Friday 10 October 2014


The concept of transparency in local government is a laudable one – but only if that transparency extends beyond basic information and into detail.
Every month (or so) Boston Borough Council issues details of the way it has spent our money, and at present the list goes as far as July – even though we are halfway through October.
Any sum above £250 is listed, and the use the money has been put to is itemised – but sometimes, that isn’t enough.
We are often curious about how some of the spending is approved – or whether someone simply has a good idea and signs a chit to pay for it, and also at what point someone questions the level of outgoings.
It also makes us wonder at what level a sum needs to be subject to authorisation or discussion – and even relevance.
The situation in Boston perfectly demonstrates the fears recently expressed by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, which said that the hopes that an army of "armchair auditors" would step in to use data published under a new openness regime had been thwarted by the failure to present the information in a useful way – and that councillors who "may not have sufficient capacity" to do the job thoroughly made the problem worse.


***

One such example is the Geoff Moulder Leisure Centre – which by now must surely have far exceeded the budget set for improvements and upgrading
Regular readers will recall that  the council – excuse the pun – baled out the Moulder pool by creating a five-year partnership (that’s a club) with the Witham Schools Federation and Boston Amateur Swimming Club, which started late in 2011.
The plan involved spending £195,000 from reserves, with £150,000 being repaid over five years from the “partners,” and the remaining £45,000 being funded from the capital reserve – which means written off.
By our rough calculations the total reached more than a quarter of a million pounds very rapidly, and has since risen still further – with items such as “GMLC equipment” costing £54,000, and alterations at Creations Gym for more than £71,000.
We have noted spending such as £1,300 on three 42-inch plasma TVs,  “rubber tiles and borders” cost £7,000, locker refurbishment totalled £5,149, resurfacing the car park came to £1,770, and various sundry items swallowed another £1,800.
And still it goes on – July mentions a further £27,000 on solar panels … adding to the £125,000 already spent, which appears to have made no appreciable inroads into the centre’s electricity bill.
But who has the overview on all of this?
Is it a portfolio holder, or a council officer?
And are there limits, or will the spending simply continue indefinitely?
And why do none of our councillors ever question what is going on?
Accounting for it is not enough.

***

Elsewhere in the list of expenditure, we see two big chunks of money paid in “Voluntary Org Grants” for the first six months of the year – each totalling £16,250.
What are these voluntary organisations, who runs them, and to what use is the money put?
If these payments continue at the same rate they will total £65,000 in a full year.
If the beneficiaries of the money include the five neighbourhood schemes that began life as Placecheck projects, then there are still more interesting questions about the way that our taxes are being circulated and spent.
A recent application to the Boston Town Area Committee from a Placecheck group that wanted to  install a CCTV camera on a playing field said that it had agreed to contribute £2,250 toward the borough council’s costs and wanted the committee to given it the outstanding £3,800.
Is this a classic example of robbing Peter to pay Paul – as it would appear that Boston Borough Council gives these groups money and they in turn pay it back to the council, whilst begging for more from a committee famed for wasting taxpayers’ money.
We suppose it keeps the bureaucrats busy.
Again it is not enough merely to say – we are giving away £65,000 to “vol org” groups.
Transparency is one thing – accountability is quite another.

***

Then there are the other “bits and bobs” that accrue across a year.
Not that long ago we mentioned £3,000 being spent on Mayoral dinners  - and now we note  further £1,800 on a Mayoral lunch and room hire.
Members of the council pay great homage to the idea of a first citizen – although we have had some corkers in the past that we could well have done without.
But the office still guzzles up a figure getting on for £100,000 a year, and therefore we hope that it is kept under regular review when savings need to be made – although somehow we doubt it.
A bigger bit and bob was the cost of a webcast, which can only have been for the planning committee that decided to rubber stamp the Quadrant planning development.
The cost of “webcast 50%” (why? Ed) and “satellite costs 100%” was a staggering £4,215 – something like a thousand pounds an hour to present.
It would be very interesting to know how many people watched the meeting on their computers – assuming that figures are available.
If they are not, then it seems to be a dreadful waste of money to spend so much on something where no value for money statistics are available.
The money was paid to a company called Flingbrook, which has its offices in Berkshire, and which numbers companies such as Channel 4, Boots, Google, Santander and Topman among its clients.
No wonder it cost so much!
Was there nowhere closer to home, or cheaper?
click to enlarge
Recently, a county council not too far from Lincolnshire looked into this and found that certainly as far as costs were concerned, it could be done far more cheaply.
South Holland District Council, meanwhile, has been webcasting for some time using an organisation called Public-I which has been providing a service to local councils since 2000.
SHDC currently has planning committee meetings for the six months from April in its archives, and we find it hard to believe that they have paid more than £4,000 a time for the coverage.
Webcasting Boston Borough Council meetings would be a good idea, as they are so poorly covered in the local “newspapers.”
The problem is that it would also highlight the lacklustre performances by many councillors and the total absence of any engagement by others.
Perish the thought, but we might also see a bit of grandstanding in some quarters as well.
With an election not many months away we think that our so-called leaders will prefer to lie low rather than lie in public!

***

Last of all, down at the cheap end of the July spending are two items that raised an Eyebrow.
A “crowd modelling” training course cost £650. Crowd modelling? We’re not entirely sure, but we think it’s to do with managing panic stricken people at the scene of major disasters and the like.
Best to be prepared, we suppose.
Last – and by all means least – we note the entry on the monthly spending list which reports, with absolutely no sense of irony at all … £1,000 spent on “hire of bus for healthy walks.”

***

At a recent council event we hear that our MP Mark Simmonds told guests who expressed their sorrow at his departure from parliament at the next election that he would still be living in the area as his next job will be here.
Which got us wondering.
We doubt that Mr Simmonds plans to follow his own advice to people who find themselves out of work and sign on at a local packhouse.
Nor do we think that he is likely to pursue his previous line of work and become an estate agent. Not only are there plenty of those in Boston already, but commission on prices in this part of the world is scarcely enough to regenerate the huge income he currently enjoys at Westminster.
So what’s left?
Mr Simmonds’ most recent political duties as a minister took him frequently to Africa, which is rather far removed from Lincolnshire.
However prior to election victory in 2010 our MP was a shadow health minister between 2003 and 2004 and again between 2007 and 2010.
Between 2010 and 2012 he became a “strategic adviser” to Circle Healthcare (social enterprise), which ended when he was appointed a minister – and was paid £12,500 quarterly for ten hours a month.
That’s £50,000 a year for 120 hours … £415 an hour.
Circle already has strong connections with the Conservative Party.
Its investors are also party donors and have given money to MP’s offices. They include Robin Odey of Odey Asset Management, who has donated to the offices of Nicholas Soames, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Kwasi Kwarteng who used to work for Odey Management as an analyst, and Jo Johnson, head of the Number 10 policy unit.
Circle calls itself an “employee co-owned partnership” where doctors and nurses are in charge of its hospitals, and are “owners” of the business.
The company’s best known acquisition is most probably Hinchingbrooke Hospital in Cambridgeshire which it took over from the NHS when it was consistently near the bottom of the 46 trusts, but which now has one of the highest levels of patient satisfaction in the country.
It is said that the takeover deal, which saved the hospital from closing down, is seen as a blueprint for the future of many NHS trusts.
So are Mr Simmonds hints about remaining in Lincolnshire connected with his CV in health?
In July, United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust – which runs Boston’s Pilgrim Hospital – was told that it must spend another six months in special measures because it was still failing to deliver acceptable standards of care.
Time will tell, but Mr Simmonds would clearly be a viable candidate if the Lincolnshire UHT went the way of Hinchingbrooke Hospital and was privatised –  whilst  his one-time fee from Circle would work out at a full time equivalent of  a handsome £16,650 a week

*** 

The issue of Boston’s troubled roads continues to rumble on.
After last week’s Boston Eye blog, the county’s Head of Road Chaos (HORC) Councillor Richard Davies, came in for some stick and was challenged over why his patch and others warranted overnight work but not Boston.
The initial response was to say that “in this instance it wasn't possible,” – but at least Councillor Davies declared that he was returning to Boston this week “to look into reports of lack of contractor activity”  which we have to say has been noticeable whenever road works are carried out in the town.
He also rejected charges that Lincoln was out of touch with the town, saying: “Our depot and local office is in Boston - there's no simple answer to congestion. Clearly you'd rather inactivity.”
Actually, inactivity – in terms of not being able to drive through the town other than in first gear – is exactly what we are complaining about.
Later, Councillor Davies tried the time-honoured political stunt of pointing the finger of blame elsewhere, and shooting the messenger.
Whilst he admitted that “we could do a much better job explaining” he added “but it would help if some commentators would explore more before commenting.”
As the only source on this issue was Boston Eye, we have no doubt to whom he was referring.
For the record, we made little by way of comment, merely reported – unlike our local “newspapers” – the exchanges between Councillor Davies and Boston county councillors, and references from his social media page announcement regarding overnight working.
We’re afraid that if his comments lacked some information, then he should seek to make himself clearer.
After all that, it was entertaining to have our sense of schadenfreude piqued by a story in Councillor Davies’ home base of Grantham
The Grantham Journal reported that “the councillor responsible for roads has apologised for traffic in the town grinding to a halt this morning.
“Patching work … led to congested roads in the centre of town and traffic moving at a snail’s pace along High Street and roads running off it.
“Councillor Richard Davies, who represents Grantham North West on the county council and is portfolio holder for highways, said the council needs to improve upon how it maintains the roads.
“Councillor Davies said: ‘I am sorry about the disruption this morning. We are trying to improve this as we speak. We need to be more focussed on the road user, but overall the objective is to address the necessary road repairs in the town and we cannot do that without some disruption.’”
It’s good to see that our roads supremo is a multitasker when it comes to delivering delay – but as we said last week, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

***

On Sunday, we noticed a distinct increase in the amount of traffic out and about – due largely, we suspect, to the fact that it is currently the only day of the week when it should be possible to do shopping that requires the use of a car. Sadly, a pedestrian was involved in an accident on John Adams Way near Haven Bridge where the road works are being carried out, which again saw traffic tailed back all the way through the town to Horncastle Road.
Whilst we appreciate the difficulties in such circumstances, it ought not to be beyond the wit of the authorities to manage traffic flow more efficiently on such occasions.
Perhaps a “crowd modelling” course involving cars might provide some answers.
Similarly, we noted social media comments about problems caused by frustrated drivers blocking the roundabouts.
It may be selfish, but in light of the ham-fisted handling of the roadworks by Lincolnshire Clownty Council it is to a degree understandable.
How about some temporary traffic lights to manage the flow – or is that a little too avant garde for the folk at County Hall?

***

Three Boston borough councillors – all of them former members of the Boston Bypass Independents – wrote to the Boston Standard, a “newspaper” that is published weakly, to add their threepenn’orth to the debate, declaring that any restriction in traffic flow on Haven Bridge needed to be managed carefully to avoid the chaos we are currently experiencing.
They added – as have many others – that “We are sure that in Lincoln any such road works would have been carried out at night.
The letter, signed by Councillors Helen Staples, Richard Austin and David Watts (sic) challenged Lincolnshire County Council leader Martin Hill, and his highways henchman Councillor Richard Davies to visit Boston and find out at first hand the damage done to our economy “by the bad management of highways works.”

***

Their letter angered a reader who e-mailed Boston Eye to attack “the hypocritical condemnations” in the letter.
“How do people such as these dare to have the temerity to spout such ill-conceived drivel,” he continued.
“They conveniently fail to admit the disaster caused by them by failing to deliver the original and main key element of their own political policy.
“To now complain about the obvious inadequacy and grinding congestion being suffered in, on, and around our local roads, is nothing short of idiotic hypocrisy.
“Why do they not come clean and admit they literally threw away the best chance this borough ever had of resolving the traffic chaos, and admitting it was  they  who are to blame for failing to deliver in the first place!
“The very mention of the word road should stick in their throats!”

 ***

The letter also prompted a response from a group of councillors from all parties harking back to the pre-2007 days to “contradict” the assertion that nothing had been done to secure a bypass for Boston before the arrival of the BBI.
Because there was no European funding for road building, but funds were available for “regeneration schemes,” references to a bypass/relief road/distributor road or whatever, appeared under yet another euphemism – that of “regeneration corridor.”
This apparently assuages the collective conscience of the councillors “serving” between 2000 and the arrival of the BBI.
What a shame that our so-called politicians are so concerned with calling a spade anything but a spade that this gobbledygook probably did more to obscure what was being sought for the town rather than  making it clear.
Frankly, we think that all previous administrations are guilty of incompetence – hence the need to try to provide a whitewash.

***

Interestingly, at the recent meeting of Lincolnshire County Council another former BBI member – county and Boston borough councillor Alison Austin – insisted that “no-one in the past has ever promised to deliver a bypass for Boston.”
However, this does appear to be at odds with the declaration by the BBI after  its landslide victory in Boston in 2007, which said: “Boston Bypass Independents were elected … on a manifesto of getting Boston moving by getting a bypass built for Boston. We were accused by our opponents of being a single issue party but the electorate soon saw through this political smokescreen, voting the old guard out and a virtually brand new council in to power.”
The statement certainly appears to be unambiguous – but then again we’re talking politics and politicians here, so anything goes.

***

The present traffic chaos – chin up … there’s only another four or five weeks to go – has reminded many people that a bypass was on the cards … and not that long ago, either.
Readers tell us that there were plans to bridge the River Haven at the High Street and that this went further with compulsory purchase of land and property in the area. We believe that the money ran out before any was really spent, but it is salutary to think how different things might have been had the work happened. Any readers' recollections of those days are warmly welcomed.
Instead, all we have is the John Adams Way – a “bypass” that is unique in that it runs through the centre of the place it is supposed to be bypassing.
It could only happen in Boston.

***

One thing that can be said is that we will never get a bypass unless we make a big fuss. In 2007 the BBI polled 16,294 votes out of a total of 31,333 based on a poor turnout of 36.9%.
Clearly the people of Boston really wanted a bypass – and judging by the current pressure of public opinion they still do.
Yet an e-petition on the government website calling for a bypass has so far only attracted 1,080 signatures.
The petition will remain on-line until the end of March next year, and if you would like to sign it, you can do so by clicking here
Signing it won’t achieve anything at government level – but if enough people do, we will at least have some clear evidence of the strength of opinion to show them at Clownty Hall.
Meanwhile, a recent statement from South Holland District Council planners reports that the cost of phase two of the Spalding Western Relief Road is £95.6m.
Boston residents will be delighted to know that the application was funded by Lincolnshire County Council “through its budget targeted at schemes that will support the future prosperity of Lincolnshire,” adding that “Spalding is expected to experience future traffic growth in line with the rest of the UK.
“This traffic growth places extra demand on the existing congestion points within the town, increasing queue lengths and delays.”
The answer appears to be that if you want a bypass – move to Spalding.

 ***

Meanwhile, parking is still an issue around the place – even though there is ample time to leave your vehicle in traffic, go shopping or to the bank, and return to your car to find it just where you left it.
In a desperate attempt to earn a little goodwill, Boston Borough Council has announced plans for “a huge early Christmas present” for the town.
“To help boost the all-important Christmas shopping trade” the council is to remove "all charges on all car parks on some of the biggest festive shopping days."
We already have a question about this, as Worst Street subsequently mentions that the "gift" applies to "all borough council-controlled car parks."
Whether this will include the five off street car parks owned by Lincolnshire County Council  is not clear – but they are the areas that will be most popular in the run-up to Christmas – Market Place, Wide Bargate, Pump Square, South Square  and  Station Approach.
However, the free parking dates include the famously festive Thursday, November 27, when the town’s Christmas lights are being switched on, and the equally celebratory Thursdays, December 4th 11th and 18th.
On all of these dates parking is free from 4pm.
On Saturday, December 6 – Small Business Saturday, apparently – parking will be free all day, as it will be on Sundays November 30th,  December 7th, 14th and 21st.
And Christmas Eve will also see free all day parking.
Given the greed with which the leadership normally embraces car parking income, this certainly ranks alongside the epiphany of Ebenezer Scrooge after his ghostly visitations.
Council leader, Pete Bedford, said: “The aim of all this is to welcome as many people as possible into the town to help Boston businesses following the floods of last year which, for too many, marred Christmas.”
And Councillor Derek “Knocker” Richmond, portfolio holder for the town centre and car parks, chimed in: “This represents a Christmas present from the council to Boston. The town has a tremendously varied shopping offer – from small family-owned traditional retailers through to main multi-nationals. With free parking located conveniently close there should be no reason to want to go anywhere else.”
Close – but no cigar, as they say.
If the idea is, as Councillor Bedford says, to help Boston business, then it is too late by several months. Not only that, but our local businesses need the support of the local council all year round – not just a bit of tokenism at Christmas.
And – varied as Boston’s shopping offer is – Councillor Richmond is well wide of the mark to think that free parking for a few hours late in the day will erase any need to shop elsewhere.
We’re afraid that both men are over-egging the Christmas pudding.
Car parking income in Boston is no longer the cash cow it once was, and whilst this “huge” gift will save shoppers a few bob, it is by no means as generous as the council would like it to seem.
But there is, of course, an election on the way, isn’t there?
Interestingly, the council is now looking at either leasing replacement car park ticket machines or buying new ones for more than £100,000 – with maintenance costs of £10,000 a year, which it seems will inevitably mean even higher charges.
More on that next week

***

As a sidebar to the parking issue, we sometimes wonder if Boston’s problems will ever be solved.
Not for the first time, a reader e-mails to tell us: “It appears someone at Lincoln has issued orders that foreign drivers are exempt from parking restrictions. Surely under the Freedom of Information act we are entitled to know who issued this order.
"As an example a white transit van blatantly breaks the law in Red Lion street in Boston. For about a year I have contacted local councillors, county councillors and even the police commissioner for Lincolnshire, but every one passes the buck.”
Perhaps the attention of our civil enforcement office is elsewhere. Last week during a visit to the Market Place, we noticed one of them enjoying a merry chat with some craft stallholders, while illegally parked cars lined the row of planters that help make the place look such a mess.
As we emerged from a shop twenty minutes later, he was in the self-same position – as were the parked, unticketed cars.

***

In other market towns around the county, councils take a different view of parking. In Market Rasen, for example – a winner of Portas Pilot funding which is apparently proving a success – parking is free.
And in Sleaford, forward looking North Kesteven District Council plans more than 100 new, cheap, long-stay car parking spaces in the south of the town to support local businesses costing between £1 and £2 a day.

***

Last week’s mention of an alleged abuse of  car parking privileges by a councillor has prompted a letter from Independent Councillor Carol Taylor, who says: “Allow me to put you straight regarding your description "get-out-of-jail-free" councillor car parking pass.
“It doesn't get us out of jail, suggesting that we break the law and get away with it – we don't!
“The individual concerned who has allegedly refused to pay a parking fine for taking up two spaces is in a minority. Our parking permits are used solely for council business when we are working in our ward areas or with ward residents.
“We are not allowed to park in the market place or the two central car parks at Wide Bargate, not even on council business. We are also not allowed to use our pass if we park to go shopping for instance.
“Many of us work hard in our wards and when visiting people on council business we can use our permits. Boston borough councillors adhere to the rules and regulations for the use of car parking permits.
“If it has been proven that a councillor has abused this privilege then they should be dealt with accordingly, but please do not tar us all with the same brush!”

***

Speaking of Christmas, and the switching on of lights, we wonder what the future holds for the costly yet unimpressive deal signed by Boston Borough Council three years ago, and which still has two years to run.
When the old lights were replaced the most the council could scrape together was £25,000 – and the late but unlamented Boston Business “Improvement” District agreed to stump up an extra £10,000 for the first two years.
Now that the BID is no more, is the borough saddled with a  £35,000 annual contract which at the time it said could not be afforded without extra help?
And what happens as far as Christmas lights are concerned in the future?

***

As far as the general election is concerned, there is little to report locally this week.
Boston is still listed as being among the seats most likely to fall to UKIP, whilst the local Conservatives have published details on their website of the “open primary” selection event on October 25th between 1-30pm  and 4-30pm, and which they describe as “a US-style ‘Primary.’”
They’ve booked the Peter Paine Sports Centre for the dog-hanging, which seems a little ambitious – particularly given the turnout for a similar event in Clacton at which only 240 of the 67,000 eligible voters registered to attend … despite the national interest and political controversy surrounding the seat.
To vote here you must register by 22nd October, live in the Boston and Skegness constituency and be over 18.
Registering is not as straightforward as it could have been if more than one of you would like to attend.
Whilst a drop-down box suggests that more than one ticket may be ordered, that is not the case, as the choice is 1 … or 1.
So, if Mr and Mrs Voter want to attend, they need to fill out individual applications – and they only have eight minutes in which to do it, whilst a timer ticks cheerily down to let them know how much time is left.
Full e-mail and home addresses are mandatory, as is a demand for the applicant’s date of birth.
We’re not sure that such security is necessary, as somehow, we don’t see many – if any – people wanting to try to sway the vote!

***

Meanwhile, travelling hopefully to arrive, we imagine, one of the UKIP contenders for the Boston and Skegness constituency, Paul Wooding, is now styling himself “UKIP PPC.”.
PPC is an abbreviation of Prospective Parliamentary Candidate – a title that we have always understood to refer to a contender who has triumphed in the selection process and is representing his or her party at the general election.
Perhaps Mr Wooding knows something that we don’t.

***

We note that our leader’s contempt for local journalilsts continues unabated. We recently picked up the September issue of the Simply Boston magazine – which is still available even though we are in October.
The Peter’s Notes page carried Councillor Bedford’s unashamed support for the approval of the Quadrant Development two months ago, and a reminder that grants were still available in connection with the December floods.
If the notes seemed familiar once again, it is because they were.
They first appeared in a letter to a local “newspaper” on   August 20th.
And the deadline for applying for the grants that Councillor Bedford mentioned expired at the end of September!

***

What a delight to see Boston mentioned in last week’s Sunday Telegraph as boasting one of Britain’s five best independent bookshops.
click to enlarge
Que?
Trident Booksellers, “is the only independent bookstore left in Boston, which is desperately sad,” reported children’s writer Jacqueline Wilson.
 “It’s a bookstore and a café that sells new and used books. It’s a great place for students to sit, to browse, to work on their computers …” it waffles.
We must take a look, we thought, which is when we discovered a slight snag.
The address of Trident Booksellers and Café is 338 Newbury Street, Boston,  Massachusetts – a nine hour flight away.
Oh dear.

***


Finally, another example of over-egging the pudding!
A report in Monday’s Boston Daily Bore employed a sheaf of epithets to tell a story.
Phew! … breaking ground …  a tough job .... the soil was rock hard ... because it was littered with rocks … staff had to employ an iron bar and plenty of muscle and effort to break through …”
And the nature of this Herculean task?
A hole, about three feet square and a foot deep, dug – no, excavated – by three men to house the £4,000 lump of stone that was intended to mark the start of the First World War but will instead be dedicated on the 96th anniversary of its conclusion.
Fittingly, given Boston Borough Council’s obsession with medals, badges, scrolls and the like, everyone who contributed to the semi-public appeal will be “honoured” with their names included on a “Scroll of Honour.”
Given that the obelisk is to recognise the ultimate sacrifice by the 843 local people who died in the Great War, is the idea of meriting a place on a scroll of “honour” for opening one’s wallet a vulgar idea, or is it a vulgar idea?


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