The points raised last week by our insider columnist The Sorcerer concerning the lack of openness by Boston Borough Council struck an instant chord with us.

We have long felt that whilst Worst Street preaches openness, transparency and stresses its willingness to communicate with the taxpayers, in reality it does nothing of the kind.

The full council meeting referred to was an excellent example.

Anyone looking at the agenda would see at a glance that there were no questions being asked either by councillors or members of the public – because these must be submitted in advance, and so there is ample time for them to be inserted into the agenda pages on the borough’s website, WorstWeb ahead of the meeting.

***

And we won’t accept any excuses – because some time ago, items such as this did appear on the agenda ahead of the meeting.

In particular, questions from elected members made interesting reading – coming as they did at a time the UKIP contingent was more interrogative of the leadership, and before the mass defections back to the Tories.

We suspect that this is why these questions no longer appear – as they warn of a possible discussion that could prove interesting to the public and also might lure local hacks along to a meeting which they would otherwise not attend.

***

Another point raised by our columnist was that of minuting meetings.

We know from our own sources that it not uncommon for the minutes that follow the meeting often many weeks later barely to scratch the surface of what has been said.

In this respect they fail in their duty to provide an honest and accurate account of what occurred – and let us not forget that these so-called minutes become the only historic account of what happened.

We would do well to remember that famous quote attributed to Winston Churchill – who was bang on the money when he said: “History is written by the victors” … in Boston’s case, whichever party is in power at the time.

Whilst we are sure that the recorders of our local political history must feel proud of what they do, the fact is that their efforts simply bring about a diminution of the role of the local authority and make it seem trite, petty and trivial.

***

Another point that was made was the growing tendency to issue reports for “noting” rather than “voting” which concentrates power in the hands of just seven of the thirty members of the council – something that could scarcely be considered democratic unless you have to be a member of the cabinet.

The outcome is that Boston is “represented” by its councillors in name only, and sadly none of the rank and file seem to have a problem with this.

***

Worse still is the infrequency with which full council meetings are called.

Whilst WorstWeb tells us “there is an annual council meeting each May and there are usually five or six other full council meetings held during the year” – i.e. six or seven meetings a year – there were only five in 2017.

There were none at all in March, June, July and August, and again in October, November and December.

One example of how bad this is was last September, when the agenda included the minutes of the meetings of the council for 27^th  February, 3^rd  April and 15^th  May 2017 – which means at an extreme point, voters had to wait more than six months to learn what happened at the February meeting.

Members were also asked to receive the confirmed minutes the Audit and Governance Committee held on 30^th May  and the unconfirmed minutes of the meeting held on 31^st  July!

The picture that emerges is quite the opposite of a council that is hard at work and keen to progress – and it is ironic to note that Worst Street less frequently than many of its parish councils.

***

Presumably, all this is intentionally designed to keep non-cabinet councillors as out of touch as possible – and, of course, to blindside the taxpayers into finding out as little as possible, too.

We’ve mentioned WorstWeb before – and at any given time, only around half the stories on its front page have anything to do with Boston Borough Council. The rest are cosy, irrelevant little yarns more like the sort of thing you would expect to find in a low grade local newspaper.

***

Whilst we’ve said that little goes on in the chamber, what little there is goes unreported to a large degree.

On many occasions, our local “newspapers” fail to attend meetings – which you might think would be a chance for Worst Street to fill the void with reports on its web pages of events … written with their own spin on it as well!

Once upon a time, the outcome of meetings was summarised, and also issued to the local “newspapers”

But now, Worst Street would far rather that you have no news of what has been going on because it prefers to keep you in the dark.

***

This week’s BTAC-ky meeting is a good example.

At its last session on 29^th November 2017, members agreed to cancel the meeting scheduled for 3^rd January and move the business for that meeting forward to  the 31st. 

The minutes specifically noted that the Christmas in Boston community group should be asked for a formal written report, including a financial report, for representatives to present to the Committee on 31^st January 2018.

We know that this was done; because last week’s Boston Eye highlighted part of treasurer Darron Abbott's  report which was highly critical of some members of the group.

The agenda for Wednesday’s BTAC-ky meeting has one significant omission – there is no agenda item to receive Christmas in Boston reports for discussion.

Once upon a time politicians looked out for a good day to bury bad news…

Now – in Boston at any rate – they just ignore it altogether.

***

Chief Executive Phil Drury has since e-mailed Mr Abbott stressing how important it is that the reports which are required by the group's agreement with the council  “are the accounts which have been agreed by the Christmas in Boston Committee.”

“I would therefore be very grateful if you could make the necessary arrangements for all of the associated paperwork to be made available to the group such that it is able to fulfil its obligations,” he said.

What is interesting about this is that Mr Abbott’s critical report as treasurer – a role that constitutionally he apparently still holds – which expressed concerns about the behaviour of some members of the committee was filed on 15^th January.

To suggest that the group now requires the accounts in order to “agree” a report might be seen to suggest that a second, sanitised version will be forthcoming.

Perish the thought!

***

The construction team charged with building the £100 million Boston Barrier was pictured making a start last week …

We understand that there is no truth to the rumour that the completion date has been put back by decades!

***

From time to time, the national newspapers feature scary stories about private companies employed by local authorities who are effectively given a licence to print money.

We were reminded of these as we read a recommendation to extend the 3GS service – for another year to 18^th April 2019.

The service is described as “cost-free” to the customer – with funding provided from the tickets issued to offenders.

It therefore came as no surprise to learn that Worst Street issued only seven fixed penalty notices for environmental crime offences in 2016/17 – whilst 3GS handed out 514 between April and December 2017.  

What does this tell us?

Either that Boston Borough Council failed dismally in its task, or that very few offences were committed.

Or that 3GS – if nothing else – is being over-enthusiastic where the reporting of  offences are concerned.

Another problem with a “cost free” operation is that it effectively sets a figure for the amount of fines that must be issued to cover the expense of the operation and make a profit.

Worst Street says: “The 3GS service has significantly enhanced the council’s capability to enforce issues such as PSPO dog controls, fly tipping and to target other matters including nuisance vehicles and the consumption of alcohol.

“An extension to the service level agreement for a further term of 12 months will enable officers to enhance the already good performance of 3GS to further improve payment rates, enable an effectively nil cost prosecution service to those who fail to pay FPN’s and provide much wider opportunities for the council to gain enhanced enforcement capabilities.”

As far as we can see on our travels, no improvements have been made as far as dirty, befouled, and litter-strewn streets outside the town centre are concerned.

Nor do any seem likely for the time being – as the next war to be declared is on people who put the wrong rubbish in their wheelie bins.

***

Time now for a couple of blasts from the past – both of them involving former Worst Street chief executives.

The first of these is Richard Harbord described as “a former chief executive of Boston Borough Council” in an article appearing on the website Room 151 an online news, opinion and resource service for local authority Section 151 and other senior officers. His “short term” post began in 2009 and was ultimately extended until 2015 at a rate of £121,500 a year for a two week a month contract

He warns that the current protracted austerity facing local authorities has caused considerable stresses in the system, and that the need to meet member requirements and keep services going is “paramount.”

“Many authorities I know have assured council leaders that there will be no additional significant cuts this year, and they will therefore be tempted to take short cuts to make a lawful budget.

“There is no doubt that the areas of adequate provision and assured savings programmes are the front line in this and it is becoming increasingly hard.

“The future is not encouraging. As I have pointed out elsewhere, there is an alarming lack of certainty in the latter years of current financial strategies…”

As his last council job was at Worst Street, we wonder if his musings feature Boston in his thoughts.

***

The second blast from the past concerns Mark James, Boston’s Chief Executive between 1995 and 2002.

Mr James is best remembered for his enthusiastic promotion of the Princess Royal Sports Arena, and was famously quoted as saying that it would not cost the ratepayer a penny – an estimate that was adrift by around £8 million.

He so liked the idea that he took it with him to Wales, where it repeated the “success” of Boston, and a rugby stadium costing £25 million to build saw £18 million provided in differing forms by Carmarthenshire Council. 

He is also well known for his legal hounding of a local blogger in a court action and the on-going fallout – something which has earned him Private Eye’s Shit of the Year award – and perhaps more media attention that he might wish.

Most recently, some actions in Boston before he became Worst Street Chief Executive have earned a mention – when he was Director of Administration and Legal Services.

You can read them on the following links …

http://carmarthenplanning.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/the-boston-diariesleopards-and-spots.html  

http://carmarthenplanning.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/consulting-with-councillors.html

http://www.peoplefirstwales.org.uk/2018/01/the-mystery-of-carbon-copy.html

***

Talking of chief executives, we note that Lincolnshire County Council’s top man for the past 12 years, Tony McArdle, will be stepping down after next month’s council meeting.

Meanwhile, West Lindsey District Council has “deleted” the post of chief executive – which has been vacant for some time – and appointed three “executive directors” to lead the council instead.

Could this be a window of opportunity for other district councils to follow?

***

This week’s Must get out More award goes to Worst Street’s Twitter feed for its exhortation to visit Boston Market – posted in the wee small hours of last Wednesday, and accompanied by a photo of a busy market on a sunny day.

The reality was rather different – with heavy rain showers, and dull overcast skies. More than one shopper reported that just a handful of stallholders had bothered to make the effort – one estimate was only about half a dozen.

It ought to have been any easy guess by whoever submitted the Tweet – but what the hell, never let the facts get in the way of a good story!

***

Finally, we note that outdoor cinema returns to Boston's Central Park in September, and punters are being asked what films they’d like to see from a list published on WorstWeb.

As films must be ‘U’ certificate due to licensing rules, we assume that that the movie “Free Willy” on the council list is not the one that we were thinking of!

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com   

E– mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com  

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

Sparks are still flying in the debate about last year’s Christmas lights display in Boston – which was unquestionably one of the best ever.

Sadly though, some aspects continue to rankle – as treasurer Darron Abbott’s report to next week’s meeting of the Boston Town Area Committee will show.

Mr Abbott has already been “sacked” at a Christmas in Boston at a meeting to which he was not invited – the age old policy of shooting the messenger if you don’t like the message.

We also understand that the committee comprising some of those who may have been criticised has been handed the reins for the coming year.

Headlines from Mr Abbott’s report make sad reading …

S

ome members of the group did not seem to take the responsibility of looking after other people's cash and assets as seriously as others. Cash has been collected and not reached the bank without considerable hard work on my behalf, in one case it was only when I said I would hand the matter to the police did the monies suddenly appear from the relevant committee members.

C

ommittee members have given away assets of the group to friends and acquaintances without the authorisation of the rest of the committee in return for drinks and food; the total value of these items are in the region of £200 …

I

 have refused to reimburse some committee members for expenses as they have not produced any kind of receipt.

O

n September 5^th a meeting was called to discuss what should happen to any unspent funds.

The agreement with BTAC for the matched funding was that ‘any surplus funds from the £10,000 to be returned to BTAC’

Some committee members were not happy with this and suggested that any surplus be divided between the six committee members as ‘payment for our time.’

I as treasurer was uncomfortable about this as the constitution states all committee members must be volunteers and we had promoted ourselves a volunteers.

I also stated that I would not take my share, but if the committee voted that the funds should be shared I would have to list individual payments in the accounts at the end of the year …

I

t was accepted reluctantly that no payments being made to committee members. However comments were made to me after this date that suggested all was not well one such comment being "you do realise you are taking food from my baby's mouth."

A

nother major concern that I had financially was the total lack of regard for sticking to the event plan and health and safety regulations. Thankfully no accidents or incidents happened. But some committee members did not seem to realise that if they had the group would most likely have not been covered by our insurance and then the committee members would have been personally liable.

I

 am extremely disappointed the way the fantastic project has turned sour. I have taken the task of treasurer very seriously and I make no apologies for my actions in protecting the funds and assets of the donors and sponsors.

I

 have sent a cheque for the unspent funds of £2,093.39 to the BTAC lead officer. 

***

Worst Street watchers may well have been surprised at the news that Boston Borough Council's Cabinet is back up to full strength – as its underpowered performance for most of the past two years had seemed little different from before.

After a year as mayor – which took him out of his cabinet role – Councillor Stephen Woodliffe appears to have decided to take it easy and stay aloof from the frenetic world of Boston politics.

A good decision – and one that tended to emphasise his previous impact as a member of the cabinet.

The real question in all of this, though, is why it has taken so long to fill the void created by Councillor Woodliffe.

When he took office in 2016 there really ought to have been other Conservative councillors who could have been asked to step into the breach.

Whilst we accept that this motley rump was pretty hopeless, a few could have been no worse than those inside the cabinet – and yet the leadership tottered on shorthanded.

Not until the defection of Councillor Nigel Welton – in an Evel Knievel-style leap from Labour to Conservative – was a Tory deemed good enough to fill a cabinet post.

If nothing else it says much about the quality of the less than magnificent seven.

***

A note in support of Councillor Welton has come from former Boston Borough Councillor Mike Gilbert – now the founder of his own national political party A BlueRevolution. 

Mr Gilbert writes: “We at Blue Revolution are opposed on the whole to the self-destructive process of binary politics, seeing it as simply a playground game which worked when the British State controlled the world but simply undermines the nation now.

“Whilst Nigel's decision might seem odd going from Labour to Tory, he has acted in what he believes to be the interests of the town.

“Sometimes it is better to go for entryism rather than be in sterile opposition.

“Good luck to him and his plans for Boston Town Centre. We will watch with interest.

“Finally, can we assume Mike Cooper has fired the Starting Gun for the 2019 Borough campaign? 

“If he has, it was an inspired subject but a little premature perhaps!”

***

Clearly, that final reference must be to the Worst Street leader Councillor Michael Cooper’s response to questions at last week’s full council meeting in which he expressed the hope that Boston might get a share of a £100 million road building fund announced by Transport Minister Chris Grayling.

Mr Grayling specifically mentioned Boston – saying he had “no doubt there would be a campaign for the bypass to be an early project.”

Councillor Cooper was reported as saying that he had been in talks with Lincolnshire County Council, whose highway department will be making any application, and local MP Matt Warman.

“Boston is well-placed to build on the distributor road approach it has adopted with the support of the County Council, to argue for significant highways investment and I for one will continue to press hard for a good outcome for Boston.

“I can’t say we’re going to start building a bypass within the next two years, but the big thing is finance, and finance is there.

“If we can get things ready to go I would hope to see something within the next five years.

If we can get started within that time frame that would be a good move.”

***

Time will tell whether we are looking at a positive step forward or yet another slice of pie in the sky.

But one immediate obstacle would appear to be financial.

Whilst we are apparently seeking a slice from a £100 million kitty, the County Council has already declared that this selfsame sum would be the total cost of the project.

Another potential problem is the recent announcement by Clownty Hall of plans to move forward on the idea of a £200 million Lincolnshire Coastal Highway taking in the A46 from west of Lincoln through to the A158 to Skegness, along with the A57 from the county boundary where it joins the A46 in Lincoln – something which may well strain Mr Warman’s loyalties to the Boston half of his constituency.

The fact that Boston is still a popular route from places such as Nottingham, Leicester and Derby via Grantham to Skegness seems entirely overlooked at Lincoln Head Office.

Quelle surprise.

*** 

A date of 22^nd  February has appeared for the by-election caused by the resignation of

Tory Councillor Maureen Dennis – a member for Old Leake and Wrangle since 2003.

Councillor Dennis was one of those rare gifts to a ruling party – someone who kept schtum, attended all lessons, did as she was told, and rarely spoke.

***

Our insider columnist, The Sorcerer tells us: “With as much respect as one could dare to apply, Maureen's resignation could never be considered the biggest ever loss to the Council!

“In all my years of watching, I doubt I ever heard her speak at a meeting, except once when she put her hand up to agree to something ... then after a rummage in her handbag, she suspiciously flattened out a folded page, and like someone hearing the words for the first time, slowly read out all the reasons, why she was agreeing 'with the proposer!'

“Everyone knew she could be relied upon to support anything that the Conservatives proposed, but not without a cursory glance, at the 'main man's' hand at the time.

“Someone suggested that we could save time if all Conservative councillors’ right wrists were tied to a wooden bar so the leader could 'raise' all hands at the appropriate point.

“Councillors loved it, because it saved wasting time reading project papers!”

***

One interesting idea doing the rounds after Councillor Dennis resigned was that it might be possible to seize the by-election moment and to persuade some of our absentee representatives that it would be a good idea to throw in the towel at the same time.

Nothing seems to have come of this though, as these people are copper-bottomed in office unless they miss meetings for more than six months.

Shame.

***

Meanwhile the reverse political pavane (one step forward, two steps back) that is coming to typify the Worst Street council chamber continues apace.

We learn that former council leader Peter Bedford has joined the “Independent” Group on the council.

Councillor Bedford stepped down as leader in April last year in ran without a political banner in May’s county council elections.

We take this to be another of those manoeuvres whose aim is to improve chances of committee membership – given the historic relationship between Councillor Bedford and his new “Independent” colleagues, we can think of no other reason.

***

Back now to The Sorcerer for a a witheringlook as last week’s full council meeting – and a call for Worst Street to deliver is promises on openness and transparency …

And a better way to record what goes on in meetings.

T

he full council meeting that took place on Monday, in terms of incidents, was a real collector’s piece ... and frankly it got myself and our crib team players arguing the toss on Tuesday evening about  how things were unfolding since the newbies dumped long standing Councillor Pete the Pill!

Jeremy suggested that ‘unfolding’ would not be the word he would have used ... but decency prevents repetition!

The general confusion following that meeting seems to have been instigated by a Pantomime-like scene stemming from a single public question.

As Boston’s Political Pantomimes tend to do, the discussion disintegrated into farce!

The first question....is written and posted.

The respondent considers the question; (having earlier had professional “advice”) … responds in writing two hours before meeting ... and subsequently reads the response.

Bated breath .... followed by a supplementary question – and back to the leader who engages in a degree of pontificating babble … long pause – but ’because I do not know the answer to that question I will pass it over to the Legal Department sorry, Monitoring Officer ... who will respond’

Monitoring Officer reddens, stutters, stammers and promises to review…

Stunned silence ... questioner stamps angrily out of the chamber.

It is events and conditions such as those described above which might at any time be called into question, and it is such failures that demand the provision of permanent recording of all meetings.

It is likely that all voters like me think that all council meetings are recorded.

Many are, but strangely I did not realise that the full council rarely is!

In fact I cannot recall a minute clerk ever being present on my visits.

The only explanation I could unearth was that unless something had a real public interest, it was felt there was little point.

Ahem …

Excuse me, it is a public meeting that means the public are entitled to open and free access... and the minutes of that meeting are public property which means we can all read them! Yes?

Full council is the most public of meetings, as it should be. No appointment is needed, to attend, and access is open to the public.

The only caveat to this is that questions from the public have to be ‘written’ and presented days before the meeting.

It is true as well that others think that having someone sitting somewhere in the chamber, ‘writing down everything she/he hears’ is perfectly adequate ...

I do not!

Given the advances and simplification of technology alongside the growth in litigation there is now have an even greater demand for accuracy when dealing with matters in the public interest.

Would it not be thought reasonable to ask bodies such as Boston Borough Council, why they as public service providers have chosen to rely on the ‘observational and interpretational’ skills of a paid, but not infallible, stenographer?

So cynically it begs the question, what good reasons could anyone have for operating such an unreliable system ... or should we restructure that to a different question to pose to officers, such as, why would anyone ‘not want’ to do so!

The problem is that this council has adopted a Cabinet of Mysteries.

Their ignorance is easily confused as innocence, but in reality is more likely to be based on the Conservative love of avarice.

We know that most of the effective decision-making powers are jealously guarded Cabinet items ... which I for one expect to have been afforded a degree of careful selectivity!

The consequence then is such ‘items’ never get exposed to all of the voting public’s light of day!

To overcome objections at Scrutiny, or Council, the ‘policy proposal’ gets marked up for noting  ... which in effect means no questions or objections will be heard, but nor can opponents claim not to know about them! 

This method of ‘openness’ is of course a perfectly legal system of governance and in the right hands and allied with the right advocacy can be very effective for ambitious administrations.

But it also can be an ideal, anti-democratic vehicle for un-resisted glory grabbing!

So with those thoughts in mind the questions we have to ask ourselves and others are these:-

·        Left to their own ‘intelligence and experience’ how capable do we think this present tranche of ‘servants’ are?

·        How impressed/unimpressed were we  by the performance of the Leader Michael Cooper, whose stumbling and stuttering performances, at Full Council on Monday was the stuff of farce?

·        How sure can the public be that the thoughts and words attributed to him in press statements are in fact his alone?

He clearly was unable to deal with what was a reasonably simple question from a member of the public.

So how confident can we be that he is the right man to lead this council?

I would not expect the now very well paid Chief Executive, or better still, the Council’s ‘Legal Beagle’, to go along with that observation.

But it would be a novel experience for these two occasionally to leave their ivory towers for a few minutes and come down to earth and give us a clear – less councilspeak – explanation about why they seem to consider it acceptable at what must be the most important public meeting of all – the full council.

It seems bizarre for us to not have the facility to properly record – if only for accuracy and of course posterity – events as they unfold.

Why is this?

Without wanting to rake up a stench I can recall one really good reason why the people of Boston should demand to be allowed to ask ‘really awkward questions’ of officers.

It is a taboo subject I know, but can anyone recall the details provided about something tagged the State Street Loan in council circles?

Time after time the question comes back to haunt us, and asks “where did a massive heap of Boston’s dosh go all those many years back!

The last we heard was from Councillor Gordon Gregory – who has as yet failed in his promise to get to the bottom of the particular mystery.

All he actually uncovered was a similar heap of questions which came from someone before him asking for details

That particular promise was a year or two ago now, and we have not heard a dicky bird since!

I know it’s a moot but still valid point even now – but just imagine if back then equipment such as the stuff on the market today had been available when the Mysterious Missing Million completely disappeared?

Maybe, just maybe, we would have known where it went. Well could it happen again? Maybe.

So I am yet to be convinced by the details of these two long standing historical ‘myths.’

The first being who the heck was Jack the Ripper, and the other is, how does anyone mislay one million pounds, back in the 1990’s without a single person tripping over it, or noticing the sudden appearance of a top of the range hansom carriage!

Facilities such as this would, I think, be of interest to local residents, and in any case the voting public could at least get to keep an ear cocked, and listen to what is actually being said, instead of having to rely upon “the interpretations” of the council.

For some reason, an officer was employed to dash from mouth to mouth so that questioners and responders could be heard across the chamber!

I seem to remember not long back when a goodly sum of ratepayers’ money was spent, on what the spin doctors at the time described as “state of the art” microphones.

Indeed such equipment, even in those halcyon days, would be considered, run of the mill, rather than state of the art.

Symbolically however, if one was to measure the operational lifespan of the last troublesome batch we purchased, maybe the sales splurge “cheap as chips” would have been the one to apply!

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com   

E– mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com  

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

Boston Borough Council has rung in the changes with a new look to the New Year in the Worst Street Cabinet of Curiosities …

BTAC-ky chairman and Fenside Councillor Nigel Welton – who just over a month ago swapped horses from Labour to the Conservatives – has been appointed cabinet portfolio holder for Boston town centre.

He takes the reins from today – from Fishtoft Councillor Paul Skinner, who has held the post since the last election, and who has done for the health of the town centre what myxomatosis did for the rabbit population.

For Councillor Welton, the appointment ticks a lot of boxes, as combining his BTAC role with the town centre portfolio is a natural and obvious marriage.

“I’m looking forward to being able to do what I’ve wanted to do for the past two years.

“Things have been a bit disjointed in a way in that  everything we wanted to do on one side  had the Cabinet on the other side – both doing the same things but through different procedures.

“This ties the pair together – bearing in mind that I’ve only got a year in this. I’ve given up what is probably the safest Labour seat in the town, so in a year’s time I may not be here.”

He believes that the promotion could bring big improvements for Boston.
“I think that from the leader’s point of view, putting the best resources that he can to do the best that they can gives me a lot of confidence that he really wants to shake things up – change things around a lot, make things a lot more streamlined and actually do some good stuff for the town.

“Seeing what I’ve done in the last eighteen months with the events sub-group and the Christmas lights sub-group and all the other things that I have been trying really hard to work on, it makes sense to use the person that’s already doing that and an easier mechanism to put forward what he wants to do.”

We’re told not to anticipate any sudden changes – but that the Market Place and car parking issues will feature high on the agenda.

“I’ve been on the task and finish group that brought a lot of things to  surface which need looking at – the markets, car parks,  and car parking charges ...

“Having the portfolio means that I can actually look at car parking charges and make comparisons with other things. It’s ok doing it as a task and finish group that brings things to light but what you do with them is the interesting thing.

“Car parking is probably one of the earliest things that I am going to have a look at … parking kick starts a lot of things.

“What we need in the long term is the Market Place returning to Boston.

“One thing that really, really annoys me is that a great proportion of the Market Place belongs to Lincolnshire County Council  and that we have to go to them almost cap in hand asking permission.

“They are very good at working with us, but it’s almost like saying ‘I love my garden but I need to ask my neighbour if I can put some extra plants in it … do you mind if I sit in my garden this afternoon …?’

“To be fair, they are really good with us – but it’s a difficult position to be in …”

Boston Eye thinks that the appointment is an interesting one – and in many ways makes sense if it helps improve the town centre and life for local people.

Having said that, our views on BTAC-ky’s policy of huge council tax increases on mostly poor areas of the town to fund things that benefit the borough and beyond remain unchanged – and a clever tightrope act  will be required to maintain fairness and balance.

Time will tell. 

Our next publication be on Monday 22^nd  January and we look forward to you joining us then.

Obviously, in the event of something startling happening between those dates, we’ll let you know – and remember we’re available via e-mail throughout that time.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com   

E-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com  

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston