So just how much does it cost to open and close a gate?
The point is being raised by a user of Garfits Park in Boston – where he takes his dog on an almost daily basis.
Being interested in how Boston Borough Council spends its money, this taxpayer asked for a breakdown of the costs charged to the Boston Town Area Committee by Boston Borough Council for the services it provides.
This apparently strange way of accounting is one that is familiar to us, as we encountered it under the name of Producer Choice  when it was introduced at the other BBC – the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Instead of applying the skills available within an organisation to meet the needs of that organisation, Producer Choice involved  charging for every component part of a job – for instance the producer of a drama would have to pay different departments for the sets, the costumes, the cameramen, the transport – everything down to the secretarial time involved.
The upshot of this was that it increased costs considerably – by introducing brand new tiers of administration where none had previously existed – and we suspect it has done the same thing in Worst Street.
For instance, we know from our reader’s enquiry that BTAC is charged £1,001.28 pence for cutting the grass in the recreation area, and £3,859.46p for cutting the boundary.
Whilst one has to admire the anal retentiveness of all this, we wonder how it is possible to be so precise as to come up with an odd £1.28 pence for the first figure, and why it is that the second falls short of a whole number by just 54 pence.
And by bizarre co-incidence, cleaning the changing rooms and marking out the football pitches both cost exactly the same – £2,115.35 pence
No matter – the fact is that if these figures are good enough for Boston Borough Council, then they are good enough for we  ratepayers.
The grand total of all these charges comes to £25,740.17 pence a year – for  a parcel of land valued by the council at just £6,899 – and a figure which apparently came as news to the chairman of the committee which foots the bill.
The most interesting charge as far as our reader was concerned was the one for opening and closing the park gates – £5,059.88 pence a year.
The reason for this is that whenever he has taken his dog for a walk, the gate has always been open – and to the best of his recollection, he has never seen it closed.
He told Boston Eye:  “It has not been touched for over a year. The weeds were growing up the gate until they strimmed them a couple of weeks ago, which proved that it was not touched.”
But, of course, you can’t have a recreational area with a gate without making a charge for the opening and closing thereof, or else you wouldn’t be working in local government – and if said opening and closing never happens, then so much the better, or as the bard might have said “money for jam.”
By another of these comedic quirks of fate, our observant dog walker noted that as the soccer season in the park drew to a close, the staff diligently removed the goalposts and nets from the football field – only to return a day or so later and repaint the pitch markings.
Whilst members of BTAC may well be surprised by all these numbers, they may not have to worry for too long.
Apparently an idea currently lurking around for the opportunity to find its way on to an agenda somewhere, someday, is a plan to gee up a bunch of volunteers to take over  the running of the park for the council to save some more money.
How long before we’ll be digging our own graves, we wonder?

***

We mentioned last week the Boston Big Local scheme and the problems that the people trying to run it are encountering.

The idea is that the spending of the £1 million pound lottery grant is decided by a group made up of local people, and is not run by that great raft of organisations which comprise the “great and the good” of the area.
Our reports so far have mentioned the resignation of the “facilitator” over the way that Boston Big Local should be conducted, and who felt that her many efforts to follow the correct guidelines were often met with obstruction and dismissal which made the job untenable.
We also mentioned that the group had posed a series to questions to the Lincoln based Big Local “Rep” Ivan Annibal.
Although the members of the Boston committee in charge of the project are new to the game, their questions appear to show concern over his dealings with them.
Among the things they wanted to know are why he has delayed the appointment of a chairperson for the residents' group – which has now been meeting for a year.
They asked: “Do you feel that you are giving the group enough guidance — how can you evidence this?
“Do you feel that you answer the resident group's questions adequately and that you make yourself available to the group outside meetings?
“Do you think you are guiding or leading the BBL residents group?
“Why have you authorised the spend of £900 to set up a CIC or CIO when it’s not written into the Getting Started Budget?”
The initials in the previous question refer to a Charitable Incorporated Organisation or a Community Interest Company.
The former was created in response to requests from charities for a new structure which could provide some of the benefits of being a company, but without some of the burdens, whilst a CIC is a special type of limited company which exists to benefit the community rather than private shareholders.
We have concerns about these Big Local projects as well.
Over on the coast, there is another such scheme, which has just published its plan for the first three of the ten-year period over which it can spend its £1 million.
It has produced a colourful but incomprehensible mock London Underground map called The Pathway – and lists among the membership of its steering committee Lincolnshire County Council, East Lindsey District Council, Mablethorpe and Sutton Town Council, the local police, and our old friends the South Lincolnshire Community Voluntary Services – even though we have repeatedly been told that
these awards are NOT about local authorities, the government or a national organisation telling us what to do.
One thing that must be said is how impressive the response to the Coastal Community Challenge – as they have called it – has been compared to what has happened in Boston.
Whilst our team has spent most of its time in meetings aside from the occasional foray into the public domain, the coastal crew have really put themselves about – and the result clearly shows.
Somehow, Boston’s Big Local to date reminds us of the late but unlamented Boston Business “Improvement” District.

***

After last week’s report on the Big Local, we were not surprised to receive a comment. But little did we expect the outpouring that arrived from just a single e-mail.

It came from a member of one of the official organisations that have latched on to the project, and the dialogue that followed went like this …
Member of one of the official organisations (MOOOTOO):  Woud (sic) you ring me on (redacted) to get some calm facts about the above?
Love your vigorous blog!
New Boston Eye (NBE): I prefer to accumulate my information in a hard copy rather than by 'phone, and so if you would like to send an e-mail (and some way that I can verify who you say you are) I will be happy to read it.
MOOOTOO: I, on the other hand, prefer to get an honest, unbiased view by talking things over person-to-person. NB What sort of proof were you looking for:  finger prints, DNA?
NBE: What would you do if a total stranger, who was using an e-mail address that seemed totally unconnected with him, asked you to call on a mobile phone number?
I am sure that you would want to check it out.
MOOOTOO: I see your point. This is my partner's e-mail.
The problem is that you accept brief written comment as substantial and authentic. Whereas discussion could wholly enlighten you.
NBE:  Please stop trying to be clever, I'm maxed out on people who do that.
If you wish to comment using your "business" e-mail address, I will be happy to consider what you have to say.
If not, then I am afraid that this conversion is closed
MOOOTOO: My e-mails get mixed up with  (redacted) occasionally when I'm at home using this laptop.  My e-mail for all things is as above.  I don't use an exclusive-to-work one.
Honestly, I have no aspiration to appear to you to be a "clever Dick".   What I was trying to do was to persuade you that a voice conversation would be your best route to accuracy.
In your blog you've labelled someone a "patronising pillock" because, you say, their object is to appear clever.  I would be very happy to talk to you about that and other assumptions.
NBE:  No reply
MOOOTOO: Can I offer a compromise between phone and e-mail?  Would you like to come to (redacted) in (redacted).  I'll buy you lunch and answer all those questions you're keen to ask.
Let me know when you're free.
NBE:  A primary reason why I ceased blogging daily and went off-line for several months before resuming a weekly post was health related, (redacted).
And to be frank, I also think that your organisation has better things to do with its funds than wasting them on treating a hack like me.
You clearly have a point that you wish to make, and I am just as keen to assist you in making it if is as important to you as it seems.
Let me ask you one more time to use e-mail, and if I have any questions I will then ask them by reply.
MOOOTOO: I wouldn't dream of using charity money to buy you a lunch. This was a personal offer.
At this point the tireless and tiresome correspondence ceased.
As we said, this came from a member of yet another local quasi quango involved with the Big Local project – which is, of course meant to be run by the people of Boston themselves.
We think that we’re starting to get a glimmer of the problems that they face.

***

Just when our MP Mark Simmonds might have thought that he had lived down the Circle Healthcare fiasco, is seems to have surfaced once again. Regular readers will remember that Mr Simmonds came in for a fair amount of criticism when he became a “strategic adviser” to Circle Healthcare – described as a social enterprise – at a quarterly fee of £12,500 for ten hours “work” a month in 2011, soon after he ceased to be the Shadow Minister for Health – a post which he held between 2007 and 2010.
Not only did a pay rate of more than £400 an hour strike many people as excessive, but Circle Healthcare was – and is – in the public eye because of the privatisation of NHS hospitals.
Circle describes itself as a social enterprise because it is 49.9% owned by a partnership of employees. Others see it as a private business as the rest is owned by its parent company, Circle Holdings, which is listed on the stock market.
Circle was most prominently in the news when it became the first private firm to run an NHS hospital, Hinchingbrooke Hospital, in Cambridgeshire.
In February 2012, Mr Simmonds had to apologise for failing to make clear his interest when speaking in favour of the NHS shake-up, and told MPs he had "inadvertently" failed to declare his interest.
He is no longer paid by Circle, as his links ended on 5th September 2012 when he became Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
But one of our readers was surprised to come across an entry on the Twitter pages of  Marcus Chown,  a science writer, journalist and broadcaster, which was retweeted from the National Health Action Party’s page.
It mentioned Mr Simmonds among a list headed “No MP or Lord should have a stake in a private company to which they can vote public money. So how come these did?”
The National Health Action Party was formed at the end of 2012 because its members believed that a new political party was needed to defend the NHS and its values. “Together with other health care professionals, we were seriously concerned about the impact of the Coalition Government’s Health and Social Care Bill,” they said. “It was clear to us that it would trash the founding principles of the NHS".
The Boston Eye reader who saw the tweet immediately e-mailed Mr Simmonds to seek his response – which was unambiguous, and which you can read by clicking on the photograph below …



click on the image to enlarge it

So there you go.

***

Co-incidentally, as we were preparing the above item for publication, we paid another of our all-too-frequent visits to the Pilgrim Hospital’s out patients department.

That same week the hospital was in the news because its budget was spiralling out of control and had more than doubled to £111 million since 2000.
In circumstances like this, one might think that the powers that be in charge would look to save every penny that they could.
But no.
For the first time our visit was followed by a text to our mobile ‘phone.
It said …
“We would like you to think about your experience in the outpatients department where you spent the most time during this stay.
“How likely are you to recommend our outpatients department to your friends and family if they need similar care or treatment?
“1 Extremely likely
“2 Likely
“3 Neither likely nor unlikely
“4 Unlikely
“5 Extremely unlikely
“Please reply today, your feedback is anonymous and important to us.
Replies are free.”
Needless to say, we didn’t bother to respond.
The questions are pointless and the replies of absolutely no use whatever – especially because they are anonymous
The cost to us to reply might well have been free – but the hospital would have had to meet some sort of charges both to send the message and receive the response.
Doubtless, pointless stunts like this are done in the name of research into customer satisfaction – but they could and should be ditched as soon as possible.

***

But our local hospital is not alone with its problems.

At a GP surgery in the town, two of the four doctors are set to retire – and despite advertising for a replacement for one of them for the better part a year, no applications have been forthcoming.
It seems that “there aren't enough doctors wanting to go into General Practice at the moment, and those that do are reluctant to come to East Lincolnshire.”
Worse than that, we understand that despite the pay being good (well, we are talking doctors here) and housing being cheap (try to move elsewhere and you’ll soon learn that you can’t afford it) a major stumbling block is not the area known as “east Lincolnshire” but more specifically, the borough known as Boston.
This practice with 8,500 patients will shortly have only two full time and one part time doctor to do all of the work, which they admit with classic understatement “is going to be a struggle for us.”
For now, they will make do  with locums and are begging patients to be – well, patient, as appointments are going to be a problem for a few months.
The less than satisfactory “sit and wait” system will mostly be on offer as it is considered  the best way to see as many people as possible.
The doctors add optimistically: “Hopefully, normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.”
Somehow, we doubt this, given the problems too far – and it is very worrying when not only shops but now essential medical services are either deserting Boston or unwilling to touch it with a bargepole.

***

 

You’d scratch your head, too, if tasked with re-painting Boston’s latest night club with nothing more than a roller.

Well, there was a stepladder around the corner, but it didn’t look as though it would make the task very much easier.
This was the scene last Sunday morning, as we presume efforts got underway by the owner of the former Assembly Rooms to comply with the terms of sale agreed when Boston Borough Council dumped the place on him after years of neglect, which said that the exterior should be redecorated within a year of purchase – almost 18 months ago.
We would have thought that in the case of a building so badly neglected as this – particularly the side facing the river – that

click on photo to enlarge it

the most important task would be the preparation of the existing surface to ensure that whatever paint was slapped on would last for more than a few months, rather than just overpainting willy nilly.

But then what do we know about painting Grade 2* listed buildings?
Probably about as much as the man in our picture!

 ***

Finally, two readers added their comments to our remarks about a total ban on street drinking.
Just to clarify, whilst we mourned the loss of the personal freedoms that presently allow families to have a glass of wine with their picnic we also can see little alternative to a ban on drinking.
BUT …we also made the point that despite all the resources available to Boston Police and Boston Borough Council,  little if anything was done to enforce the Designated Public Place Order – and that if it had the  huge problem that we now face might have been nipped in the bud.
And we also doubt whether – if a complete ban on alcohol becomes a reality – any enforcement will be undertaken then, either.
 

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