In an astonishing and unprecedented attack, a group of Worst Street councillors have ganged together to try to force the resignation of Boston Borough Council’s 483^rd Mayor, Councillor Brian Rush.

An extraordinary meeting of the council has been called for a week tonight after five fellow councillors signed a motion stating: 

“That this Council is deeply concerned with the actions of the Mayor in posting offensive and political comments on his Facebook page.

The Council believes the Mayor should reflect carefully on the words he has used.  He has caused significant personal distress to those named and demeaned the great office that is The Worshipful the Mayor of Boston.

The Mayor, who is the 483^rd person to hold this position of historic office, has sullied the role of First Citizen and champion of the Borough with petty, political point scoring that is factually incorrect.

This Council calls for the Mayor’s resignation with immediate effect.”

There are five signatories to the motion.

The proposer is the Leader of the Council, Michael Cooper.

Seconder is Councillor David Brown, a Tory representative for Wyberton, who is Chairman of the Planning Committee – and ironically listed as a Facebook “friend” of the Mayor’s.

The rump of the group comprises Councillor Alison Austin, a so-called Independent councillor for St Thomas' Ward and herself a former Mayor.

Councillor Sue Ransome, UKIP member for the Station Ward, Vice-Chairman of BTAC, and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee, and Councillor Aaron Spencer, the Tory representative for the Five Villages Ward, a deputy leader of the council and Portfolio Holder for Finance

Between them they have conjured up some tough talk – with phrases such a “significant personal distress” “demeaning” a great office and “sullying” the role of Mayor.

Sullying is a particularly hefty choice of word.

Synonyms include to taint, defile, soil, tarnish, stain, blemish, besmirch, befoul, contaminate, pollute, spoil, disgrace, dishonour, injure, damage – all apparently through a few entries on social media.

We‘ve taken a look at Brian Rush’s Facebook page.

It is quite clearly a personal document – and one which makes no reference to his role as Mayor of Boston.

Additionally, as far as we can see, there are few if any references to council business and we understand that any comments Councillor Rush may have made over time related to local councillors in their County rather than their Borough role.

We also understand that constitutionally, he cannot be made to resign or removed from office.

The only circumstances in which an enforced departure could be imposed would be in the event of a Mayor being handed a criminal conviction – and that is certainly not the case here.

Another question raised by this move to unseat the Mayor is why it was not approached in another way – perhaps through an informal discussion involving the Leader and the Chief Executive.

And if that was considered insufficient there is a long-established code of conduct which – whilst primarily available to members of the public – ought not to preclude one councillor who feels aggrieved by the behaviour of another from making a formal personal complaint – although none of those said to have been “distressed” have been named (unless they are the signatories, of course.)

Demanding a specially-called but very aptly named extraordinary meeting, the gang of five have landed the taxpayers with a totally unnecessary bill that will not achieve its purpose.

Instead the council is merely washing its dirty linen in public – and we cannot help but think that there is more by way of personal animosity towards Councillor Rush in this than there are fears for the reputation of the office of Mayor.

Another interesting point worth noting is that the agenda for the February 12^th meeting appeared on the borough’s website last Thursday – well outside the usual week-in-advance time lag before such documents appear.

***

The position of Mayor of the borough of Boston dates back to 1545 with the incorporation of the borough by Henry VIII.

In its heyday, the role included chief magistrate, coroner and gaol keeper, but today is mainly ceremonial.

One irony of these latest events is that the mayor chairs the council meetings – which puts him in charge of the meeting calling for his resignation.

Don’t forget that this is a public meeting, which it might be interesting to attend to see “democracy” in action.

***

Councillor Rush was appointed Mayor of Boston in May last year.

He was born and raised in Omagh, Northern Ireland, but the Boston area has been home for most of his life.

He joined the RAF at 18 and when he settled in Boston formed his own company, Boston Signs in 1980, and ran it for about 30 years.

He served as an elected member from 2007-2013 representing Frampton and Holme Ward and was re-elected in 2015 to represent Staniland Ward.

During his time in office he has had a chequered political history.

He was first elected as a member of the Boston Bypass Independents. He later left the party and co-founded the Better Boston Group.

He was re-elected for UKIP and united the party as leader after the now familiar internal wrangling before leaving and is now associated with no political party in particular.

***

Election fever is again griping Boston (shouldn’t that be gripping? – Ed. No – author.)

Just 17 days from now, on Thursday 22^nd February, the eyes of the world will be focussed on Old Leake and Wrangle and a by-election created by the sudden and inexplicable departure of veteran Tory Maureen Dennis who had represented the ward since 2003.

***

Four candidates are contesting the seat:  Local farmer Tom Ashton is standing for the Conservatives; Joseph Pearson, also from Wrangle, represents Labour; Don Ransome of Boston is standing for UKIP and Richard Thornalley – also of Boston – represents the recently formed Blue Revolution Party.

***

Statistics for the ward estimate a population of about 3,360 with 2,730 of voting age.

At the 2015 election the seat was contested by two Tory and two UKIP candidates. Maureen Dennis won for the Conservatives, and Barrie Pierpoint was elected for UKIP.

However, he quit the party that same evening and was styled as unaligned until a year ago when he threw in his lot with the so-called Independents Alison and Richard Austin.

At the 2011 election aside from Mrs Dennis, another Tory claimed the seat from the Boston Bypass Independents in a three cornered contest between the Tories, UKIP and the BBI.

And at the 2007 election­ – in a similar three corned fight between the same three parties, the BBI candidate ousted one of the two Tories.

Before that it was a two-Tory ward after the 2004 election.

***

There is a forbidding feeling that the result is most likely cut and dried and that we may well see a return to the days of 2004.

Certainly the Tory candidate Tom Ashton couldn’t be keener.

His is already a well-known party activist.

According to the local party website he has been the East Lindsey District Councillor for Sibsey and Stickney since 2015.

He was elected to the Lincolnshire County Council Tattershall Castle ward in 2017, and along with these jobs is also chairman of the Boston and Skegness Conservative Association. 
Oh, and he’s a parish councillor as well.

In fact in 2015, we noted that his enthusiasm to serve was so great that as well as standing in Sibsey and Stickney for a seat in East Lindsey,  he campaigned alongside former Boston Borough Council leader Peter Bedford in Worst Street’s Coastal Ward as well – falling to a UKIP candidate.

Some might question his ability to serve so many areas, and think that adding yet another political notch on his gun might be biting off more than he can chew.

We couldn’t possibly comment.

***

So what of the other candidates?

We asked either the candidates or their local group leaders to send us a pen portrait – but by the time this issue went to bed last night, only one had been received. The other three ignored our request, which speak volumes about their attitide.

The response that came was from the Blue Revolution Party, and told us: “Richard Thornalley is a local man and attended local schools.

“He is a taxi driver for a Boston-based company and as a result of his occupation understands the challenges confronted by local road users and the importance of stimulating the local economy.

“He hears a lot of comments from people he meets who have strong views about Boston and the surrounding areas so whilst not a resident of Old Leake and Wrangle he has knowledge of the area and local people's concerns.

“If elected he would bring an ordinary person’s point of view to the business of Boston Borough Council. 

“Richard is a down to earth individual and wants to be the ordinary voter's voice on Boston Council.

“Like all supporters of Blue Revolution Richard thinks the two-party system and the way we are governed nationally and locally are out of date and need reform to better reflect the concerns of ordinary people.”

***

We hear that a solution has been found to the problem of the Christmas in Boston accounts.

Regular readers will recall that the group’s treasurer was sacked after he raised concerns about the way that some assets had been used. 

This left the committee with the problem of having to submit a set of accounts to BTAC-ky – which provided match funding for the project – whilst airbrushing out the report’s criticisms.

We are told that the solution is along the lines that we predicted last week.

The accounts alone are being sent to an independent auditor for verification.

As they have already been professionally compiled, they will certainly be in order.

But what the auditors won’t see is the criticism that accompanied the figures.

Pretty neat, eh?

***

Boston MP Matt Warman was all a-Twitter last week at the news that the government’s Housing Infrastructure Fund had stumped up £3.5m towards Boston’s Quadrant housing, bypass and stadium project.

It follows a £4.75 million grant a couple of years ago from the Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership, which it was said “will enable the first phase of the Quadrant scheme in Boston to be delivered” The project completion date was given as “March 2017.”

The full cost of the project was given as £23.1 million – so the developer, Chestnut Homes, seems well on the way to getting its profits from public funding.

By an interesting co-incidence last week also saw the Quadrant development officially launched with the opening of four new show homes. 

The first phase will include 147 homes with 100 under construction already and 22 already sold to a local housing association.

However, it seems that everything is not yet plain sailing.

The Boston sub-Standard told us that Chestnut Homes Managing Director David Newton said funding was still an issue for the Quadrant Stadium, with an increase in costs and the project being turned down for grant funding from Sport England, but said he had fingers crossed for further help.

“He admitted that he regretted saying the stadium would start last year, but promised he would. (sic)

“’We will start building this year, we've said that, I know I said that last year but that was when, you know I don't normally say something I can't back up but last year we were 99.9% and I said we would build and I regret that because we weren't able to do that but this year we will start building.(sic)

 “’Where we're at is, if we don't get the funding in place we've got seven or eight million and we will build the stadium for that amount of money.’”

What we find hard to understand is how so much grant money finds its way into a scheme planned by a private developer and clearly designed to make a massive profit.

Or does the developer plan to hand some of the profit back to the taxpayers who are building the project?

***

Remember our words of worry last week about Worst Street’s contract with 3GS – a private company that manages its environmental enforcement … i.e. issues tickets to litterers, fly tippers and the like.

We raised an EYE-brow at the news 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?” we asked.

“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 is concerned.”

***

Scarcely had our comments appeared when we read reports in a national newspaper about a woman living in the Brighton and Hove council area who was caught putting a single piece of rubbish into a communal recycling container after 3GS went through the rubbish – and fined £600.

She called for an end for what she called intimidating tactics employed by 3GS, who told her over the phone that she could be taken to court and face a £2,500 fine or a prison sentence. 

The story appeared after a Daily Telegraph investigation found that the number of councils employing "litter police" to issue fixed penalty notices for a range of minor offences has tripled in three years. 

The newspaper said: “Members of the public are 20 times more likely to be hit with a fine in one of the 39 areas which contract out the work to private enforcers, in some cases allowing them to keep 100% of the fine as payment in a system which critics say acts as an “incentive” to hand out tickets.  

"Brighton and Hove issued no fixed penalty notices in 2014 or 2015, but this rose to 2,133 in 2016 after 3GS were employed.”

***

This week’s shooting yourself in the foot award goes – not surprisingly – to Boston Borough Council.

Last year, a Worst Street cock-up saw thousands of garden waste stickers valued at £30 each for a year’s collection sent out in error due to a “purely human error, compounded by a complicated computerised process”

This year – perhaps by way of making amends – users of the service paying by direct debit received an e-mail asking: “Want to be in with a chance of winning your garden waste service for free?

“Simply reply to this email with the answer to the following question:

“How many tonnes of garden waste were collected in 2016/17?”

But within hours, the a second message followed the initial e-mail.

“Dear Garden Waste Customer,

“There was an error in relation to the competition question in the email that we sent today about your garden waste. Please accept our apologies and see the correct information below. If you are happy with your answer you do not need to do anything, however, should you wish to change your answer please reply to this email….”

“ … Want to be in with a chance of winning your garden waste service for free?

“Simply reply to this email with the answer to the following question:

“How many tonnes of garden waste were collected in 2016/17?

 A)    5,000

B)     9,000

C)     15,000

“Not sure, take a look at our website for the answer ...”

After all this nonsense, we wonder whether Worst Street actually knows what the answer to the question is!

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

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