Since the last edition of Boston Eye, and with absolutely no help at all from the sluggards at Worst Street, it slowly
became possible to work out what – if anything – has been going on in the new-look
district council.
In fact, it took the sloths four weeks from the day of the election finally to cobble together a list of councillors and their photographs – although some of the information is incorrect, and the lion's share is still absent.
And important information is also lacking in three councillor profiles – notably the register of interests held by some Tory members.
It is a legal requirement to give this information to the council’s monitoring officer – and as far as we are aware, it is also illegal not to make them available to the public online. Certainly, Worst does so for all but these three.
All this delay – as we have already said – has meant that any taxpayer minded to postpone contacting
their councillor due to an imminent election has found themselves officially stymied for more than a month
... which is totally unacceptable, especially as some issues may have involved a
need for urgent action.
***
Again – such is the snail’s pace at which Worst Street
operates – even though the council’s annual meeting was not until 2½ weeks
after the elections, three of the five documents on the agenda were listed as “to follow.”
These included the significant “Appointment of Leader of the
Council and Cabinet Appointments” plus the constitution of committees and the appointment
of chairmen and vice-chairmen of committees.
It goes without saying – this is Worst Street, remember –
that these promised items did not appear on the public website agenda in time
for the meeting, and now taxpayers will most likely have to wait until the council
meets committee by committee or until the minutes are published ahead of
the next meeting in mid-July to see the complete list.
***
One exception is the list of members of the cabinet of
curiosities.
If you poke around WorstWeb
– the council website – you will come across the list, which has a couple of surprises
in it …
The new look cabinet comprises Councillor Michael Cooper who was
re-elected as leader – although we had heard some mutterings that a challenge might
have been in the offing.
His deputy is Councillor Nigel Welton, formerly portfolio
holder for the town centre, who takes over the brief for tourism, arts, culture
and heritage.
Councillor Aaron Spencer retains the finance portfolio but ceases
to be deputy leader– which means he presumably waves adieu to the £6,600 special responsibility allowance that goes with
it.
Councillor Yvonne Stevens becomes the portfolio holder for
environment, a post previously held by David Brown, who lost his seat.
A newcomer in every sense is Councillor Chelcei [sic] Sharman who was elected for the first-time last month and has now been appointed to look after the town
centre.
Councillor Martin Griggs stays put with housing and communities
as does Councillor Paul Skinner for regulatory services.
***
We always thought that building a quality cabinet would be a bit of a
challenge – perhaps due to the closeness of the result and surfeit of
Independents, and the reluctance by the leadership not to think outside the party-political
box.
Boston Borough Council has slightly more talent than the cabinet
choices suggest – but unless blue is your colour, you can forget being asked to
bring your skills to bear on the many problems that the town faces.
What a shame that Boston couldn’t be brave enough to look at
the example boldly set by North Kesteven District Council – whose leaders have
created “the North Kesteven Administration.”
Reports say that whilst the Conservatives have taken the roles of chairman,
vice chairman and leader of the council, the leader, Richard Wright, declared that the Conservative
group would “no longer exist” and the new group would be
formed.
He then invited unaligned councillor Steven Clegg and
Lincolnshire Independent Mervyn Head on board to make it more inclusive – and said
that a third of some policy-making committee places would be open to
opposition members.
Whilst such a move would send Worst Street panjandrums rushing
for the chaise-longue and a phial of sal-volatile,
the move is better than sensible and councillors will still have their party
allegiances.
***
Such an enlightened approach might have made life easier for
Leader Cooper – who clearly had a number of former Tories – now Independent –
with long service and prior cabinet experience who are being wasted in the wings … although there are rumours that some are already
wavering over the possibility of a return.
***
So we wonder whether we were alone in raising an Eye-brow at the appointment of
Councillor Sharman to what is considered one of the most important portfolios
in the cabinet – that of the town centre.
Councillor Sharman represents Swineshead and Holland Fen at both
district and parish level, is a mother of two very young children and head chef
in the family-run Green Dragon pub in Swineshead Market Place.
In every way, she is well equipped to represent her ward –
but taking on Boston town centre seems a step too far.
Certainly, it will require attendance at BTAC-ky – and it is
interesting to note that previous portfolio holders have all represented wards
covered by the committee rather than coming from outside.
Indeed, it is also worth noting that when former Town Centre
holder Nigel Welton was elected to represent Kirton and Frampton – his choice
of a safer seat than Fenside which he previously held and which was in the
BTAC-ky area – his portfolio was changed as well.
***
The cabinet was announced at the full council meeting a
couple of weeks ago.
This is the annual meeting – one which normally is a formality
as it sees the appointment of the new mayor and the departure of the old one.
As such, it is usually a back-slapping exercise ahead of the
great and the good slipping off into a side room for a can o’ peas and a sip of
Chateau Rue Pire 2019.
***
But this year, such civility was not to be.
Most of the action – if that’s what you can call it – was from
the Bostonian Independents Group … BiG for short if that’s not a contradiction in
terms.
Whilst group ‘spokesman’ Councillor Brian Rush made his
presence felt, the reports that reached us nominated newly-elected Councillor Anne
Dorrian as jeerleader-in-chief.
We even heard accounts of an outburst at the seating arrangements
for BiG members. Apparently alphabetical is no good any more
These ‘Independents’ it was announced in no uncertain
terms ought to have been seated in order of importance, which – for the benefit
of the uninitiated – meant: Councillors Rush, Dorrian, Woodcock, Watson, Hastie and
Welbourn.
Well, it makes sense to someone – but it does seem rather
early in the day for ‘independents’ to be so obsessed with status.
***
This brings us back to the overall definition of ‘independent.’
A picky debate is underway about which independents may have struck
up alliances with other parties – well, the Tories actually – and what that implies.
***
Councillor Dorrian even made the issue the subject of a blog
item entitled: “Does Your Vote Count?”
– which engaged the benefit of 20:20 hindsight that being elected bestows on some
councillors.
She chose five wards where the difference between victory and
failure was closely run – Fenside, Fishtoft, Five Villages, Old Leake and Wrangle and Wyberton – to
show how a few extra votes might have made a difference.
The drift of the piece appears to be that there would have
been more independent councillors had more people voted for them – something that
had never crossed our minds until now.
Of the Wyberton result, she says: “Wyberton Ward saw Tracey
Abbott elected as an INDEPENDENT with just FOUR votes between her and the
UKIP-turned-Conservative incumbent, David Brown.
“Within a couple of days though, Tracey had ignored all the
offers of support from the other Independent councillors, in order to align
herself with the Conservatives and bag herself a Vice Chairmanship.”
***
Councillor Abbott has not only been sniped at by Councillor Dorrian, but many others too –
so we asked her to respond to the criticisms being made.
She replied:
“I will not deny the fact that I have aligned myself to the Conservative
group, but to make it quite clear I have not joined the Conservative Party
“My association is clear to see and all above board.
“I feel this is a little more honest to the electorate than some of the
arrangements and alignments that have been made between other councillors in
the chamber and other groups.
“In the future these deals will become apparent, but it is not my
position in this reply to disclose the deals and arrangements that I am aware
of.
“Being elected on to Boston Borough Council came as a great surprise to
me. For the first few days as you can imagine I was in considerable shock and
very overawed with the whole situation.
“At no point in these first four days did anybody contact me other than
one person.
“My husband, however, was bombarded with phone calls, text and Facebook
messages – each of them requests for him to persuade me to form various
allegiances.
“In every instance my husband made it quite clear that he could
not speak for me and would not try to influence my decision and then he passed
on my contact details.
“As I previously mentioned only one person took time to contact me
personally and show any concern for my trepidation and fears. This person was an
existing Conservative councillor whom I have known as a friend for a number of
years and I placed a great deal of trust in this person’s support.
“This person made a very kind offer of giving me help and support in my
formative years as a councillor, and I felt that the offer was genuine and
unconditional.
“The suggestion made was that I joined her on one of the Scrutiny
Committees to enable her to be able to offer the guidance and support I would
need.
“But as you are aware, I would not have been able to avail myself of
this offer without becoming part of a group of more than two councillors, so
out of respect for this kind offer I felt the only option was to align to the
Conservatives.
“I was asked if I would join the Conservative Party, which I refused to
do. After discussions with the leader and the deputy leader of the Conservative
group it was agreed that I would retain my right to vote as my constituents
would wish me to vote – this means for, against or abstain on any motion
presented within any meeting.
“Whilst I will admit that at a later date Ms Dorrian did try to contact
me by phone, it was inconvenient to talk both times she called.
“I was expecting to speak to Ms Dorrian at one of the induction
meetings arranged but she was late arriving and this didn’t happen.
“The other contact with members of other groups were along the lines of
a message to my husband ‘can you let your wife know that all independents are
meeting up at three tomorrow’ and a piece of paper being thrust in front of me
at the first induction meeting stating all the independents are signing this,
and expected me to do the same – but without explanation of what it exactly was
I would be signing.
“This was the sum of the kind offers made by the Independent group.
“It came as a great surprise when I discovered I was being offered the
position of vice chairman of the Scrutiny Committee but it certainly was not
because of any conditions for aligning myself to any group.
“I was even more surprised to find out where I was to be seated at the
AGM. I discovered this when I arrived in the council chamber and saw the
pre-prepared seating plan.
“After attending the AGM and viewing the behaviour of some councillors
at the meeting, I believe I made the correct decision.”
***
Needless to say, Worst Street – having had a month to get
things right – got things wrong, and after and despite repeated explanations of the situation incorrectly declared Councillor Abbott to
be a member of the Conservative Party
rather than being aligned to the Tory group.
***
This prompted a statement from the Tory group deputy leader Councillor Nigel Welton – which although it fell short of an apology – at least may have the effect of ending the attacks on Councillor Abbott.
Councillor Welton said: “After some confusion with the incorrect listing of
Councillor Tracey Abbott as a Conservative party member on the Boston Borough
Council website the Conservative group on Boston Borough Council would like to
clarify the fact that Councillor Abbott has not joined the Conservative Party
or the Conservative Group.
“Councillor Abbott has aligned to the Conservative Group to
gain professional advice and mentoring that is essential for a newly elected councillor.
“The group are looking forward to working with Councillor
Abbott over the next four years, as we are with any other councillor regardless
of any party or group allegiances.
“The priority must be what is best for the town in what will
be a very challenging time.”
***
Councillor Dorrian’s blog, meanwhile, conveniently ignored the fact that
not all Independents are members of the Bostonian Independents Group – there are almost as many who have nothing to do with it.
BiG claims six members – and for now has no leader,
but a spokesman.
For some peculiar reason, whilst it registered as a pukka
political party with the Electoral Commission at the end of May last year, it
deregistered less than eight months later on 29th January this year.
***
Was this a cunning plan by the Bostonian Independents to deregister
and then field candidates under an ‘Independent’ banner – which meant that
electors had no idea whether they were voting for a party now calling itself a group, or an individual and genuinely Independent candidate.
All of which emphasises Councillor Dorrian’s claim that had
people known the result in advance, they might well have taken some different
decisions at the ballot box.
***
Members of BiG say that their existence as a group is to
entitle them to committee representation and that they remain free thinkers and
voters
But the form that BiG signed to do this clearly stated that
this made them members of a “political group” – defined by various dictionaries
thus: “A political group exists when people assemble together in order to
promote a common ideology and achieve particular objectives in the public,
governmental sphere. Political parties and trade unions are political groups.”
***
Whilst BiG makes much of its status and importance (even
though its website has now disappeared ... see above) there are as many other Independents
in the council chamber – some who have done deals with the Tories in the past,
and others who have ‘Tory’ written through them like letters in a stick of
rock. And no-one seems to have taken issue with the election of one candidate
as a UKIP councillor who is now listed as Independent.
***
Our contributor ‘Scanner’
has been hard at work again – this time with comments on an issue that we have
raised more than once in the past.
If concerns the gifting of more than £300,000 – in grants of £160,000
from the government’s ‘Rapid Rehousing Pathway’ and £145,050 Rough Sleeper
Initiative Fund.
Whilst sums such as this can be put to good, practical, hands-on
use – in this case to help rough sleepers – Boston has fallen back on its old jobsworthy
ways of turning money into jobs for the boys … and doubtless the girls.
***
Over to you, Scanner …
There’s no doubt that Boston has more than its fair share of rough
sleepers and it is almost certain that the true figures underestimate the
official figures trotted out.
At last, it seems that the Government has found the cash to help these
unfortunates. So, hooray!
Boston being the seventh highest of all the 326 districts in England
has been awarded £300K to help alleviate this blot on our community.
With £300K to play with, I’m sure that there should be no problem in
providing serviced accommodation to give these people a base which is a necessary
part of helping them to get on their feet again along with the support from the
drug and alcohol advisory groups and other charities in the area.
What has West Street said about the grant? Apparently, “It would allow
the Council to carry out a number of initiatives”. I love the jargon.
1. “It will employ three ‘navigators’’ to provide intensive support to
those on the streets, or in danger of losing their homes.”
THREE ? Are there enough rough sleepers to justify three roaming the
area? They certainly won’t have a map showing hostels and night shelters.
Doesn’t the Council already have a legal duty to advise those, ‘in
danger of losing their homes?’
2. “It will also fund a tenancy sustainment officer who will work
closely with private rental landlords.” Don’t think he/she will be rushed of
their feet as we’re constantly told there is a lack of accommodation for those
who need re-housing let alone those needing housing for the first time –
especially given the high rents asked here. Also, landlords can be choosey about
who lives in their properties. Some will need a lot of persuasion.
3. “It will provide TWO ADDITIONAL outreach street workers AND a
programme co-ordinator and access to suitable accommodation to get those at
risk off the street and into a safer environment”. Note ‘access to’ not
‘provide’.
That’s seven officers appointed – at what cost? Are they to be full
time or part time? How long will their contract be for? If full time, with
expenses, they could eat up nearly half the £300k in the first year.
Surely, what is needed is the conversion of a suitable building – the
soon-to-be-empty Dunelm fabric warehouse next to B&M springs to mind – into
a number of single bedrooms, 1/2 wet rooms, a kitchen and dining area, a leisure
area and a consulting room?
Possibly a flat for a manager/ess and facilities for volunteers. I’m no
expert but there should be enough change from £300kto provide the necessary
support for some time to come and other sources of funding will be available.
Sure, there will need to be council involvement but, surely less than
the seven staff being proposed?
We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.
***
News of a crime that seems not to have made the headlines …
We hear that thieves made off with a number of bicycles stored in a caged rack
and in broad daylight as well. Sadly, for the victims, whilst the area was
monitored by the borough’s famed closed-circuit television system, the cameras
were not working, and no evidence is available.
Even so, the theft of such a large quantity of bicycles ought
not to have gone unnoticed – occurring as it did in a well-used public area.
And where was that, we hear you cry?
None other than the car park behind the Boston Borough Council
Municipal Offices in West Street.
***
Sadly, it has recently become a case where we are increasingly
highlighting the laziness at Worst Street which can be laid – not at the door
of councillors – but of the people who are supposed to be working for the
progress and prosperity of the borough.
Another criticism come in the form of a letter from a reader
concerning on of our few landmarks worthy of interest – Boston Guildhall.
He writes: “I’m sure the whole town will remember when the
Guildhall and the Bed Centre (it woke up as The Haven) re-opened with great
acclaim after millions of pounds of our money had been spent on the archaeology
and refurbishment of the buildings – heralding the Guildhall’s importance in
recording the history of the town.
“The work itself needed doing but subsequent
events must have amazed people.
“Why were most of the artefacts, many provided by Bostonians,
hidden away in secret stores – only to emerge for special exhibitions? Surely,
these represented much of the town’s social history?
“The Haven – Boston’s own cultural centre art gallery – didn’t
last long before it was deemed a loss-maker and sold off.
“The much-travelled Tourist Information Centre had found its
true home at last In the Market Place, won an award, and very successfully
dealt with hundreds of enquiries each month.
“Again, there was no money for its upkeep, so it was moved to
a small corner of the Guildhall.
“Surprise, surprise!
There were insufficient funds to keep the Guildhall open so in one
stroke our welcome for locals, tourists and visitors was reduced to opening
hours Wednesdays to Saturdays between 10am and 3pm. At all other times you are
faced with a locked building.
“If you phone when it is closed, you are referred to the council
or the Visit Boston websites. It
seems you cannot be put through to the council’s switchboard as even with
today’s technological wizardry this cannot apparently be done.
“It’s wonder that The Heritage Lottery Fund and other funders
haven’t demanded part of their money back as the council are only providing part
of the service promised.
“Why am I bothering to write this …?
“Well some friends who are very interested in the town were
coming to Boston on a Bank Holiday Monday, as many visitors do.
“They were amazed and disappointed that the Guildhall was
closed, and all I could do was sympathise.
“I know that the staff and the officers work hard to attract
visitors to the town, but they must feel like they’re standing on a cliff edge
watching the ground being washed away at their feet.
“The constant message from West Street is that large visitor
numbers are essential for the economy of the area. We may need them, but this
has never stopped the council making cuts.
“Will this new council will put its money where its mouth is?
“I doubt we will see huge changes, but please! Mr/Mrs Councillor,
surely, it’s not too much to ask that as Bank Holiday Mondays are the norm, the
Guildhall could be open on these Mondays at least?
“Or is it being cheeky to suggest that the Guildhall should
be open for the whole of these holiday weekends? After all we don’t have that
many.”
***
Talking of promoting one’s district, we note that a former Worst
Street senior officer – now Chief Executive at neighbouring East Lindsey –
spent a useful day in London visiting the Ministry of Housing, Communities and
Local Government, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and
the Department for Transport.
The aim was to “champion” East Lindsey by promoting its
challenges and opportunities.
Give that what other Lincolnshire districts do today, Worst
Street either overlooks or does in a half-hearted fashion when it’s too late, isn’t
it about time for some digital extraction by our own highly paid officers – especially
since the seven-strong officer ‘cabinet’ now earns is around half a million a
year between them.
***
Finally, two entries for the gone and totally forgotten
department …
First, a petition that newly elected BiG Councillor Neill
Hastie placed on the government website way back in November last year.
When we first checked the progress a month after the
petition launched the number of votes stood at 55. The government says that
once a petition reaches 10,000 signatures, it will respond, and at 100,000
signatures, a petition will be considered for debate in Parliament.
Ten days after the elections saw Mr Hastie become Councillor
Hastie, the petition closed – with just 19 more signatures.
What now?
Back in February Councillor Hastie told a local ‘newspaper’ –
“Street drinking is a problem in Boston and we need a pro-active enforcement
which is what I will try to bring if I'm elected in the elections.
“I want to reintroduce the Boston Rangers and they can tackle
more than just the problem of street drinking.
“The Rangers can tackle the fly tipping problems we have; the
people defecating in the street and patrol the market.”
Don’t think we’ll hold our breath …
***
And the second entry…
In July last year, Worst Street announced that plans were
being hatched to mark the centenary of the handing over of the land which became
Boston’s Central Park.
A bid for funding to support further improvements was made to
the Heritage Lottery Fund, to build on recent enhancements to the Tawney Street
entrance.
And …?
Well, let’s celebrate the 101st anniversary instead.
Or perhaps re-check the dates. An ordnance survey map of 1887
published by Frances Frith that we looked at last week showed the area of
land in question clearly marked as – Central
Park.
***
Since before the election our blogs have been produced
against a background of health problems for the writer – including a memorable
visit to the A&E department at the Pilgrim Hospital. In view of developments
it seems prudent to ease back a little whilst, hopefully, things improve.
Please keep your e-mails coming.
Urgent issues of importance will
still appear but for the time being there will not be the weekly 4,000-word marathons such as
this one.
We are aiming to be back by the end of the month, and will
keep you posted …
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
