifty people for a meeting such as
this. Haven High has sound equipment and Video Screens etc required which will
be required. The planning committee will judge this application with the facts
put before them. Public Speakers etc will be allowed making the whole process
transparent. On the issue of Supporters being mainly town centre based I think
you are way of (sic) the mark as
they travel in from all the surrounding area. Regards Peter”
We won’t comment on the style or absence of punctuation – but one thing that the reply is clearly not
is thoughtful and considered – although it plainly demonstrates that the
leader’s diplomatic, political and literacy skills are all on a par!
***
Which moves us seamlessly to another glittering piece of
indifference and disrespect from our leader.
Time and again we have mentioned his complete disregard for
local media – and the voters who read it – by fobbing off the editors of the
monthly magazine Simply Boston with
some scrappy offering for their feature “Peter’s
Notes” – in which the leader “discusses the important topics in and around
Boston.”
The latest – like so many previous offerings – demonstrates
his couldn't care less attitude to public relations.
The July issue’s notes maunder on at length about the Boston
barrier – one of the many issues on which we have repeatedly been told that
“Peter knows best” whenever anyone dares to criticise the scheme.
As with many previous columns … if the content seems
familiar, that is because it is.
Much of the material is cobbled together from a piece which
appeared on the borough council’s webpage almost seven weeks ago – aside
from a mention of the new school in Fydell Crescent, about which we are told:
“It will be good to see a modern new school complex rise from the rubble over
the coming months.”
Would that be the same flat pack “entire twin-storey school
that rose
from the rubble” in one of Boston’s biggest and fastest builds amid
much publicity in the local “newspapers” and which was heavily reported on the
borough council website and in its Daily Drivel a month ago?
It surely would!
***
How time flies when you’re having fun!
We are reminded Boston Borough Council’s Daily Drone that today
is “B-Day” – bloom day … when the judges from the Britain in Bloom
dog-hanging descend on Boston to award points to specially selected and
nurtured areas of town lucky enough to have been decorated to a decent
standard.
We’d guessed that the visit must be imminent earlier in the
week, when we noticed the sudden arrival of floral displays and hanging baskets
– which could only mean one thing ... that Boston was being tarted up for someone other
than the people who live here.
The judges will be shown garden improvements at the Geoff
Moulder Leisure Centre, and then taken to the top of Rowley Road to walk along
John Adams Way into the rear garden entrance of Fydell House. Then it’s on to
Beadsmans Lane down the side of the Guildhall to Custom House Quay, followed by
a walk over the town bridge (which will include a chance to view the “freshly
decorated” Assembly Rooms) through the Market Place to the knot garden (the low
level hedge) in the grounds of the Stump. Then they will “take in” the Ingram
Memorial area before going down
Petticoat Lane to Pescod Square and thence
Wide Bargate and Park Gate to look at the Memorial Gardens before being whisked away to Boston West
Academy via John Adams Way, Liquorpond Street and Sleaford Road – we do hope
that the usual traffic chaos can be avoided for once.
The route visits in all the places where an effort has been
made to make the town attractive – and is a little like a royal route, where
extreme lengths are taken to avoid a regal visitor seeing anything of what real
life is like.
We’ve said before that the main motive in entering Britain
in Bloom appears to be to claim a medal of some sort that the powers that be
seem to believe will bring about the transformation of Boston from a litter
strewn wasteland into a Garden of Eden to which tourists will flock in
their droves.
It would be interesting to know how much this pantomime has
cost local tax payers.
And if by any chance you stumble across the judges on their
tour of Boston in Wonderland, why not tell them how much nicer it would be if the
whole place could be as attractive as their specially decorated route?
***
Back in the real world it seems that no matter how hard it tries,
Boston Borough Council is almost incapable of hosting a decent event in the
newly “improved” Market Place.
A poorly promoted but nonetheless “vibrant” and “special”
vintage market on Sunday would, we were told “bring together stallholders
selling vintage delights from clothing and accessories to homeware and
collectibles.”
What we found when we arrived was a handful of stalls that
took just minutes to browse, and which mostly comprised old clothing – some of
it looking as though it has missed out on a
decent wash before going on sale … perhaps it was felt this this added
to the ambience.
Truthfully, it was more of a pop-up Oxfam shop than anything
else.
When the Market Place was refurbished, we were promised so
much by way of extra markets, attractions and entertainment, and have yet been
given so little.
It is all so disappointing
***
The borough’s mention of the “freshly decorated” Assembly
Rooms, tickled the funny bone of one reader, who got in touch to ask: “Does the
author of the Boston Bulletin really intend the publication to be so funny.
“Let’s start with Monday's edition. The picture of
councillors with ear defenders and blindfolds on made me think ‘that's
two of the wise monkeys, where's the third.’ Then I remembered the last
full council meeting I attended where there had been many candidates for the
missing primate with the lack of contribution that many of our elected members
make.
“We then progress to Wednesday’s Boston Bulletin and the
visit by the judges for the Britain in
Bloom competition.
“The bulletin reports: ‘They will walk to the town bridge,
observe the new St Botolph’s footbridge, the White Hart garden and freshly
decorated Assembly Rooms.’
“It is at this point I realise how seriously the writer had
taken the experiment of wearing a blindfold … goodness me, he must be still
wearing it over a week later, because he certainly has a different vision of
the Assembly Rooms to that of the photograph I took on Wednesday after reading
the daily funny page.
“I’m now off to scrutinise the councils spending schedules.
“Why, you ask?
“In the Monday bulletin, the Mayor of Boston was pictured
wearing special glasses to replicate a condition that gives peripheral vision
only.
“They must be expensive, and to have bought all of the councillors
and officers a set should be easy to spot – along with the standard
issue ear defenders that they all seem to wear.”
***
The vehicle one of ten that will carry ten designs around
the UK and Europe will feature a field of tulips, and was officially launched
at the Houses of Parliament yesterday.
Boston’s MP Mark Simmonds, who we are told by the BBC “has
sponsored the project”, said: "Transported have done great work in my
constituency amongst the local community, and I am pleased that both their work
and talent from Lincolnshire will be showcased in Parliament."
For once we agree with Leader Bedford that Mr Simmonds needs to spend
more time in the constituency.
***
Wedding days are days to remember – but we hope that one in
Boston will not be looked back on for all the wrong reasons.
Saturday saw us strolling along Worst Street, past a line of
cars parked as bride, groom and guests attended a ceremony in Boston Register
Office where the council chamber is used to make them feel at home.
Also trawling the street, diligently writing registration
numbers in his book was none other than a traffic warden.
Isn't that what they call shooting fish in a barrel?
***
News that – yet again – a prisoner has absconded from North
Sea Camp highlights the use of inmates to assist Boston Borough Council’s
Operation Flyswat … which travels the borough removing rubbish that has
been dumped in ditches and fields.
At least once before, concern has been expressed about inmates
being allowed the use of council owned transport and also being unsupervised.
The last time this happened, assurances were given that it would not happen again.
But a reader who has sent us this photograph tells us that
the people in the picture are from Frieston Shore and were not apparently under
any supervision – not only that but their vehicle was parked illegally!
Our reader raised the issue with Boston Borough Council but
no response has been forthcoming.
However, two years ago an almost identical episode occurred,
and the response from the council then was unequivocal.
Deputy Chief Executive Phil Drury wrote to say: “The
operatives should not have parked as they did and this has been brought to
their attention as a result of your enquiry.
They have, as you would expect, apologised for their actions and
provided reassurances that there will be no repeat."
So that’s all right then.
***
Finally, a number of readers have asked why the Assembly Rooms
nightclub was suddenly and mysteriously closed earlier in the month.
We found the answer on a Spalding website which said that
the problem was caused by an “administrative error” which left a number of
premises owned by local entrepreneur Matt Clark unable to serve alcohol.
A statement by his Activ Group said: “Recently, when
officers of the company became aware of a failure to complete application
within a stipulated time permitted, steps were taken to regularise the position
with the local authority. On receiving the applications, the local authority
research confirmed that the deadline to make said application had expired, and
thus they could not complete.”
More interestingly, we read that Mr Clark’s assurances followed
“rampant” rumour that the company had gone out of business and the venues
closed permanently –“further fuelled by the posting of a notice from The London
Gazette which showed Activ Leisure in liquidation.
“But a statement issued on behalf of Activ Group said: ‘Activ
Leisure, a former management company, having no freehold interest, nor employed
staff, ceased trading some time ago.
“’More recently a decision was taken by the directors to
formally close.”
“‘As a result the company was placed in voluntary
liquidation.’”
You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your
e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.
Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment