We reported yesterday about the serial complainer and seeker of information who has cost Boston Borough Council unspecified “thousands” of pounds  – which is one reason why Worst Street has created a special policy to deal with profligates such as this. All well and good – but given the need to watch every penny these days we wonder how the council can justify blowing £600 on a finger buffet for the Mayor’s Christmas Party.

Of course that amount is just the tip of the iceberg. No wine is mentioned – but being Christmas, we are sure that some was bought to make this cosy little jolly go with a swing. And let’s not forget that the annual cost of the mayor’s office is around £80,000. Worst Street justifies this by saying that it is an historic role dating back hundreds of years and which we all want to retain – but when other much smaller savings are taking place, this argument sounds a little hollow. And don’t start us on the £100k cost of giving councillors and staff free parking!

***

Another argument about the mayoral role is that it recognises long service – but that is  no longer true either. The Mayor-elect, Councillor Stephen Woodliffe will have slightly less than five years as a councillor when he dons the chain of office to enjoy a year of free meals, interesting outings and a chauffeur driven car at the taxpayers’ expense.  So many new councillors have now come on board in recent years, that we will see this high reward for low periods of service repeated again and again. All of the really long servers have done the job at least once over the years and thinking of some of them, we are sure that no-one would want to see then back.

No, if Worst Street is truly sincere when it talks of making savings – the role of Mayor should fade quietly away.

***

It really is interesting to note Worst Street’s contrasting attitude to money. Scarcely had some of our lowest paid workers celebrated this week’s rise in the national living wage than Boston Borough Council was on the case to warn them that the extra cash might affect claims for housing benefit or council tax support.

“If your income has gone up, because of the living wage increase or for any other reasons, and you are claiming housing benefit or council tax support or both please contact Boston Borough Council revenues and benefits service … It  is an offence to not let the council know of any changes in your circumstances if you are claiming benefits.”

***

Our earlier mention of Councillor Woodliffe reminds us yet again that as Mayor, he will have to relinquish his cabinet role of portfolio holder for environmental health, community safety and emergency planning. So far, there is no mention of a replacement. Does this mean that ‘Nipper’ is out of ideas for a stand-in? That would not surprise us one bit

***

Just when you think that things couldn't get any worst for Boston – along comes Google Street View.

Late last year, the firm updated its tour of Boston and had the bad fortune to capture this action shot  on the left of a citizen seeking  relief in a quiet corner of the town.

Bizarrely the photo was taken in Fountain Lane!

***

Doubtless, the borough’s newly adopted policy of roughing up whomever Worst Street deems to be a “serial complainer” is behind the spend on a course about how to handle “tricky” conversations.

We are old enough to recall the days when  people employed in such situations had sufficient native intelligence, guile and wit  to handle such problems unaided – and not need some clever dick with most likely no real-life experience the subject in hand  to spew out a load of clever buzz words and charge £500 for a two or three hour session.

***

Things to do with planning are always a little mysterious, and a recent application excited some interest when Brown’s Bar in Dolphin Lane was reported as applying for change of use to a ‘sexual entertainment’ venue.

This apparently rubbed the owners up the wrong way – if you’ll pardon our choice of words.

First Brown’s took to Facebook to say: “Despite what has been written in the local press, Brown's have no intention of turning itself into a sexual entertainment venue tomorrow. We have simply applied for a change of use from A4 (drinking establishments) to Sui Generis, which is better suited for our late night trade as we strive toward increasing the "club" side of our operations.”

When this comment was reported, the club followed with a second rant.

“Good morning Boston Target and Standard! Let's see if you local rags can twist facts to suit the ‘news’ today? Try this for a change and get it right: A4 2 Sui Genris (sic) = what?? Please explain how you connect this with a SEX license operational application?

“Come on now, as you pump this ‘news’ day in and day out? Can't you make out the difference between a Planning Application and a Sex Entertainment Operational License application, or are you just plain idiots?

In a spirit of helpfulness, this is how Boston Borough Council listed the application

And this is how the club’s application form described things.

The phrase Sui generis is defined as: in a class or group of its own; not like anything else; unique.

Perhaps Mr Brown is confusing it with the lady called Sue Generous – who is most likely a frequent habitué of the club.

Perhaps an apology to our local newspapers is in order?

***

Earlier this week we talked about the hundreds of thousands of pounds being thrown at the Geoff Moulder Leisure Complex and the PRSA on a biomass heating project which is expected to generate huge profits in in the coming twenty years or so.

Let’s hope that this comes to pass.

When the plan to festoon the Moulder with solar panels – which included a similarly long payback period – was under discussion, we heard mutterings about the future life of the building.

Sections of the roof were built at different times – and the main pool roof may need replacing in about eight years, whilst the building itself is said to have 20 years’ life left.

A worst case scenario involving replacement of the main pool roof around 2024, says removal and reinstallation solar panels would be a comparatively minor – but an interesting line added: “If the council decided instead to demolish the facility and sell the site, it would not incur any financial penalties from the Government and by that time we would be circa three to four years beyond the payback period (for the solar system) anyway.”

Why do we fear that another debacle is lurking on Worst Street’s already cloudy horizon?

***

We could scarcely contain our excitement when our poll cards arrived for the Police and Crime Commissioner elections on Thursday 5^th May. Because of our interest in this sort of thing, we know that there are three party political candidates, but to date none of them has managed to find our letterbox in the middle of Boston to make their pitch. If they can’t be bothered, then nor can we. Actually, we shan’t be voting anyway. Firstly, we think that the job is unnecessary, and secondly that if it really must be done it should not be a political appointment, but done by someone with an understanding of police work and its mechanics. Candidates – look out for the note explaining it all which will be stapled to our vote on the day, because not to vote – even in protest – is a diminution of democracy.

***

Finally, there are no marks out of five for the Boston Beano over the past week. Despite the Big Boston Litter thingy much of the content is still barely relevant to the council, and we hear that readers are voting with their mouse. 

In a moment of indiscretion following a problem over a multiple mailing a reader  was told  … “We have had so many people wanting to unsubscribe …”

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 

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

It was heartening to read – buried amidst the recent rant of how Boston Borough Council planned to make life miserable for ‘vexatious’ complainants – a line saying: “The council does, however, recognise its duties under the Freedom of Information Act, the Data Protection Act and related legislation, to provide information to requesters.” 

Now, though, we’re wondering if Worst Street intends what it says.

Although a recent government review of the ten year-old Freedom of Information Act  said there would be no changes to it and found that it was "working well,” councillors have a long history of bewailing the cost of responding to FoI requests and declaring that they could save money by ignoring them.

This was echoed in the debate on a new ‘Persistent and Vexatious Customer Policy,’ when the guardian of Boston Borough Council’s purse, Councillor Aaron ‘Frank’ Spencer, announced that a single serial complainer had cost the council “thousands” in staff resources and time.

This year alone, the individual had reportedly sent 41 emails, made four complaints, two enquiries and eight Freedom of Information requests.

Councillor Spencer was quoted as saying: “That individual has cost this council thousands. That’s important and why we need to seek to adopt this policy.”

He added that the new policy should aim “not to compromise the integrity of the council” – whatever that means.

The policy would deal with customers who made excessive demands on officers’ time and resources or were abusive or refused to accept a decision even after repeatedly arguing a point.

Reports quoted Michelle Sacks, the council’s Head of Customer and Democratic Services as saying: “This would give us the tools within the constitution to deal with these customers effectively.

“It would give us the framework to say ‘this is our adopted policy that members of our staff have to follow and it is the way we deal with our complaints’.

“The benefits of having a policy like this will be not to reduce the number of enquiries but to reduce the impact on resources of dealing with the individual.”

She added: “This is about treating all our customers equally and fairly and identifying our customers which fall into ‘persistent and vexatious’.”

If that sounds like a lot of waffle to you, relax – it sounds like a lot of waffle to us as well.

What does not appear to have been said at any stage is that Worst Street – in common with other councils – can if it wishes charge for FoI requests

If local authorities estimate that providing the information will cost more than an ‘acceptable limit’ of £450 they can either refuse or charge the full estimated at the rate of £25 an hour – that’s 18 hours’ worth.

We wonder whether we might be seeing Worst Street’s opening gambit towards charging for FoI requests whenever the rules allow.

Remember the famous “free forever” garden waste collections which somehow fell into the “we never said that” category?

Certainly, a serial complainer who has cost the council “thousands” might well be curbed by such a policy, and make questions fewer and more focussed in a way that would save staff time and costs. But equally, such a policy might stun him/her into silence.

 “Thousands” is a conveniently imprecise amount – but if the figure exceeds £3,600 for the requests quoted then charging is allowed.

Interestingly, we had sight of a response to a complaint this week in which a perfectly valid protest was rejected – largely on the grounds that the complainant deserved the treatment complained of.

If nothing else, it highlights the unsatisfactory council policy of allowing internal employees to evaluate complaints.

Perhaps the council could adopt the approach of Ferndown Council in Dorset, which has told residents to stop writing about its decision to reduce a speed limit – because the complaints are “stressing out staff.”

All together now … Aahhh! There, there.

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 

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

In a secret location on the Takindamikki Game Reserve at Freiston Shore, the latest member of the Worst Street menagerie is doing well – and growing bigger by the hour.

The baby white elephant named Biomass is thriving on the same diet of green stuff that helped make the Moulder Leisure Centre and the PRSA the money pits that they are today.

The birth was not an easy one because – not unusually – Worst Street cocked it up.

Late last year the borough came up with a cunning plan to spend £456,000 on biomass energy efficiency measures at the PRSA and the Moulder – to generate huge savings and profits which among other things would be used to tart up the PRSA– and make it sexy enough to lure an outside operator to take it over and send this particular albatross plummeting to the depths of the shiny sea.

As with an earlier purchase of solar panels, everything was done in a hurry because of fears that subsidies might be cut,

The outcome?  An “increase in estimates following two tendering exercises,” and “revisions” to initial plans called for a larger capacity biomass boiler at PRSA “to facilitate future initiatives.” and essential replacement of pumps at GMLC.”

Whilst words can never hurt, their meanings often do otherwise – and we saw the estimated costs rise by 64%, from £456,000 to £749,000 – with a rejigged estimate of the so-called “profits” as a damage limitation exercise.

This happened despite a similar bodge-up with the installation of solar panels at the Moulder Leisure centre.

So urgent was the need to install  them that the full council was bypassed and denied a say, but someone had overlooked the fact that it took between 45 and 60 days to process the applications – so the deadline was missed in any case and a hoped for 32.9p payment for selling surplus electricity fell to 15.2p.

Now the invoices are starting to come in for Worst Street’s next Cunning Plan.

The ink is scarcely dry on the council minutes approving this debacle in the making than £270,000 has been forked out to get the project rolling.

It could be still more – even in these early days – as you will see that whilst the list includes £70,000 for “Boston Biomass Boilers Valuation 2” we can find no trace of an earlier transaction numbered Valuation 1.

Let us also not forget the very worrying admission at the last full council meeting when the question of how much the biomass fuel would cost to heat the PRSA – which is now run by someone else, and therefore no longer a burden on the taxpayers (!) – and the Geoff Moulder Centre (which isn’t) and who would be paying for it.

The answer was that Boston Borough Council  would be paying, and that a “procurement process”  was underway – which means that the scheme is being started and money spent without a clue as to how much the bill to run it will be.

So often in the past, Worst Street has taken a ball park figure as a safe estimate of costs.

And so often in the past it has turned out to be exactly that – a load of balls

At this stage, it might be helpful to know that biomass essentially comprises unwanted and useless wood – so if supplies ever run short, the Worst Street cabinet could be added to the furnace.

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 

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

These days, comfy, highly paid jobs for life are few and far between – so when one comes up you would think that there would be a stampede of applicants.

But not in Boston, it appears – although consultants seem to be doing well enough.

Way back in January, Boston Borough Council decided that it was time to try to drag itself into the 20^th century – yes, we know that we’re now in the 21^st – with the appointment of a Head of Service for Economic Development and Growth

For once, this didn’t appear to be another of the usual Worst Street fudges that pay lip service to big ideas but little more.

The salary was £65,000 a year for the uphill task of providing strategic, visionary and organisational leadership in all aspects of inward investment, growth and wider regeneration and economic development for the Borough.

In more detail, the job spec included …

• Developing relationships with existing businesses and forging links with new businesses.

• Engaging effectively with the Greater Lincolnshire Enterprise Partnership and …

• Increasing the council’s profile and maximise funding opportunities.

Call us simple if you like, but it crossed our mind as we read this that one or more people already working in Worst Street ought to have been doing tasks such as these for years – and to seek someone else at a salary that puts the job in the top five on the Worst Street pay scale seems to be an admission of neglect.

Closing date for the job was Monday 1st February, followed by final interviews on Thursday 25th.

Here’s what we understand has happened since.

According to the council spending returns, £5,750 was spent on advertising the post – in the week before Christmas.

What impeccable timing – loads of people will have been sure to see it.

Perhaps due to this, or perhaps not, there were no applicants, we were told.

So the recruitment company trawled through its records to see if they had anyone on their books who might be a possible candidate.

Three were found of which two were interviewed and one was deemed suitable.

But by the end of last week there had still not been an appointment – instead, we hear that the surviving candidate was brought back for a second visit.

Whilst the recruiting exercise seems to be taking its time, the recruitment agency is not hanging about though.

Their bill for Phase One of the recruitment exercise was an eye-watering £10,750!

Given that this implies a second bill waiting in the wings – plus a possible percentage commission if the job is filled it will be interesting to see what the final cost to we taxpayers is.

Footnote:

Hopefully, some better news  about jobs reached us via the WOTS channel.

Word On The Street is saying that Iceland is hoping to take over the redundant Morrisons store building on Boston Retail Park

If true it will be good news for shoppers in the neglected north end of Boston and also provide an opportunity to open the biggest bookies in town on Wide Bargate – and also making it possible never to be out of sight of the chance to place a bet.

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 

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

Romans to the rescue

for Boston’s heritage

 

Boston’s heritage has come to the town’s rescue with the discovery of an important archaeological find that can also provide a much longed-for facility in the Market Place.

Recent work has uncovered the remains of a Roman lavātōrium – and amazingly, the plumbing still works … thanks to a long lost underground spring which flows through the site.

One of the first things that struck the Romans when they arrived in Boston  was the fact that there were no toilet facilities.

The famous historian Bede recorded: “Ye Romanns whoe came to Bofton found the town in sorrie dyssaraie as local peaple wuld drink wyne and meed in ye streetes and pisse  and doo wurse wherever theye wuld making ye towne ryte stinkee”

The custom – which is still practiced in the present day – influenced the titles of many early settlements before they became the familiar place names that they are today – such as Spillspee, Peetooborough, Firspee and Candlespee along with Pood Hole.

And some historians believe the town’s name itself derives from Botstown due to the amount of fouling in the streets

Lincolnshire historian and archaeologist Sally A. Flood told Boston Eye:  “This discovery is really exciting – and it makes Boston one of the few places where we can demonstrate that the streets have been used uninterrupted as a lavatory for two millennia.

“Even better is the fact that this working Roman loo is an open air facility – because as so many people use the Market Place as a toilet anyway, hardly anyone will notice the difference.”

She said that any doubts about the purpose of the discovery were dispelled by the discovery of a carved lintel which once identified the ancient loos.

The famous writer and historian Pishey Thompson (1784-1862) who wrote “The history and antiquities of Boston, and the hundred of Skirbeck,” played a key role in maintaining the town’s traditions.

During his spell at Boston Grammar School he was several times holder of the height record in the Boston Wall Game which took place in the school lavatories each year – and the chalk mark indicating his achievement remained unwashed away by rival contenders  until the wall was eventually demolished.

Not surprisingly, he was known in those days as something other than Pishey – whilst the Wall Game went on to be adopted at Eton involving just one ball.

Below is an artist’s depiction of what the original lavātōrium looked like – and we are told that it won’t be long before it is in use once again.

It’s hoped that among the first visitors to test it out will be from France – where appropriately, Boston is twinned with LAVal, and where they are more used to these sorts of things.

Worst Street is said to be delighted by the discovery – which brings the opportunity to charge a hefty admission fee instead of a meagre 20p … on the grounds that using the facility constitutes admission to an historic monument rather than an outside loo.

We’re back again on Tuesday

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 

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston