The recent debate over councillors and their allowances raise a number of questions – not least about value for money … what exactly what do our councillors do?

Now a partial answer has emerged after members of the Labour group published “annual reports” on their web page.
It follows a successful campaign that saw councillors’ attendances at meetings published – and showed that some of them never make an effort to attend.
On the website, Labour says: “It seems to us that councillors are extremely embarrassed to talk about what they do for their wards,  or they are embarrassed because they haven’t got a lot to report.
“We know when it comes to meetings that some councillors just sit there and don’t say anything, or put up their hands to vote because they have been told they must, or worse don’t turn up at all.
“In this day and age you, the electorate, have the right to an annual report from your local councillor. We know the conservative group on the council and other councillors from other groups are silent on this issue.
“We will keep campaigning over the next couple of years to see more information about your local councillors being readily available for all to read … We think it is important that you can see what your councillors are doing for you.”
In  his report, Labour group leader Councillor Paul Kenny covers a wide range of issues – including his frustration at seeing more and more off  licences being granted licences as there is no way to stop it.
He also provides and interesting insight to the workings of the Boston Town Area Committee … complaining  of an absence of structure and spending outside their remit – on projects which really should be funded by Boston Borough Council. “Hopefully in the coming year this committee will improve and we will move away from scenarios where councillors are voting as they walk out the door.”
Councillor Kenny’s deputy, Paul Gleeson, expresses his concerns at the lack of a real vision for Boston in the future.
“Whilst I recognise that the swingeing cuts the government are inflicting on local authorities means that an awful lot of effort has to be put into just keeping the most basic of services going, it is still imperative that we are working towards developing the Borough.
“For example there is no real work at all being carried out to improve economic development.
“The changes the government are proposing in local authority funding, where any growth in income will only be seen from new development, will mean that better located areas which have been up to now development averse will start to allow new development, this in turn will make it even harder to encourage businesses to move to Boston.
“The other concern is the lack of openness. As a council we should not be frightened of allowing the citizens of Boston from knowing what is happening, what the options are and the reasons behind the decisions we have taken. As councillors we should be open our interests, about what involvement we have with other organisations etc.
“An example of this is in declarations of interest. Under the new Localism Act a council can decide what interests have to be declared.  Boston Borough has interpreted the new legislation (in my view wrongly) so that they have the most limited declaration of interest. What are they frightened of?”
Similar issues are highlighted by Labour’s third councillor, Paul Goodale.
Of  BTAC, he says: “I think that the town would be better off with a Town Council rather than a committee that – although made up of town members – only the Conservative administration are deciding the way forward and how much we can spend at their group meetings …  which consist of mainly rural members.”
And on Boston’s future, he reports: “I raised concerns that there was no forward planning past 2015 – but was voted down by the other members.”
These reports paint an unflattering picture of Boston Borough Council behind closed doors – where attempts at constructive criticism are smothered by a smug ruling group.
From our knowledge of certain of the controlling group’s members, we understand why they are anxious to avoid reporting their activities across a year – although a blank piece of paper comes in handy from time to time if you want to draw up a shopping list.
The Labour group is right to demand more accountability – and we suspect that many other opposition councillors would be happy to follow suit, as we know how hard some of them work.
The leadership’s resistance to giving such basic information to the people who voted them into power is yet another example of their contempt – and shows that they care more for the trappings of power than the democratic use of it.

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

 



A year ago Boston Market Place was a vast and dull expanse of grey stone setts with the odd pit  here and there as “renovation” work went on.  

This last weekend, Boston Market Place was a vast and dull expanse of grey setts with some stalls on it.
The difference?
The weekend saw the much trumpeted three-day Christmas Market – allegedly a feast of entertainment – but one which left us … like Oliver Twist … asking for more.
We visited on Friday and Saturday,  and came away with the feeling that once again, Boston – whilst it tries hard, could do better.
Certainly on Friday morning the Market Place looked a mess, with vehicles parked haphazardly, and no clear pathway around some of the craft stalls.
There was no need for this, as a cast of thousands wearing ponchos declaring themselves Boston Business “Improvement” District event officials could and should have taken it upon themselves to get things in order
What was most sorely lacking was a festive feel .
Just one Market Place shop displayed a Christmas tree – and what lights there were in the area were few and far between.
Not only that, but – despite being told that almost 80 traders had booked craft stalls – one visitor who counted them noted less than half that number.
And the definitions of “craft” were also widely interpreted, as a number of stalls were selling food, and a couple were regulars from the Wednesday and Saturday markets.
This was supposed to be a team effort, under the umbrella of Boston BID – but somehow a different image emerged on the day.
BBC TV’s Look North was there to cover the event, and gave the credit to just one man.
“The Market Place now looks very different, but that’s all changed thanks to one man and a group of local businesses …
The market had been organised “thanks to the determination of one man …”
Step forward Alan Ellis – Boston BID chairman …
“I went to Boston Borough Council to see if we could have a switch on. They said they couldn’t afford to do one.
“I said ‘what about the Christmas Market’ and they said they couldn’t afford to do one of them this year.
“So I said if Boston BID organise it, could we do one?  So from one crazy idea of actually doing just a switch on, we developed a three-day event.
The nearest to giving wider credit was to say that “the events have been funded by a group of local businesses because in recent years the Christmas spirit has been lacking in the town.”
Mr Ellis’s TV performance provoked an angry reaction from local businessman and former BID director Darron Abbott, who sent a highly critical e-mail to Mr Ellis copied to – among others –  Look North presenter Peter Levy, Boston town centre supremo Councillor Derek (mind how you park) Richmond and council officers.
In it, he reminded Mr Ellis of planning meetings in March and April when a group was set up to organise the Christmas market, and claimed that he subsequently insisted on chairing the meetings.
“I believe Boston Borough Council has helped you a lot regarding the publicity of the event and the event plans and health and safety.
“In the minutes from the October meeting it is noted that Boston Borough Council contributed to the cost of advertising on Lincs FM. They have also used the council staff to put up the stalls …
“Whilst I am not always a fan of Boston Borough Council I did find your comments insulting when you suggested they had not helped in any way.
“You seemed to take full credit for the event; you did not even acknowledge the donkey work of Niall Armstrong (the BID manager) – this was an insult to the man I assumed did a lot to ensure things happened.”
Whilst we are also not great fans of some aspects of Boston Borough Council – well, the leadership, then –   the fact remains that it has provided considerable publicity for the event and waived parking charges last Friday night.
Then there is the matter of the lights.
Last year, Boston Borough Council agreed to contribute £25,000 a year for the full five years of the Christmas lighting contract, with Boston BID contributing £20,000 –  £10,000 for last year and the same again this year.
The budget for all of this is almost a separate study.
Boston BID allocated £5,000 for the Christmas market from the compulsory levy forced on any business unlucky to operate in the area it has defined as being within its territory.
Yet even that was not enough.
At the last minute –   due to the tight nature of the budget –   it was suggested that a second pipe band appearance on Sunday be cancelled … and only a whip round among the directors raised enough to retain the attraction.
So, this year’s Christmas Market has cost levy payers £5,000 plus £10,000 towards the lights.
“Then there is the time put in by the BID’s £30,000 a year manager – which cannot be inconsiderable.
The whole idea of Boston BID is to promote the town across a wide area – to attract new businesses and support those who are already here.
The three-day Christmas event will undoubtedly be declared a galloping success –   but at what cost … what value for money?
It may well be that the bottom line of this event could be as much as £30,000.
But what about the year-round efforts to promote the town?
Boston BID faces a crucial year ahead. Having failed spectacularly to keep many of the promises it has  made, it is hoping that local businesses will vote for its continuation for a further five years at the end of 2013.
Regardless, today sees many “levy payers” summonsed to court by Boston Borough Council  (the BID agent) for refusing to pay these infamous charges – which for at least one defendant  will be hard to oppose … because he has been dead for seven years!
Happy New Year

 

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

 

So few voters bother to attend meetings of Boston Borough Council, that it was refreshing to note a letter in our local papers this week from Tom Ashton of Wrangle – commenting on the debate about increasing allowances for the council's elite members which he “was privileged to observe as a member of the public.” He had some harsh words about the opposition groups who argued against the 20% increase on “narrow minded and populist grounds.” He then went on with facts and figures comparing Boston with South Holland District Council and argued for the rights of the citizenry for payment to offset to cost of council work. It’s so nice to see a well-informed member of the public taking the time to attend. Having said that, the name Tom Ashton rang a bell with us. Of course, there may be two people of that name living in Wrangle, but the one that we know is the chairman of Lincolnshire Conservative First, where he is described as “an assured Conservative supporter since his earliest political memories.”  He is a parish councillor in Wrangle  – which co-incidentally is in the ward represented by Boston Conservative leader Pete Bedford on Lincolnshire County Council. According to Conservative First he is also secretary of the Boston branch, and a co-opted representative on the Boston and Skegness Association executive. If this is the writer of the letter, then he is less of a “member of the public” and more representative of that group of Tories who regard voters as idiots who will believe everything that they are told.
The meeting that discussed the allowance hike also rejected a call to withdraw free computer and internet facilities from councillors to partly cover the cost.  We’ve gone on record as saying that in this age of hi-tech communication, we felt that all councillors should be given such a facility.  So did the meeting. Whilst voting in the allowances rise, they rejected losing their computers –  so the money for the rises will have to be found elsewhere. Whilst keeping their computers is the right thing to do, we have to smile at the way that our leadership is never willing to concede anything that might see them getting less in the way of money and perks, rather than more.
Combining the sale of the Assembly Rooms with council perks proved irresistible for one contributor to the Boston Protest March Facebook page …

Perhaps that’s one story that the leader and his officers would rather not have been told in a picture!

As you might expect, there are a number of loose ends surrounding the sale of the Assembly Rooms, so here’s an update.  The day of the sale coincided with a regular blood donor session – but unfortunately when staff arrived the lift was out of use, and as the equipment couldn't be carried up the stairs, the session was cancelled and moved to the Princess Royal Sports Arena. Despite the problems, 47 units of blood were collected. The good news is that the new owner of the Assembly Rooms has said the blood donor sessions will continue and anyone who wants to help, can book an appointment to give blood in the Boston area via www.blood.co.uk or by calling 0300 123 23 23.
Meanwhile, the debate over the closure of the public toilets goes on. Boston District Independent Councillor Alison Austin reports a suggestion from a 97 year-old  member of her South Ward, who asks whether Boston Borough Council has considered renting the now closed public conveniences from the new owner of the Assembly Rooms in the same manner as the shops are leased? Councillor Austin has passed the suggestion on to the leader – but we do not anticipate a positive response.
In fact the leader excelled even himself with some political posturing on the wireless the other day. Asked by breakfast show presenter Rod Whiting whether there were any plans to provide more toilets in the town, the conversation ran thus: PB: Not within the town centre. We have three sets of toilets on the park at the cattle market and down at the bus station and I would then have to turn round and say probably to you – you tell me in the centre of Lincoln how many sets of toilets there are there. RW: Are you asking me?  PB: Yes of course I’m asking you. RW: Well, I’ve no idea. PB: Well, there isn’t any, is there? (sic)  RW:  I did try and use one the other day and then saw it had gone. PB: Precisely. What a smooth talker our leader is! But what on earth was the point he was trying to make?
Incidentally, now that the Assembly Rooms have been sold, what of the future for the Haven Gallery?  A year ago it was advertised at an annual rent of £38,000 a year for a five to ten year period, and in July we were told  that a lease on the gallery had “moved forward with terms being agreed.” Why is it that Boston Borough Council takes so long to get things done?
We’re told that joint deputy leader Councillor Raymond Singleton-McGuire was less than pleased with Boston Eye’s piece about the billing mistakes which have resulted in – among other things – someone who has been dead for the past seven years being summonsed to court. Apparently Councillor Singleton-McGuire was concerned that the report painted “his” staff in a bad light. As Boston Borough Council issues payment demands to BID members and follows them up with summonses if they are not settled, we wonder if there is any other kind of light in which this cock-up could be painted.
Interestingly, soon after that item appeared, a reader wrote to tell us of a visit to one of the town’s shops on a Christmas present buying spree. Whilst he was chatting with one of the staff, someone turned up to install the shop’s Christmas tree on the front of the premises. “I asked whether the borough was doing that, to which she replied, ‘you won't believe this, but last week our accountant was in doing our books and he asked me to sign a cheque payable to Boston Borough Council for the Christmas tree two years ago.’ Now, how much money does this council have still outstanding and not even billed …?"  Why is it that Boston Borough Council takes so long to get things done?
We hear that there has been an element of swagger shown by the new Civil Parking Enforcement Squad as they set about putting motorists to rights over where they can park in the Market Place and where they cannot. But little seems to have changed as a result. A reader reports: “I look at Boston Market Place with a different eye now. The area was full of traffic this afternoon, cars parked all around the edge, and  not many taxis as it was school leaving time. I noticed no hazards with the Into Town bus – but one white van unloading for some reason in the middle of the area … and lots of bicycles! I felt quite uncomfortable, so many young men around, not English, by the accents, but only one drinking on the street. However, there so much spitting going on that I had an awful thought that I was probably walking on it. Yuk!”  Meanwhile town centre portfolio holder Councillor Derek Richmond has announced the arrival of colour coded signs to make it easier to show drivers where to park. We hate to say we told you so, but Boston Eye suggested something similar several months ago. Had our suggestion been followed at the time, a lot of unpleasantness might have easily been avoided. Why is it that Boston Borough Council takes so long to get things done?
Boston’s Christmas shopping guide – produced in conjunction with the Boston Standard –  is like the curate’s egg ... good in parts. We can forgive the odd spelling mistakes – but why Endeavour Radio should want to “compare” the events of two different days tends to elude us. What we can’t forgive is the cover photo …

click to enlarge

Superficially, it’s a charming picture of Boston Stump in the snow – but on closer inspection you will note that it is a rare snap taken in 2005, when the tower was sheathed in scaffolding. Would it not have been better to use a photo of the pride of the town that showed it in a better light – even if it was without the snow …?  

Talking of the Stump, we are delighted to learn that Wednesday’s meeting of the Boston Town Area Committee approved an appeal by Independent Councillor Carol Taylor for a contribution towards lighting the church during the most important religious festival periods such as Easter and Christmas.   Councillor Taylor had requested   £1,500 , but BTAC has offered up to £1,000 to sponsor the illumination from the 10th December through to January 3rd and then at Easter. To ensure that the Stump is lit for the Christmas Market weekend, Councillor Taylor and friends are  sponsoring tonight's lights  and Sunday's and a sponsor is being sought for tomorrow. Why hadn't Boston BID thought of the lights? Voting at he BTAC meeting squeaked through by six votes to three – with two abstentions. Sadly the “no” votes reflected the animosity towards Councillor Taylor from certain parties. As the lights go on tonight, we hope that the gainsayers will seize the moment to reflect on the beam that is in their own eye rather than beholding the mote that they perceive in another’s.

Having spent six weeks trying to arrange a subscription to the Boston Standard, our vouchers arrived in time to buy this week’s issue.  Imagine our feelings when the paper ncluded an “early gift” of four weeks of coupons to buy it for 50p rather than the 65p cover price –  and just 2p more than the subscription offer. Do we feel cheated? You bet your life we do! What’s more concerning is that this might be a prelude to a cut in the cover price, back to something more sensible – but which either way treats subscribers with contempt.
And finally … We know that demands on the Mayor’s time are always considerable, and wonder whether Boston Borough Council has decided to take a leaf from our local PCSOs to field a cardboard cut-out, as they do in the town’s ASDA store…

click to enlarge

The three  photos above were taken at the Boston Standard’s Business Awards – and the ASDA cut-out is included. Has the Mayor moved between photos? Has he changed expression? This could be a money saving winner for the future. Alternate Mayors and Mayoresses, mounted with sticky backed plastic on a piece of cardboard to replace the often unreal thing! Who knows? People may not notice the difference!

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

 

 

With the smile of a used car salesman who’s finally dumped the banger he thought would never sell – to an unsuspecting mug who has no idea what he’s let himself in for, Boston Borough Council Leader Pete Bedford's picture litters our local newspaper front pages.

The organ that came nearer to stating the truth was to describe the deal as Boston’s worst-kept secret.
Certainly the name of the owner and the intended use of the building were common knowledge  weeks ago – we seem to recall mentioning most of the detail here on Boston Eye.
What amuses us is the claim on the council’s website that the new owner – Spalding based leisure entrepreneur Matt Clark “made immediate assurances to quell anxieties in some quarters about the future of the building.”
It’s always good when someone decides to level with us - but is this the same Matt Clark who … when asked some while ago if he was the prospective buyer … told the Boston Standard that he was not involved.
It surely is.
For now, we shall take his words at face value.
More was spelled  out on the wireless on Tuesday morning, when Mr Clark told us:
“I think that people will start to get a lot more confidence in the building and ultimately … hopefully we’re going to deliver a product here that the people of Boston want in the commerciality use, so the building can be upkept to a good standard.”
English please!
“Entertainment is our catalyst and we want to put on some big acts here that bring out everyone from 18 to 40, 50, and 60 years old that can enjoy it.”
So – will the place be run as a bar every night of the week?
“The final plans aren’t there yet. It’s anticipated that, yes, it will remain pretty much as it is in forms of operation, but there will be a licensed area there will be an area for dancing and there will be a stage  – so we don’t see any radical changes to the building that it was actually constructed for.
“Again, it’s just that people are scared of the word night club I suppose in the property.”
So … what’s in it for the town?
“There’s a huge economic benefit for Boston. We’re looking at putting six figures into the modernisation of the building and a constant figure each year into keeping it in a good state of repair, let alone the amount of people we’ll be employing in the building.
“Although we haven’t got the final plans there yet of what it will be, we’re going to be looking at anywhere between thirty and fifty members of staff.
Leader Pete – defining oleaginous  to perfection – denied that people were kept in the dark over the sale deliberately.
And he also had problems understanding the word night club.
“I don’t think night club as such is quite the right terminology.
“Yes, Mr Clark certainly runs an entertainment business but the great thing about it is the fact that he is a local chap, I mean he was born in Kirton just down the road from Boston instead of selling it to somebody who was an absentee landlord some of the bidders and Mr Clark was the highest bidder because it was a closed tender, but some of them were from Brighton and Southampton and all over you then end up with absentee landlords. How do you then you know control things that’s going on? We’ve got somebody now who we are confident will deliver something for Boston.”
We apologise for the above, which was transcribed from the wireless.
Normally – and especially when Councillor Pete is involved – we do our best to insert punctuation where we feel it might aid translation.
But on this occasion, even we were defeated.
Councillor Bedford felt that the mention of a six figure sum was encouraging – adding that: “Part of the terms of the sale was that the outside has to be redecorated to English Heritage standards every five years, and that’s something that’s never happened in my lifetime.”
That’s a sad admission, as Councillor Bedford’s political history with Boston Borough Council  goes back to 1991 when he was first elected …  and which makes him a long standing member of the council club that  allowed the Assembly Rooms to decline so far as to be beyond salvation.
However, his indifference is still a matter of interest … as we shall see when other parts of the broadcast are published tomorrow.
And for those with fears about the future of blood donor sessions, we shall also have an answer as well.

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

 

As the town lurches into Christmas celebration mode, a seasonal opportunity for Boston Borough Council to redeem some of its wastefulness comes in the form of an appeal at tonight’s Boston Town Area Committee.

Independent Councillor Carol Taylor – a member of the committee – has registered an appeal for a contribution towards illuminating St Botolph’s church … bka  (better known as)  the Stump.
For a number of years, the Stump was lit after dark by sponsorship from local business but – as with all these things –a time came when it was no longer affordable.
It has been very sad in recent years to look across the town at night and realise that there is no sign of the Stump.
It is such a major part of the life of the town – and yet it is sadly becoming increasingly ignored.
As Councillor Taylor points out in her submission to BTAC: “It has been a life-saving beacon down the centuries – both spiritually and literally, to the religious and secular. “It has guided to safety those in peril on the sea and in the air – Second World War pilots limping back from action took a sighting of the Stump as an indication that they were safe and almost home.
“We are all proud of it, and rightly so. We should want all to see and admire it. No one coming to Boston should return home without having at least noticed the Stump.
“But … come after dark, which, let’s face it, is mid-afternoon in the mid-winter, and it may as well not be there.
“Scan the skyline after the sun has set and you may well miss it altogether.”
It costs £3,000 for the Stump to be floodlit at night for an entire year.
Unfortunately the church is now lit on just a handful of occasions.
Individuals can pay £25 to dedicate a single night’s illumination, which is accompanied by a notice in the porch to explain the reason to visitors.
We have done this on a few occasions, and the pleasure that it brings cannot be quantified.
At present, donations to light the church in this way provide a meagre £400 – representing about 16 days a year.
Councillor Taylor’s application goes on: “I am asking that BTAC, as the parish council of Boston, demonstrates its pride in, and love for, the Stump by granting £1,500 so that it can be a blazing glory for all to see at times of most popularity and footfall – during the most important religious festival periods such as Easter and Christmas.
“I know you have plenty of other very worthwhile calls for contribution, but I consider this to be one of the most important you could make and one of the most demonstrative of your support for Boston.”
We’re not sure about the “worthwhileness” of some previous calls on BTAC’s coffers.
They have included funding the feeble Jubilee celebration in the town’s Central Park to the tune of £5,000, and paying at least £1,000 for the vandal-prone Jubilee Fountain.
Interestingly, both of these projects benefitted the wider Boston public rather than the town – which were therefore beyond the BTAC remit, and should therefore have been funded from the borough’s budget.
BTAC also found it in their hearts to give £1,000 to the leechlike South Lincolnshire Community Voluntary Service to buy chalks for people to scrawl on the pavements to celebrate volunteering week  … on top of the £5,000 the SLCVS had already received to “celebrate volunteering” during the Jubilee.
Unfortunately, we know that Councillor Taylor is not currently the flavour of the month with some council colleagues – who see her challenges to the bureaucracy as rocking the boat … which is something to be regarded as intolerable and punishable.
However, the facts remain that in recent years Boston Borough Council has roughed up the parish church for nothing more than selfish, financial interests – and the time to put things right is long overdue.
Just for once, a gesture involving a small sum in overall terms could well reap benefits that might improve the council’s tattered image.
Well, they do say that Christmas is a time for miracles!

 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

 

And Boston Borough Council is just as bad

Just when you thought that Boston BID couldn’t come up with anything to make itself look more stupid than ever, comes news of the issuing of court summonses  for non-payment of the involuntary compulsory levy– including one  sent to a man who has been dead for seven years.
This latest act in the BID farce has been exposed by a former director – local businessman Darron Abbott, who quit the organisation in protest at how it was run.
He writes:  “What a few days BID has planned for the businesses in the town.
“On Friday, Saturday and Sunday we are promised a Christmas extravaganza – the likes of which Boston has never seen before.
“Then, on Monday 3^rd December at 1.30pm several of the BID levy payers will be at the town’s County Court to plead their cases as to why they have declined to pay.
“From what I have heard, there are several business owners who are planning to attend, so the chances are that the matter will be simply adjourned to a later date, as I doubt any one from Boston BID or Boston Borough Council will be bothered to attend to defend.
“I have heard that two of those summonsed by the court will not appear.
“The first is one of my clients who received a summons, and then rang me thinking I was still a director of BID.
“After I explained I had resigned because I was not happy that the BID manager had lost over £10,000 of the levy payers’ money which he had no authority to spend on an event in Central Park that did not happen, they asked me to look at the summons. “Upon inspection it was immediately apparent that the summons was in the name of one of the directors personally - and not the company that owned the premises.
“There were in fact two summonses – as for some reason this property has two account numbers with Boston BID for the same property.
“The client claimed they had never received any previous correspondence from BID.
“I thought that a quick phone call to the ever-efficient BID Manager would sort this out, so I left a message on his answer machine, but there was no returned call.
“Throughout the day I tried on numerous occasions to call again, but got the same answering machine.
“So I decided to contact Boston Borough Council, and was put through to the Business Rates department – only to be asked by another answer machine to leave my name and number and told that someone should get back to me within three working days.
“This meant that I had to ring the council again to insist on actually talking to someone, and whilst discussing the matter it became apparent that the previous correspondence had been delivered to the flat above the business premises and the tenants had not passed it on.
“The court summons was cancelled very quickly and new demands are to be issued with the £94 worth of costs to be forgotten about.
The second person who will not be attending is a gentleman who passed away seven years ago  – yes that’s right … three years before Boston BID even came into existence.
“Everything seemed sorted until I visited another one of my clients on Thursday evening. He had received a letter from a firm of civil enforcement agents appointed by Boston Borough Council.
“So my first job on Friday morning was to ring this firm to find out why they had received this letter for proposed seizure of goods for a property they had vacated two years ago.
“They said they could not help, and that if there was a query I would have to contact Boston Borough Council.
“Then a phone call to Mrs Butler at the council to be abruptly informed it related to a BID levy.
“When I explained that my client had vacated the premises, she confirmed that … yes, the computer showed a date of December 2010.  I then explained that my client had received no correspondence.
“She said that was nothing to do with her and that I should ring Niall Armstrong (the BID Manager.)
“The same answer machine greeted me that that had done earlier in the week, that had not responded to my previous message.
“A phone call then to the BID Chairman, who suggested I spoke to the council as it was their responsibility – and after brief discussion it was apparent he was not interested. Another call to Mrs Butler who said once again I should contact the BID Manager.
“Having explained I had tried this to no avail and the BID chairman had referred me back to the council, Mrs Butler was little more helpful, and explained that all of the correspondence had actually gone to the premises that the council knew had been vacated two years ago –  and this included the court summons.
“She then stated she could do nothing about it I should take it up with the BID Manager.
“What was the point of going on with this, I thought?  So, a phone call to Pauline Chapman at the council and a quick explanation was followed three hours later by message to pay the £36.16 BID levy and forget about the £154.50 costs.
“I am afraid the week’s episodes leave me with even less confidence in the management of BID; the manager has lost the levy payers in excess of £10,000 on a non-event –   and the loss in erroneous court costs above is £250 alone.
“One final question for the time being is about the management of the BID.
“The accounts for the year ended 31^st March 2012 must be filed with Companies House by 31^st December.  These accounts were not presented at the BID board meeting last week. There are no further board meetings planed until the New Near.
“So when will the Board approve these accounts? Will it be a case that the Chairman has learnt from the BID manager and will act unilaterally and sign the accounts without the approval of the board?

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

 



It seems that the “leadership” of Boston Borough Council simply does not know when to quit.

Instead of taking on the chin the unsurprising public reaction to the inflation busting increases to the top tier recipients of special responsibility allowances, whoever passes for the borough’s chief spin doctor has come up with an interesting explanation.
Not for the first time, it works on the premise that all council taxpayers are idiots and will believe anything that anyone with the noun preface “councillor” cares to tell them.
In this case, the spin-ster of our parish is none other than Council Leader Pete Bedford – who in a moment of rare insight into public opinion tells Boston’s poor, tired and huddled masses: "There will never be a best time for increases.”
He goes on to add: “There have not been any in Boston for six years. We have slipped further and further behind our colleagues in the other Lincolnshire authorities, and still remain substantially below them.”
Then, just as we were reaching for our box of Kleenex, he added the fatuous comment.
“It does demonstrate that we represent value for money here in Boston.”
Well, no it doesn’t.
Value for money – from the point of view of a council taxpayer – is the quality of service we get from the people who style themselves our leaders.
The reality is that what Councillor Bedford and his henchpeople have delivered so far does not represent “value.”
What have they done to date?
Apart from approving two huge increases in allowances in 18 months?
Sold an historic publicly owned asset in conditions surrounded by secrecy … which has meant …
The closure of an important set of public toilets.
Begun charging disabled blue badge holders to park their invalid carriages – with a “back of a fag packet” concession of a “free” thirty minute extension …
Continued funding the white elephant known as the Princess Royal Sports Arena … Wasted thousands on silly projects …
The list goes on and on.
Boston council taxpayers care nothing about how much more neighbouring districts are paid.
As far as we can tell, they are delivering better and improved services and are therefore worth it.
The borough council website tells us: “It will be eight years since the last increase before this increase is fully in place averaging at around 2.5 per cent per year.”
Interesting, eh?
Take a 20% increase over two years, but include the fact that is the first in six years, then juggle the figures to make it look reasonable and more or less in line with inflation.
We have a resident maths whizz as well, whose calculations show that these 10% increases are more like twelve and a half per cent.
The new allowance minus the old allowance gives us the increase, which, divided by the old allowance and multiplied by 100 provides the percentage % increase
In the case of the leader, the figures are £7,322 - £6,487   = £835, which
divided by £6,487 times 100 = 12.87%  not 10%.

FOOTNOTE: The word on the street says that Boston’s Assembly Rooms are to be handed over to their new owners in a small ceremony outside the building at 10 am today.  If true – expect another load of eyewash from our leaders about what a great deal this is for the town.

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