An official complaint has been made about a remark said to
be homophobic and allegedly made by a Boston Borough Council cabinet member and
committee chairman.
The comments were said to have taken the form of joke by Councillor
David Brown at a training meeting on 20th April, attended by
planning committee members and officers.
But it is said to have misfired with some of those present –
prompting former Mayor Councillor Brian Rush to take the matter up with a senior
officer attending the meeting.
Councillor Rush says that he was promised some sort of
action on the matter, and that although an apology was offered, he felt that it
was not enough.
In a 1,600 word letter of official complaint to the
council’s Monitoring Officer Michelle Sacks, Councillor Rush says: “The very
fact that he has been thought a suitable person to hold the office of Chair of
Planning is worrying enough in itself, but now to have been presented with a
Cabinet position” – Councillor Brown replaced Councillor Mike Brookes as
portfolio holder for environment – “is a bridge too far in my estimation and …
is extremely worrying.
“It is my belief that his promotion will certainly have
undermined the confidence of future planning applicants, but will also surely
have damaged the trust that the people of Boston Borough need to have in their
elected members.
“You will … know just how angry and disappointed I was to be
informed by you that in ‘your opinion’, this councillor’s apology, was ‘an
acceptable and adequate response to what those who were in attendance had
heard!’'
“Let me also say that I have good reason to believe that not
to be true.
“Nor in fact do I believe that such an apology would have
been thought acceptable, especially given the forum within which the ‘story’
was told.”
Later, he adds: “Given that this administration is reputed
to pride itself on subscribing to a policy of fairness and open-mindedness, I
believe that this man has undermined those policies with his unsolicited, and degrading homophobic
commentary, without the slightest regard for ‘any or all of those present’.
“It is a matter of record that all in attendance were
experienced councillors, and senior officers, you being one, whom one would
expect to behave to the highest possible standards of language and behaviour.
“Yet on this occasion Councillor Brown failed to act
correctly, without the slightest regard for fellow attendees, nor those whose
life preferences, or human persuasions, may have differed from others present.
Councillor Rush says that he is surprised that Councillor
Brown is still in post as Planning Committee chairman – adding “that once the genie is out of the
bottle we can never ever then be sure
that such jaundiced opinions are nullified, except by his removal from
councillorship.
“… can the action taken, and the apology made, completely
erase the mental opinions he so clearly harbours, and how can we or the public,
ever now have any confidence in the fairness of judgement he is expected to
project?
He concludes: “Councillors in my opinion should never mock
or criticise other members of society whose life differences are a matter of
personal choice, some of which may indicate sexual preferences of their own,
which may be very different from one’s own; that does not give anyone the right
to scoff or criticise such differences
in a public arena.”
“ … Given the insensitive and offensive nature of the
comments made by him, I believe this renders him completely unsuitable for
membership of the planning committee but also and indeed, any level of public
scrutiny.
“This embarrassingly offensive, so-called ‘funny’ story,
begs us all to ask, what kind of leader
would ever have allowed any member to express such homophobic, and offensive
opinions within an arena where the ‘life
standards’ of others, can and are, at times,
completely different.
“No amount of training could ever eradicate such a
discriminatory opinion.”
***
We asked Councillor Brown for a reply – which was equally
robust.
He told Boston Eye:
“I will confirm a complaint about a remark I made in a private training session
where no member of the public was present has been made by Brian Rush.
“Simon Rowberry – the former Interim Development Manager of
planning – was talking about the Green Party and the attitude some Green
councillors take to planning issues.
“He followed ‘There are a lot of Greens in Brighton.’
“I quipped ‘Mmm – there are a lot of Gays in Brighton.’
That's it – exactly what I said. Anyone who twists this in any way or
exaggerates is telling you a lie and I will swear on Oath that's exactly what I
said.
“During the lunch break Michelle Sacks asked for a quiet
word and suggested I might have offended someone in the room – perhaps they had
a gay son and were experiencing trauma.
“On my return to the meeting I addressed those present; I
apologised and said I wished to withdraw the remark as I am no bigot and
certainly wished no offence.
“Let me tell you something about myself. I'm one of six kids
– my father died when I was nine. My loving mother raised us kids to accept
people for who they are. We have always been a family that prides itself on
acceptance to all people no matter what their colour, creed, religion or sexual
persuasion …”
“ … I was especially offended when Brian Rush said on camera
THEY (the councillors) WILL NOT MEET THESE PEOPLE (the Muslim community.*)
That’s an offensive outrageous remark to make.
“From 1985 to 1993 I ran my own giftware manufacturing business
and came in to contact with many Gays – either running a gift shop or being a
sculptor/model making. They are very talented people; many of them have
remained close, personal friends since.
“Recently I became aware of a remark at another meeting. I
asked the gentleman – I'll call him Fred – ‘Is it true you asked the Mayor for
the possibility of a Gay pride Carnival to take place in the Town’?
“He replied ‘It was mentioned in the meeting within the
events committee and his reply was something like ‘Such an event and the people
it attracts would not be welcome’
“Who's the real bigot?
“The screenshot of the message was shown to Michelle Sacks
together with the name of the correspondent. I shall further pursue my
complaint if Brian wishes to play tit for tat.
“It seems to me Brian is out for revenge.
“Is that the behaviour of a councillor? Surely the council
chamber is where one scores a victory.
“As for the Extraordinary Meeting calling for his
resignation, my speech was deliberately kept neutral – after all it was me who
"seconded" him in the first place. I started with the words ‘Damned
if we do, damned if we don't.’
“You know full well that if we had brushed it under the
carpet (and that would have been my choice) we would have been vilified just
the same but then, I can't turn the clock back.”
*This comment was made in February after a
motion was passed at an Extraordinary meeting of the council, calling for the
resignation of Councillor Rush over certain remarks alleged to have been made
on Facebook.
***
We e-mailed the borough’s Monitoring Officer to ask what the
procedure was following a complaint, but the question apparently went
unmonitored – as we are sure that it was not deliberately ignored.
***
Another interesting sidebar along the road to openness and
transparency was that one of our e-mails to Councillor Brown was blocked by
Boston Borough Council.
We’re sure that councillors of all political persuasions
will be pleased that apparently Worst Street determines what they should or
should not read, and manages their mail accordingly.
***
No sooner had the ink dried on last week’s blog in which we
called into question Boston Borough Council’s reliance on the internet than –
abracadabra! – up sprang another Worst Street website … to encourage economic
growth in Boston borough.
 |
| click to enlarge photo |
According to WorstWeb the site, which has the slogan THINK BOSTON think business “puts the
borough on the economic map,” gives a host of great reasons for businesses and
their workforce to want to settle here and is updated with social media posts
about businesses and business opportunities
Frankly, we have to say that we have seen better.
A lot of what appear to be links turn out to be no such thing
– and the Boston net has been cast wide to include embrace, Holbeach and, we
think, Sleaford.
Newcomers to Boston, may well be lured by the promise of
“readily available and reasonably priced housing” – but may find the promise of
“good connectivity by road and rail” slightly more elusive.
The bottom line is that the website is little more than a
collection of links to organisations that do things.
There is a section entitled “get in touch” which includes a
“contact form” asking for name, e-mail
address, ‘phone number and a message.
Who receives that it anyone’s guess, and the provision of a
name would be a good starting point – a
personal touch that might help things along in these competitive times.
***
The feeling that any content will do so long as the pages
look busy is inescapable.
A section on “attractions” includes such entries as the
Fenside Community Centre, Boston Aerodrome, Boston and County Club, the Len
Medlock Voluntary Centre and the railway station.
And in some cases, there is scant attention to detail –
witness the entry below … ironically for an attraction owned by borough council
leader Michael Cooper.
Think Boston also
has its own Twitter page – apparently
created some months ago – which includes many entries which are completely
irrelevant to Boston and to thinking about it.
Worse than that, the non-local links are mostly tales of
industrial doom and gloom – such as “European fruit pickers shun Britain/
Poundworld future in the balance after buyer pulls out/Rate rise chances dim as
inflation falls/M&S to close 100 stores by 2022/Tesco Direct closure puts
500 jobs at risk.”
But never mind – at least the feed has followers – all five
of them when last we looked.
They comprised Clive Gibbon, the Economic Development
Manager at Boston Borough Council, Boston
Eye., BBC Radio Lincolnshire, a local food firm and a local PR firm.
Look on the bright side – things can only get better.
They can’t get any worse!
***
Just over two years ago, Worst Street published its “working
document” for balancing the budget by 2020 to find spending reductions of £2.2
million including “a staggered downsizing of staff reflecting the changing size
and shape of the council through other transformation projects.”
We were told: “The council has done its best to prepare
itself for the difficult times ahead.
“It already has the
leanest senior management team of any council in the county, possibly the
country - just two.
“The chief executive has
taken on the duties of the deputy chief executive and the finance director
shares his time with a neighbouring authority.
“Other staff work in part for Boston Borough Council and in
part for neighbouring councils, such as East Lindsey District Council and South
Holland District Council. Savings have also been made by sharing services, such
as some refuse collecting duties.”
***
So it came as something of a surprise to learn of changes to
the structure which appear to be the opposite of those declared in 2016, and
which have slipped under the radar without any kind of announcement.
 |
| click to enlarge photo |
The most recent update – posted on WorstWeb less than a month ago – shows no fewer than seven members.
Not only that, but we have reacquired a Deputy Chief Executive role bolted on to the existing
duties of the borough’s Corporate
Director and Monitoring Officer – a
promotion that surely must be accompanied by a decent pay rise.
So what about the shared duties between Boston and East
Lindsey?
For some years, the role of Section 151 officer – a
council’s finance chief – has been held by Robert Barlow and shared between the
two authorities.
But there seem to have been changed here as well.
On the East Lindsey website, Mr Barlow repeatedly appears
not only as the Section 151 officer – but on at least one list as a permanent
employee at East Lindsey, working four days a week as the Deputy Chief
Executive on a salary between £85 -£90,000 a year.
Confused?
So is at least one councillor, who told Boston Eye: “He definitely only recently told me, he was taking
retirement for health reasons”
Whilst it always sounds a little pompous to say that we pay
the bill for councillors and for officers it is nonetheless true – an a little
more transparency on who gets our money and for what would be most welcome.
***
We also note that Worst Street has clambered on to the
bandwagon that aggrandises preciously easy-to-understand job descriptions.
Until now, Phil Perry, the officer in charge of the town
centre, leisure, events and culture has uncomplicatedly been known as “Head of
Town Centre, Leisure, Events and Culture” – a description that clearly does
what it says on the packet.
Simples.
Now, the council appears to have adopted the practice known
as jobbledygook – and Mr Perry has
become the Head of Place and Space.
We don’t know who dreamt up that bunch of bollocks – but
feel that they must have much in common with the creators of the jobs in the
list below of fancy pants job titles … drawn up by the Plain English Foundation …
***
There are three weeks to go before yet another “pubic
consultation” draws to a close – this one seeking our views on how Lincolnshire
disposes of its rubbish. Our observations of these so-called soundings of taxpayer
opinion in the past are that whichever council is asking the questions, the
result is usually the one they wanted in the first place.
***
Worryingly, the County Council consultation comes at a time
when a policy paper by the Local Authority Recycling Advisory Committee has
come up with a proposal that would see taxpayers charged for the weight of the general waste they put out.
It would mean installing electronic chips in tens of
millions of bins so that collection lorries can recognise them.
Currently bin collection costs fall under council tax.
LARAC, which speaks for senior council waste officers, said
the ‘pay as you throw’ charges could be kept down if manufacturers and
supermarkets were forced to pay much more to fund council rubbish services.
LARAC argued the charging regime would boost recycling as
people would make sure plastic, paper, glass and food are put in household
recycling bins, which would not carry a charge, rather than general waste bins.
The government is consulting on reforms to how the UK pays
for the collection, handling and recycling of waste, and the LARAC policy
document says rubbish collection should be split
away from council tax.
It says: “A fundamental shift in funding is needed.
“It is time to look at how we decouple provision of waste services from being considered ‘what
council tax pays for’ and move it to something that producers and users are
responsible for.’
We know from past experience that Worst Street loves the
idea of decoupling services that were
previously provided from the council tax and feel sure that Clownty Hall would
be onside for that as well.
Just be aware … at the moment waste removal is a statutory
requirement – but watch out for moves to change all that.
The main argument against the sort of thing is that if –
like most households – taxpayers dispose of their waste correctly they will
simply end up paying extra for a service that was previously included in their
council tax; another example of less for
more that is becoming increasingly widespread.
***
Finally we’re on a two week break from this edition for
reasons of Ho-Ho … hospitals and holidays.
Look out for the next edition on Monday 2nd July.
But don’t forget – we’re still available on e-mail and via
Twitter, and if anything urgent needs reporting we’ll make sure we cover it.
You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com
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
