It’s the same with buses – or so we’re told – you wait ages without any, and then three arrive at once.

Last week saw a full council meeting – the first for nearly four months – plus meetings of the cabinet of curiosities and BTAC-ky.

But excitement there was none.

We’re told that the full council meeting made watching paint dry seem like an athletic pursuit.

Attendees who tweeted during the meeting noticed several absentees – but interestingly the appearance of others whose presence was enough to secure their allowances for six more months despite a poor attendance.

It was also remarked on that a number of Tory councillors couldn’t resist tapping at their keyboards even whilst prayers were taking place.

***

We mentioned last week the sterling efforts of the officer/leadership cabal to ensure that several interesting questions were rejected on a technicality – but despite that some people managed to raise what they felt to be important points.

***

In last week’s Boston Eye, we drew attention to questions posed by Councillor Barrie Pierpoint – one about staffing appointments, and the other concerning officer conduct.

Both questions were directed at council leader Michael Cooper – but rejected on identical grounds: “… your question has not been accepted as the subject is a matter for the Head of Paid Service (aka Chief Executive Phil Drury) not the Leader of the Council.

“If you wish to discuss this issue with Phil, he would be more than happy to do so.”

***

This raises the issue of officer accountability.

Why is it that a councillor who wishes to ask a serious question of a top officer is told that there is no such facility – unless it takes the form of a cosy chat in the boss’s office, which might not achieve the desired result?

***

The first of Councillor Pierpoint’s questions asked: “Considering that Boston Borough Council, as far as we can establish has never had a ‘Deputy Chief Executive’ then on what firm basis has this position been created, and arrived at?

“If my concerns prove correct, was the position advertised nationally, so as to encourage the best talent, skillset, qualified and experienced person to take on such a role, with a view to bringing more added value, expertise and knowledge to the council?

“If not, why not?”

***

We think we know the answer to this as we can find no trace of any advertisement for a deputy chief exec – which means that the job was a shoo-in for the new post holder Michelle Sacks.

Move on – nothing to see here – as Mr Drury was appointed in almost the same way.

He began his career with the council in 1983 – 35 years ago – or 1988 (depending on which page of WorstWeb you’re reading … as a youth trainee in the housing department; left briefly before returning to the housing team and from 1992 held various senior management positions, securing the post of strategic director in 2006.

He finally got the post after deputising for ‘temporary’ Chief Executive Richard Harbord for five years until November 2014.

Interestingly – as it relates to Councillor Pierpoint’s other question, which we’ll come to in a moment  – Mr Harbord was not directly employed by Boston Borough Council – but as a consultant via a private company, which meant that he wasn’t charged tax or national insurance as an ordinary council employee would be.

Mr Harbord’s contract cost £108,000 a year for 15 days a month at £600 a day – a full-time equivalent of £216,000.

***

Mr Drury was appointed after a meeting of the chief officers’ employment panel (an internal committee of councillors) recommended the nomination and an amendment to the council's management structure to merge the roles of strategic director and chief executive.

The then leader Councillor Peter Bedford said the panel had full and frank debate about other options– but it seems that none of those included looking beyond the staff list at the time and advertising the post.

He said it was important that the borough had leadership of high quality and was backed by Labour … Independent these days … Councillor Paul Gleeson.

Boston Chancellor Aaron Spencer said the appointment – which it was claimed would save the council around £105,000 a year was financially prudent.

***

Councillor Pierpoint’s second question was one that was also worth asking …

“It is my understanding that several officers have their own private consultancies or are directors of their own business, as well as acting in specific management roles for Boston Borough Council.

“Is this information transparent and made public, i.e. through the Boston Borough Council website? On what basis are these officers operating when they have their own private companies or directorships? These details should be made available to all councillors immediately.”

***

This matter first raised its head back in late 2015, after a Freedom of Information request identified at least three senior officers who were charging Worst Street for their services through their own companies.

Response to the request also disclosed other companies whose ownership was harder to trace – and for some reason, given that the information showed invoices which ought to have been ‘transparent’ – considerable portions of the bills were redacted.

All of the employees were listed as interim – one had been so for as long as six years. 
And in one blatant example, whilst apparently working full-time for the council, an officer also added charges for 14 days in a single month at £325 a day for his company services to the authority..

***

We raised the issue with Mr Drury in January 2016, and his reply was encouraging: “Two down one to go. Discussions continue in respect of the outstanding direct employment position, but that said I do remain very confident of resolving this before the end of the financial year.”
That would have been by April 2016.

We checked back on the companies named in the original FoI response, and found that one is still active and has a very senior officer as a director, whilst a second was only dissolved in January this year even though a solution was expected a couple of year ago,

***

If council staff are paid through external companies for work they do for the council, then the issue is highly contentious as it allows them to pay reduced income tax and national insurance and enjoy benefits which workers on staff do not.

And even where a company operates independently of the owner’s council role, there must surely be the risk of a conflict of interest on occasion.

***

It appeared that this practice was no longer operating at Boston Borough Council – but only an answer to Councillor Pierpoint’s question will tell us.

***

He has arranged to meet Mr Drury in the near future, and told Boston Eye: “I think that this information that we know about should be on the website.

“People ought to know this, because my argument is if anyone is running a private company they shouldn’t be able to trade in the borough of Boston, because that’s a conflict of interest.

“What are they being paid – a salary – or are they being paid a fee?

“I want to see whether these officers are running their own businesses and invoicing the council – it’s all about transparency in my view.”

***

Last week’s BTAC-ky meeting included an update on the work of the extra staff hired by the committee to keep Boston looking shipshape.

The list was a long one – including graffiti removal, installing signage and 25 new litter bins, chewing gum removal, street vacuuming, pathway maintenance and – a brush with glamour here – helping to put up fake stalls for the film company making Wild Bill.

What isn’t being said it that this was formerly the work of Worst Street in any case – until it ceased due to economy cuts before being reinstated by imposing swingeing tax rises on the poorest wards in the borough.

As we have said before – it is good that the town centre is getting some attention at last.

But it’s not so clever if you live a little further out.

The comparison that springs to mind is with a dictatorship that is staging the Olympic Games.

It creates a glittering core that is the envy of the world whilst within a short distance the squalid suburbs remain dismal and desolate no-go areas.

***

Talking of the TV drama Wild Bill reminds us of a recent item in a national newspaper which again makes us wonder exactly how Boston’s portrayal might look.

The interview in the Sunday Times magazine with actor Rob Lowe who plays the eponymous hero told us: “His role is as an American law-enforcement analyst who is headhunted by the police force in Boston, Lincolnshire, which in 2016 was named the murder capital of Britain.”

We really thought that one had died the death – but it seems that someone has resurrected it. Only time will tell.

***

Council leader Michael Cooper has hit out at a critical tweet that accuses him of continuously swearing at a voter asking him questions. 

Councillor Cooper said that he knew the complainant – who is a long-term critic of Worst Street – and is unhappy with the account presented.

“I was in a café at the end of West Street having my breakfast when he came in and just barracked me for 20 minutes – obnoxious and aggressive and even if there was anything that I could answer, if I answered him it was ‘No! That’s wrong, you’re talking crap.’

“It just went on and on and in the end I’d had enough of it because I thought, I’m trying to have my breakfast, I’m not at work I’m merely doing my own stuff – and I said ‘just f**k off’ and leave me alone – because  I’d had enough … which I think actually was quite reasonable.

“I’ve known him for a long time and he’s pretty aggressive at the best of times but he was particularly obnoxious that morning.

“It’s hardly fair.

“Yes, we’re in the public eye and we’re doing our job and all the rest of it, but I don’t think it’s really fair that we get a kicking when we’re just trying to have our breakfast or go shopping or anything else. We have a life outside of the council, we really do. “We all see things differently and at the end of the day if we just talk to each other, it’s easy. But when it’s like that, it’s not easy for anybody, and no good comes out of it – if you sit down and talk to people you can often see a way forward between you which is the way to go.”

***

Worst Street last week reminded us of the deadline to nominate Boston in the voting to find for Britain’s favourite market in a contest run by the National Association of British Market Authorities.

As a way to win support, the council tweeted “There’s just a couple of days left to show your support for our market traders who brave all weather conditions to bring their weekly bargains to you. Vote for Boston in the national search for Britain’s favourite markets.”

They really ought to get out of the office a bit more – as it has long been a cause for complaint that when the weather is too hot, too cold, too wet, and too windy many traders stay away in droves … giving the market a less than impressive look.

***

Another of Worst Street's big ideas has fallen by the wayside, it seems …

Note the date – a month ago – and the promise to update us weekly.

Five weeks on and we don't seem to have heard another peep from our ‘transparent’ council.

***

Rip-off of the month came into effect as the latest round of price hikes to park at the Pilgrim Hospital came into force.

Why do we call it a rip-off?

Well just look at the charges for the various time bands.

The first hour at £1.70 could be thought reasonable – but as all regular outpatients at the hospital will attest no one gets away with parking for such a short time.

Our typical experience, for example is that it is necessary to arrive and park at least 15 minutes before the appointment time to allow time to find somewhere to park and check in.

After that, the appointment is never on time – with delays ranging from half an hour to an hour and a half.

What this guarantees is that your parking charge will fall into the second tier – and leap from £1.70 to £4.70 … and the £4.70 charge represents a 10½% increase on the previous charge.

It’s what they call shooting fish in a barrel.

The health trust also brags that along with this less than petty larceny, improvements also being made to parking provision for staff and patients.

This takes the form of an automatic number plate recognition system normally used to trap criminals behind the wheel, which can calculate the length of stay to the second – thus making sure that everyone pays as much as possible.

And further to treat us as if we are simple-minded, the trust calls the increase in the cost of parking for patients and visitors an average rise of 10p per hour.

What made matter worse last week was that the equipment failed to work at Boston and Grantham, resulting in lengthy queues and angry patients and visitors

***

Finally, after his listing as one of Lincolnshire hottest 50 Yellowbellies (see last week’s edition) our MP Matt Warman’s charms seem to have won him a big prize in the House of Commons.

We imagine that particularly for newer MPs, getting a decent seat can prove something of a problem – and keeping it even more so – remember when the SNP fought and lost a battle to oust Labour veteran Dennis Skinner from the corner seat he has occupied for decades?

How about this, then?

It’s not the first time we’ve spotted Mr Warman in what some might regard as a prominent front bench position – and could explain which he is so often lucky getting an answer from PM ‘Daisy’ May at Prime Minister’s Question 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