Stand by to be treated like an idiot by Boston Borough Council “leaders” once again.

Time and again in these pages, we have expressed serious doubts about promises from the Worst Street mafia that collection of garden waste would remain free of charge.

And whilst we hate to say “we told you so …” … we told you so.

***

Instead of the usual anodyne slop for breakfast in Monday’s Goody Two Shoes News (circulation 783) the borough council newsletter hit us between the eyes with a “heads we win, tails you lose” announcement.

“Boston borough residents who have enjoyed a free garden waste collection service since 2012 are to be asked whether they want it to continue... at a charge …”

That’s it; no nuancing here.

No fifty shades of green.

If you won’t pay for it – we close the service down.

Interestingly the writing on the wall for this was scribbled down in a roundabout way in the so-called Conservative “manifesto” back at election time in May, when the promise was “to continue the green waste collection.”

But that was then – this is now.

***

And now, we are told:

“Garden waste is not something that the council is obliged to collect and it cannot be placed in the green household waste bin.  The council now need to consider whether or not it can continue to subsidise this free collection service. Most authorities in Lincolnshire already charge for garden waste collections. 

"The costs of the garden waste collection service have been calculated at £300,000 (this is equivalent to a 10% increase in council tax for Boston, resulting in a Band D equivalent charge of £185.27.)   This amount is met from all council tax payers and not simply those who choose to use the garden waste service. 

“With 60% take-up  (the experience elsewhere in Lincolnshire) the annual charge would have to be around £36 to cover the cost of the service. This is the equivalent of £1 per week for the period the service operates.

“The council are therefore currently considering two different options for the garden waste service:

“1) Stop the kerbside (brown bin) collection of garden waste

“2) Charge an annual fee for all garden waste collections."

 ***

The £300,000 figure is an interesting one.

Earlier this year it appeared on the borough’s website as the amount of money saved by Boston taxpayers suckered in by the borough’s worthless promises.

The line in question read: “Last year more than 5,000 tonnes of waste much of which could have otherwise gone into our green bins and to waste has been turned into useful compost at a saving to the public purse of more than £300,000.”

The council’s Head of Rubbish, Councillor Mike Brookes, is now stressing the apparent “unfairness” of a system under which the collections are “subsidised” by the 12,000 households who either do not need or do not use it.

“We therefore have to look for a fairer way of funding the service if it is to continue in these financially-challenging times.”

Is this the same Councillor Mike Brookes who pledged countless times since the collections were introduced three years ago that they would always be free after a bin was purchased?

Of course it is!

***

Perhaps he could tell us how charging for emptying the bins will change things for the people who have “subsidised” the service these past 36 months.

If it is true that they have “subsidised” the service, we assume that they will be given some sort of refund for their hitherto unnoticed generosity.

Don’t hold your breath.

The only winners here will be the garden fork-tongued Boston Borough Council, which is effectively planning to bump up its share of the council tax by stealth … levied on people with gardens – a sort of local equivalent of a mini Mansion Tax.

In terms of “subsidising” council services, we must point out that neither the editor nor Mrs Eye use the sporting facilities so heavily funded from Boston’s council tax – so why are we paying for it, and why aren’t users of the Moulder Leisure Centre and the PRSA charged a realistic fee based on the real costs?

At county level, we have no children in education, nor do we use the expensive social services. Yet we pay for them, because we understand the need.

***

As has become the norm in recent times, the council is falling back on the argument that this is a discretionary and not a mandatory service – don’t forget that our public toilets are most likely next for the chop.

In the questionnaire which it doubtless hopes will bludgeon people into voting for a charge, it says: “Garden waste is not something that the council is obliged to collect and it cannot be placed in the green household waste bin.”

The reason that it cannot be put in the green bin is because of a council prohibition when the garden waste service was introduced – which we assume could simply be reversed.

But then the council would lose money by reducing recyclable waste.

At this point, our suspicious mind wonders why Worst Street introduced the green waste collection service so recently.

Three years ago, the council’s finances were as much under threat from cuts as they are now – which would seem to be entirely the wrong time to introduce an apparently expensive non-obligatory service.

The cynic in us – believe it or not, there is one – suspects that there was a plan of sorts behind all this.

Introduce a useful and helpful service that will not only save money for the council but benefit a large number of taxpayers.

Bait the line with a low priced collection bin and a promise that the service will remain free.

Three years down the line put a gun to the heads of those that use the service demanding money with menaces.

***

The alternatives to a collection, says the council, include “Home composting – Boston Household Waste and Recycling Centre (open 7 days per week) – Spalding Household Waste and Recycling Centre (check www.lincolnshire.gov.uk for opening times)”

What a shame that the council couldn’t be bothered to tell us the times and location of the Spalding tip.

There is also some interesting use of figures in support of the council’s argument.

At one point we are told that the council currently delivers a non-chargeable kerbside garden waste collection service “36 weeks a year.”

That would be the case if every individual household was visited weekly – although the truth emerges later, when the line becomes “the one off charge per annum allows for 18 fortnightly collections between March and November.”

Whilst it may sound like nit-picking, the fact is that some people have more than one bin because they have larger gardens – but might get away with one if the collections were weekly.

Now, it may well be that putting out two bins will incur even more expense.

And on the question of charges, the arithmetic remains questionable.

The questionnaire asks us to opt for a charge between £25 and £40 a year for single bin collections and between £10 and £25 for additional ones.

The basic £25 charge, we are told, works out at “approximately 50p week” which is true if you base it in a 52 week year.

But there are only 18 collections per household – which by our maths works out at £9 at the 50p rate.

Of course, 36 collections would be closer at £18 – but still no cigar!

As no-one receives 36 collections, this would mean that people paying the charges during one week, are “subsidising” the week for which they do not have a collection – and vice versa.

The real figures tell us that the cost of 18 collections for £25 is slightly less than £1.40 a week – nearly 300% more than the council would have us believe.

The figures also lead us to conclude that a Band A council taxpayer – the most common band in Boston – with two garden waste bins could next year be paying a minimum of £35 for collections.

The council tax paid for this band is £112.26.

This represents an increase in Boston’s share of the council tax of almost 40%.

So much for all those years of “zero per-cent council tax increases!”

That Boston Borough Council should not tell us the truth should come as no surprise.

There are lies, damn lies, and Worst Street statistics.

***

Some quotes:

From the Boston Standard two years ago: “Coun Brookes … stressed several times that the council is not looking to charge for green waste collections, as East Lindsey does … “

From the Boston Target: “Mr Brookes … emphasised that while ELDC was looking at charging for garden waste collection BBC ‘most definitely is not.’

From Boston Borough Council’s website – reporting the success of the green waste collection scheme: “Cllr Mike Brookes, Boston Borough Council's portfolio holder for waste services, said: ‘Words cannot express how thrilled I am by this news. It is an amazing achievement and demonstrates that we are all going in absolutely the right direction.
"I want to say a massive thank you to everyone in the borough who has contributed to this. It is so gratifying to know that people are being really conscientious about how they deal with their waste.’
“Brown wheelie bins for garden waste are still available from the borough council at the bargain one-off price of £25 each. Unlike many other authorities the garden waste collection service is free once a brown bin has been purchased.”

From Boston Borough Council’s website FAQs on waste collection services – “we did not have the monies to pay the half-a-million pound plus cost of providing everyone with a brown bin, so we are asking residents to pay for the actual cost of the bin and its delivery to their property only.”

***

And how about this – again from the Worst Street website.

That “promise” is quite unambiguous.

“For a one-off payment of just £25 you have bought your 240-litre bin and confirmed free collection and proper disposal of this season's garden waste.

"And the borough council's administration has confirmed that it will stick to its promise and there will be no introduction of a charge for collection in its term of office despite on-going charges for garden waste collection being introduced in other parts of the county.”

That pledge appeared on 10^th September last year – nine months before the election that saw the same administration round up enough toadies to continue in power.

The collection of incompetents that doubles as the so-called “administration” will doubtless now try to tell us that that the election was a watershed after which their previous promise could be broken under some sort of technicality which created a “new “administration.

***

More insultingly, Boston Borough Council was so proud of its long term plan to hoodwink the punters that it was featured in a special leaflet produced by the District Councils’ Network

click to enlarge

Memorably, it includes the phrase: “A carrot-and-stick approach was adopted to encourage residents to desist from putting green waste in with their residual waste.

“The carrot was a once-a-fortnight kerbside collection throughout the main growing season – the ‘collection' being free.

“The stick was that once the service was up and running, residents would no longer be permitted to put garden material in with their residual waste.”

So proud – yet so deceitful.

And isn’t the “carrot and stick” approach referred to in the context of forcing donkeys to obey orders?

Of course it is.

***

We were a little disappointed that our local MP Matt Warman got himself involved in the green waste debate – without apparently knowing much about its history.

It began when he tweeted: “Boston Borough Council are conducting a review of the Garden Waste Refuse service. You can have your say here …” and posted a link to the borough’s website. In the lengthy debate which ensued, Mr Warman referred to: “agreeing with a tough decision, which is not mine to take,” adding “I am confident it is unavoidable, as other councils will attest…”

We’ve noticed before that Mr Warman has demonstrated a tendency to take Worst Street’s word for it … and in this case seems to be endorsing the idea of making then breaking promises to the donkeys.

Far be it from us to try to advise him what to do, but we would suggest that he proceeds with caution where our local council is concerned …

***

 If in fact it has ever had a “Finest Hour,” then Monday night was not the cabinet’s.

We’re referring, of course, to the “Cabinet Question Time” – introduced and stage managed by Council “Leader” Pete ‘Nipper’ Bedford reprising the role of David Dimblebore.

‘Nipper’ looked at his most presidential – in that his shock of white hair was at its finest … but that was where the resemblance ended.

After all his years in politics he seems not to have acquired the skill of reading without sounding as though he is reading – nor of talking in a way that appears relaxed and comfortable.

Perhaps he wasn’t.

We’ll not try to report on the debacle that followed – largely because most of it was inaudible … we think because a speaker in the room was causing feedback.

Think a variation of Norman Collier’s faulty mic routine of the 1970s.

Nor was the camerawork up to much – with occasional glimpses of the public interrogators … or rather a partial profile or a shot of the back of their head.

Our feed of the meeting crashed a few times, and displayed a large red cross for some minutes, whilst another viewer was treated to adverts for an overseas children’s charity.

With a little more planning and foresight (yes, we know that Worst Street doesn’t do planning and foresight) this event might at least have been staged during last week’s Local Democracy Week – which not surprisingly went completely unremarked in Boston.

As it was, the cabinet – armed with advance copies of the questions being posed – still seemed unable to answer them with any kind of thoroughness.

They mostly became apologists rather than responders on important questions about such things as litter, anti-social behaviour, street drinking, refuse collection, public toilets and parking outside schools.

It was either a case of “yes it’s down to us but we don’t have any money…” or one of “no, it’s down to the county council/police etc, and they don’t have the money …”

There was little if any encouragement to those people who had taken the trouble to turn up and ask their questions, and a couple of times we noted intimations of hostility radiating from the councillors to their interrogators.

A couple of things that we did learn though …

If you want to see Boston at its litter free finest, it’s best to visit around 5am when all the rubbish has been collected, before it’s all dumped in the streets again.

And by some arcane relationship, the problem caused by parents parking outside schools had become linked with the problems of obesity in the mind of one cabinet member.

‘Nipper’ seemed relieved when it was all over, and not overly keen on doing it again anytime soon.

Having suggested once that the meeting may be as infrequent as quarterly, he ended with the suggestion that there might  "hopefully" be another one “in four or five months’ time.”

***

One thing that did emerge from Monday’s dog-hanging was the inadequacy of our cabinet members – which varied from the semi-articulate to the downright ignorant.

At least, it helps us understand why this group is referred to as a “Cabinet” – something defined as “an empty vessel mostly made of wood, with a couple of knobs and a set of drawers added for decorative effect.”

***

Whilst Boston Borough Council ignored Local Democracy Week, in neighbouring South Holland the date coincided with a meeting of the full council – which showed just how “democracy” can be managed.

After a short list of decisions taken at the meeting,  the council’s Twitter feed ended – apparently with only one omission … that was Tweeted by a local journalist but not the council.

The missing Tweet was the news that councillors had approved a 2.2% increase in their allowances – backdated to April.  

***

Public service workers who operate as self-employed through their own companies – thus acquiring certain favourable tax and national insurance benefits – have long been a source of controversy.

Regular readers may recall that Boston’s previous Chief Executive Richard Harbord received an eye-watering £120,000 a year for just two weeks’ work a month through his company.

Then – and now – this is regarded as somehow inappropriate to public service, but it appears that it is alive and well and living in Worst Street.

Recently a sharp-eyed reader noticed a familiar name that he assumed was a member of staff, being paid via a company.

So he sent in a Freedom of Information request – the response to which we reproduce below.

click to enlarge

We note that these officers are all listed as “interim” – a word that we have always taken to mean the temporary occupancy of a post – but a quick search shows two of the three names listed as apparently being in substantive posts while one has been attending Worst Street for many years.

And whilst the rates being charged are not quite as pip-squeaking as the former Chief Executive, they are nonetheless very substantial.

An invoice in April this year saw the council charged £325 a day by Mr Edwards through LGS  (Local Government Services) Limited for 14 days work – roughly half the month.

The total came to £4,550 – which annualised comes out at more than £115,000 a year – and that’s without the VAT … and more than the newly appointed Chief Executive is paid for a full-time post.

Mr Edwards will be well known to many as the officer who starred “front of the house” for the council at the webcast planning committee meeting which approved the Quadrant project. He has been in  "interim" employment for more than five years ...

High Croft Associates – a company with an address in Lytham St Annes, whose sole director is listed as Mr Andrew Paul Julian – charged Boston Borough Council £380 a day in June for the services of “consultant” Andrew Julian ... whose name appears on the borough's management list as Paul Julian.

With VAT the total for 16 days came to £6,080.

But the biggest charge of all came from Glenview Business Management Consulting Limited which bills a stonking £400 a day for the services of Ms Sacks. Details are hard to assess, as these invoices are the most heavily redacted –  but as a company report shows –  it soon mounts up…

click to enlarge

The FoI disclosures include invoices from other companies than these three, about which details are hard to find. In the ones that can be identified,  as we have said, a number of charges have been redacted, which is strange given that these are payments made to a company, and should therefore be "transparent."

As far as we can see, salaries for full-time substantive posts of the kind being bought in by Worst Street are between £30,000 and £45,000 a year.

Whilst arrangements such as these appear to be acceptable, given the costs involved we wonder whether our cash strapped council – which can no longer afford to collect our garden waste – is getting the best value that it can for taxpayers by paying expensive “agency” rates.
We think that with three officers alone being paid a total of £1,105 a day for their services – and sometimes not apparently needed in the office for a couple of weeks in the month,  some sort of value for money review is urgently necessary

***

Whilst Lincolnshire Chief Constable Neil Rhodes and Police and Crime Commissioner Alan Hardwick have welcomed a report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary  they took issue with the inspector’s judgement that the force required improvement in terms of how efficient it is at” “keeping people safe and reducing crime.”

Alan Hardwick said, "We have one of the highest workloads per officer and we remain the lowest cost police force of any in England and Wales. That looks like an efficient police force to me."

Neil Rhodes said, "Performance is very strong, costs are enviably low. In our last assessment HMIC judged us as 'OUTSTANDING' in terms of our provision of affordable policing. The focus is now on the Government to implement a fair financial settlement that will mean we can maintain it for many years to come."

Perhaps someone should tell them that this was NOT what the inspector was talking about and that efficiency at keeping people safe and reducing crime is the most important service of all.

***

 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