Rulers'  September

 song was:

"You are wrong"

Once again, we find that some of the most enlightening information appears in the minutes of meetings – in particular the sections beyond the control of the Tory rulers – when questions can be put to portfolio holders by ordinary members.
So it was on the night of Monday’s council meeting that we perused the minutes of its last “proper” session in September.
It highlights an interesting attitude from the “leadership” towards anyone who dares to challenge their version of events.
It is a simple philosophy - “You are wrong.”
Independent Councillor Ossy Snell asked what the point was of spending £140,000 “renovating” the Hussey Tower, if - when it was finished – it would still not have a roof.
Council leader Peter Bedford said that even though water would still get in, it would not cause further deterioration.
“In simple terms - a roof is not essential.”
Councillor Snell persisted.
“Even if we do finally put a roof on and floors in the Hussey Tower there will be no history in there. It will only be four walls, all the rest will be modern materials.”
But the leader was unmoved.
Showing a knowledge of more recent, as well as medieval history, he replied: “We all know that some 10 years ago it was nicknamed ‘Ossy Tower’ as you wanted to demolish it.”
And after a few more words, he concluded: “If you want to be a (sic) ‘historic vandal’ that is up to you, but I am for preserving our history and buildings.”
No flexible response was forthcoming either from Councillor Derek Richmond, portfolio holder with responsibility for Boston Business Improvement District among other things.
He more or less shrugged off a question from Independent Councillor Richard Leggott about what the BID was doing to improve communication with members, and when asked what monitoring took place on the effectiveness of measures to improve it, replied: “The only monitoring that takes place is if I ask and they tell me.”
Clearly a man who takes responsibility seriously.
Back to the leader, and another dismissive reply to a question from Boston District Independents’ Leader Councillor Helen Staples, about how knowledgeable his cabinet members were about their budgets.
Asked why the portfolio holder was unable to answer questions on the total amount allocated to the sport and leisure budgets, he said that budgets were detailed and complex - and the expectation that individual officers and members would be able to recite budget value without prior warning “is perhaps misplaced.”
We can understand that no-one can have every little number at their fingertips - but the question was apparently about the total budget figure, which we thought would be something a portfolio holder ought to know.
And as we have noted earlier, Councillor Bedford simply can’t resist a gratuitous and barbed snipe whenever the opportunity arises, ending this particular session with the totally irrelevant: “I should also mention that under the previous administration the Portfolio Holder for Revenues and Benefits visited that service area on only two occasions in a year, so don’t tell us we don’t understand”
At least he had the good grace to apologise after Councillor Alison Austin questioned why members of the council were not told of the first meeting of the South East Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee, though he distanced himself as far as possible from responsibility.
“Perhaps partly because this is a new venture and because meetings are administered by South Holland, there was an oversight on our part regarding the very first meeting.”
Another question - from Independent Councillor Brian Rush - about the Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens’s now famous feature, “Boston Lincolngrad” asked where, if Mr Hitchens accepted the leader’s invitation to revisit Boston, would he take him, to show what he had called ‘the Real Boston?’”
Out came the sniper’s rifle again.
“As you are aware there were many inaccuracies in the report written by Mr. Hitchin (sic) which I have raised with him and asked that he address in the interests of fairness, accuracy and balance.”
To write at such length about Boston without a word of recognition for the hard work done by committed staff and partner agencies was an insult that, as leader, he had to respond to.
“My invitation to Mr. Hitchin (sic) to revisit Boston is to demonstrate the work that is being undertaken with the migrant population by the council and other organisations … rather than a tour of buildings or areas within the town.
“However, such a tour could include a visit to Wrangle where between 240 and 250 migrant workers are accommodated by Staples Vegetables. They represent as much as ten per cent of the population of the village and are a good example of harmonious living and working arrangements in the borough by people from overseas.”
What is interesting about minutes like these is that they are accepted to be the “official record” of events.
In the case of the answers regarding Peter Hitchens, the allegation of inaccuracy now becomes a fact – as does the following line …
“Mr. Hitchin (sic) admitted he lifted some information in his article from another publication, which turned out to be incorrect.”
To set the record straight, Mr Hitchens acknowledged at the time that he lifted one item, not “some” items of information: “The explosion in the illegal distillery couldn’t be heard five miles away. Bang to rights! It’s a fair cop! I got it out of the ‘Independent’. The whole article collapses as a result. I have ‘invited’ him (Councillor Bedford) to read my article properly, as he doesn’t seem to have done it properly the first time.”
Another item of concern is the regular rejection of propositions at council meetings to suspend Procedure Rule 17.5 so that members can speak more than once during a debate.
Such applications are invariably followed by the sentence “On being put to the vote the proposition was lost.”
That, of course, is because the Conservative majority on the council apparently wishes to encourage brevity rather than debate.
This particular meeting began at 6-30pm and ended at 7-45pm, and from beginning to end covered 18 different items - not including supplementary questions from members - an average of just over four minutes an item.
It that really enough, or does it merely pay lip service to the idea of democratic local government?

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