Task of the old grey mayor won't be what it used to be!

Yesterday’s meeting of Boston Borough Council’s cabinet had only two items on the agenda.
One – which we have already mentioned - was the disposal of the town’s Assembly Rooms, because there isn’t the money to paint them.
Ironically, the only other item on the agenda was a review of civic and mayoral spending, to see if the cost could be cut by as much as 30% to mirror the cut in government grants.
But whereas item one on the agenda seemed a foregone conclusion, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth at cutting the cost of what we suspect is a role that is largely appreciated by councillors themselves and regarded less than enthusiastically by the public at large.
There was a time – and we can remember it – when a visit by the mayor was a big deal, but we would question whether this is still the case.
Historically the role was once one of great importance – but it is now ceremonial – and expensive.
In the current year, the cost is £80,000, and even a 30% cut would reduce it to £56,000 – still more than £1,000 a week.
And for what?
There are nine main events in the mayor’s annual calendar – two of which are “important acts of remembrance” in the form of Battle of Britain Sunday and Remembrance Sunday, and which could cost up to £5,000 each – as figures are not disclosed, and have to be averaged from the balance after actual costs that have been given are taken into account.
In any case, the recommendation from the Scrutiny Committee to the cabinet is to rob Peter to pay Paul by excluding these figures from the budget – thereby effecting a notional saving to the mayoral budget at a stroke.
Looking through the remainder of the list, many events are merely staged by the mayor to make the mayor look good –such as a church service to bless their forthcoming year in office followed by a lunch – costing around £2,500.
The Scrutiny Committee has made some wild assumptions in its assessment of the situation – including the memorable line “cuts might make the public feel that the borough had no future.”
Would that be the same borough that is disappearing beneath mountains of litter – including cans and bottles casually dropped by street drinkers (in areas where this is allegedly illegal) - which is defaced by graffiti; forever being dug up and rebuilt in the name of jam tomorrow - whilst local business go to the wall?
Would that be the same borough whose council ignores the haplessness of some of its members, as well as organisations such as the useless Business Improvement District?
That would be the one!
The report also expresses the belief that it was important that the “standing” of the mayor was not diminished, “as tradition was important for future generations.”
The committee also claims that “The role of the mayor was prestigious and well-respected and concerned civic pride; if the role was diminished it would be better not to have it at all.”
We suspect that the reality is that the office of mayor means little or nothing to the majority of today’s residents of the borough, and that what significance the role has will continue to diminish over time.
If that is the case, it would be better to abolish it now on something of a high, rather than see it totter along with ever decreasing resources until it ends in a whimper and rattle of chains – a bit like Marley’s ghost.
The fact is that the office costs as much as it does because the office exists. If it didn’t, any truly essential functions and events could still take place under the aegis of the council at a fraction of the cost.
There is also the point that in this day and age the real benefit of the office is for councillors.
The role used to recognise and reward service to the community by appointing an incumbent whom electors had returned year in, year out - and to whom the office was given as an honour.
But since the electoral routs of 2007 and 2011, when first the Bypass Independents swept away most of the long standing councillors - and changed the mayoral selection process as well - and then the Tories reduced the BBI to a sad rump, a vast swathe of our councillors are newly elected.
A decision to revert to the former mayoral selection process based on length of service – including any previous period in office - means that next year’s candidate at present has just over six years interrupted service, and his successor presently has a little over four.
It’s scarcely anything much to write home about, as there are doubtless many more people who have been giving voluntary public service to the Boston community for far longer periods whose contributions go unrecognised.
It seems to us that we have reached an almost irresistible point in the office of Mayor of Boston.
It costs too much.
To trim the budget will diminish the role to a point where it may well become a civic joke.
It no longer enjoys the public esteem that it once did, and it not longer recognises significant contributions of public service.
On a set of scales, the argument tips inexorably towards abolishing the post altogether.

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 archive is available at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com