Worst Street – or
Waste Street?
Last
week’s Boston Eye reported concerns raised by Councillor Brian Rush about the
decision by the ruling officer clique at Worst Street no longer to record what
is said at meetings.
The
Bostonian Independent Group member called the decision “a very large slap down
for democracy which seems to have been done, without reason, explanation nor
warning.”
***
A
reason did subsequently emerge when the story found its way into our local
‘newspapers.’
A
Worst Street spokesman reportedly said: the decision was due to operational and
resource issues and would be reviewed in a year’s time to see if there had been
any negative outcomes as a result.
The
spokesman added that whilst the council does not have a legal duty to record
public and elected members may do so if they wish and so “are not prejudiced in
any way. ”
***
Operational
and resource issues … Presumably this means the cost of someone simultaneously to depress the
‘play’ and ‘record’ button at the start of a meeting, and the ‘stop’ button at
the end of it.
***
Boston’s
retreat to the dark ages runs counter to the efforts by other councils to be as
open and transparent as possible – something that Worst Street claims to be but
isn’t.
Councils
across the county record meetings and some such as East Lindsey make the audio
available afterwards – whilst even more enlightened South Holland and West
Lindsey webcast selected meetings so that residents can watch them without the need to attend.
Lincolnshire
County Council streams of its full council meetings live and leaves a copy on
its website for future viewing.
***
To
make matters worse this decision to wind the clock back has resulted in a quite
considerable waste of money.
It was only in February last year that more than £26,000 was taken from the council's
capital reserves to invest in a shed-load of top of the range equipment to
record meetings.
Ironically,
these extensive… and expensive … purchases were made under the headline IT
Investment Programme – even though it seems that they are now destined for the
store cupboard whilst barely out of guarantee.
Someone
needs to tell us why, early last year it was thought necessary to invest in
more IT equipment, when a twelvemonth later someone else has decided that it wasn’t worth the candle.
***
In
common with most public authorities, Worst Street subscribes to the Seven
Principles of Public Life – drawn up 25 years ago by government committee on
Standards in Public Life chaired by Lord Nolan, and tasked with making
recommendations to improve standards of behaviour in public life.
***
They
are summarised thus:
Selflessness
– Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.
They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for
themselves, their family or their friends.
Integrity
– Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or
other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to
influence them in the performance of their official duties.
Objectivity
– In carrying out public business, including making public appointments,
awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits,
holders of public office should make choices on merit.
Accountability
– Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to
the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to
their office.
Openness
– Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the
decisions and actions they take. They should give reasons for their decisions
and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
Honesty
– Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests
relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts
arising in a way that protects the public interest.
Leadership
– Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by
leadership and example.
***
There
guidelines apply to all in the public service – officers and councillors alike – and regular readers will quickly realise how badly this sensible advice has been ignored of late.
***
In
fact, we wonder whether it is by accident or design that if one searches the internet
for information on Nolan, the link below …
Results in the following information …
***
But
it hasn’t always been like drawing teeth to get information from Boston Borough
Council.
Interestingly,
during the war years, the authority created an information committee (pictured above in the British Council documentary Country Town filmed in Boston in 1943) which held
regular public forums so that all manner of questions could be asked and
answered.
More
recently, Worst Street ran a series of ‘regular’ Ask the Cabinet sessions –
again for taxpayers to try to seek information.
But
like much of the hot air that billows out of Worst Street, it quickly ran out of steam.
Whilst
time is made available for public questions at committee meetings – the
meetings themselves are not publicised … even though there are ample outlets
for this.
No
– it seems that Boston Borough prefers operating in the shadows as much as possible – and keeping voters in the dark as well.
***
Moving
on … and we were e-mailed by council Jefe Michael Cooper after our comments
that monies from the £1million-plus Controlling Migration Fund saw huge sums
spent to tart up the Moulder Leisure Centre and contribute to an already well-heeled
project at Boston Stump.
He
told us: “This fund was set up by the Government and all of the projects had to
be fully costed and evidenced. The bid was then put to the government
department dealing with it. Many organisations were eligible and did bid in to
the fund from community groups to the stump and many more.
“Those
that were successful have been and are still drawing down the monies from the
fund. We as Boston Borough Council were lucky enough to receive the cash to be
able to improve the GMLC and some other smaller projects.
“There
have been a lot of miss conception (sic) around this fund but as you can see the
money can only be spent on what is was bid and allocated for nothing else.
“The
parameters for eligibility were quite rigid and as such only projects deemed to
be within the remit of the original concept went forward and were funded.
“Boston
Borough Council as the local government body was used as the local payment
conduit only and not as a funding administrator.”
***
Why
this wasn’t made clearer at the time is anyone’s guess – but we would be most
interested to know how many members of our European incomers have seized the
opportunity to sign up with the Moulder gym as a result of its £95,000 refit.
***
A
snapshot of the historic moment when Boston and South Holland district councils
officially adopted the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan has been appearing here there and everywhere.
Committee
members on one side of the screened area and voters graciously allowed to peer in.
No
sense of ‘them and us’ there, eh?
***
Last
week we brought you the first half of an account of the most recent Boston Town Area Committee-hee – BTAC-ky –
meeting.
Gird
your loins for more – some of which we doubt will appear in the minutes – hence
the need for a proper record of events.
When
the committee discussed application under the BTAC grant Scheme, we are told:
“Boston Stump had applied for rather a large sum of money – £20,000 to be
precise, with the largest item being
£15,000 for a schools’ festival.
“This
item caused concern with a majority of those present as the report contained
very little detail.
“The
matter was discussed at length and it was proposed that the two smaller amounts
be approved, and further information requested for the Schools Festival.
“At
this point one councillor, a well-known churchgoer, spoke out in favour of
giving the grant, speaking of how The Stump is a vital part of the community
and generally how wonderful it is.
“And
speaking as if they were part of the application, made the following statement
‘perhaps we would accept a lower amount, say £5,000.’
“Having
spoken to others present they are also under the impression the statement was
made as if they were part of the application.
“Then
another regular in the Stump congregation spoke out in favour, quite
passionately saying the full amount should be granted – at one point even
saying ‘we have plenty of money, let’s just give it to them.’
“Remarkably
neither of the two that spoke out mentioned their regular attendance at the
stump or declared an interest.
“Much
to the annoyance of the two supporters it was passed that the Stump would
receive £5,000 and further information would be requested.”
***
BTAC-hee-hee
gives away small grants as well as considering these eye-watering attacks on
our council tax.
Sensibly,
the committee has cancelled the 4th round of the 2018/19 small grant applications and the applicants must now reapply after the
May elections.
Surely,
the same thing should be done with this £20,000 bid?
***
Further
misconceptions about BTAC-ky and its money appear in a website piece published
by Lincolnshire Live – the online version of the Lincolnshire Echo and Boston
off-Target.
In
a piece headlined ‘Why do so many people use Boston's streets as a TOILET?’ and
subtitled ‘this article contains some images that people may find disgusting’
the report tells us: “Boston does have a significant issue with people going to
the toilet in public places.”
***
The
account – liberally illustrated with photos of people pissing against walls and
of turds dumped in the street (if you’ll forgive the pun) will doubtless do
little for Boston’s flagging image … and we are sure that the website feels
justifiably proud that the bold decision to include vile photographs will
make matters even worse.
Naïvely,
the report suggests that public toilet opening hours may be at the root of the
problem.
It
says that the public conveniences in the Cattle Market, Central Park and
Lincoln Lane all shut at 6pm on Monday to Saturday and 4pm on a Sunday – and
that those in Oldrids, and Boston Stump also close fairly early whilst ASDA
“some distance from the town centre” shuts at 7-30pm.
“So
if anyone is caught short after the loos close, this perhaps increases the
possibility of people going to the loo in the street,” the report suggests.
Believe
that and you’ll believe anything.
***
The
report goes on to quote Boston BiG leader Councillor Barrie Pierpoint as saying
that the authorities could do more to tackle the issue.
“The
County Council has let us down and so has the Boston Borough Council, most of
all the police.
“I’m
sick and tired of hearing about budget cuts - we need to tackle this issue.
“It’s
a disgrace. How can we advertise our town as a desirable location when we have
people drinking and doing this in the street?”
***
Despite
this, the report says that Councillor Pierpoint believes having more
representatives of official organisations on the streets is one method that
might help to reduce the problem - and that the funding is there.
“The
Boston Town Area Committee has a pot of £600,000 and you’re telling me that we
can't invest that into our town centre to get it back to a good standard?"
he said.
“We
need someone monitoring these areas where people are defecating or street
drinking, we know full well where they are, and we need to react instead of
brushing it under the carpet.” Ooh er missus.
“I
think the Boston Rangers would be a valuable addition to our streets, surely we
can use some of the BTAC pot to actually make a difference to our town.”
***
Boston
has of course played the Rangers game before – during the lamentable days of the
town’s Business ‘Improvement’ District between 2008 and 2013.
Three
Rangers cost £300,000 over the five years of the BID – £20,000 apiece.
Whilst
some small success was claimed from their presence, they were also well-known
for mooching around places such as Pescod Square for a natter with their
security staff.
***
The
other thing is that is worth mentioning is that BTAC-ky’s ‘pot’ refers to its
annual budget – which has already been spoken for.
To
reshuffle the figures allocate £60,000 a year – that’s 10% of the budget – to
an anti-poo squad would achieve nothing other than to pursue BTAC-ky’s policy
of throwing taxpayers’ money around without anything much by way of thought.
***
Finally,
we’re often critical about the slapdash
way that out so-called local ‘newspapers’ are produced these days – and
if you think that we exaggerate, here’s a recent example.
When
the Boston sub-Standard reported on the £1.8 million grant scheme to improve part
of the historic town centre, the WorstWeb account was simply copied on to the
newspaper page – but under a staff reporter by-line.
The
only difference?
Just
one of the four photos provided was reproduced – and captioned … probably by a
sub editor located in the Shetland Islands – Dolphin STREET.
So
much for centuries of history.
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