In the case of most councillors the use of the words self-importance in the same sentence is axiomatic.

***

 

We mentioned a couple of editions ago the growing tendency among senior councillors in particular to share their thoughts with us online – something that we have been urging for years.

But what we had in mind was that this would involve information about what the council is doing; the thinking behind decisions, along with explanations of the more contentious stuff.

***

Instead, what we seem to be getting is a bunch of councillors with some serious ‘I’ trouble – producing blogs and Facebook pages littered with the personal pronoun that makes them the subject rather than the instrument of delivery.

***

Quite why they see themselves as the focus rather than the reflection of events is a little baffling – but for some strange reason these people who successfully offer themselves as ‘servants’ of the electorate appear to believe that this invests them with some sort of status and importance that sets them apart from us … the hoi polloi.

***

This malaise now seems to have reached the so-called ‘top’ of the civic tree after last week’s full council meeting that endorsed a proposal to increase the special responsibility allowance paid from our council tax to the mayor.

***

Regular readers will recall that our cash-strapped council – hard up when it comes to delivering services to the voters – has already approved overall rises in allowances for councillors by a stonking 18.7% – hiking the 2017-2018 payments total from £177,991.98 in 2017-2018 to £211,259.98 in 2018-2019 … an extra £91 a day that brought the total paid in allowances annually to almost £600 a day – seven days a week, 365 days a year.

***

Those allowances were recommended by the council’s “Independent” Remuneration Panel – which has now put its oar in again by recommending a rise for the mayor with a hike that pushed the deal for councillors into the shade – from 3,366 to £5,610 … that’s an increase of 68%. 

***

The recommendation goes against the spirit of a review of the cost of the office of mayor which resulted in the loss of a chauffeur-driven car and the services of a mayor’s officer.

The decision was taken after the panel consulted last year’s chain-rattler Judith Skinner who was the first to take office under the new arrangements and will be reviewed again next year in in consultation with the current mayor Anton Dani.

***

Without a crystal ball, it would be hard to guess what he might say – although we do have a few clues from an interview reported by the Boston off-Target website Lincolnshire Live … which for a change has broken from its tradition of bringing us all the news from Wisbech, Newark and Retford and anywhere else for that matter other than Lincolnshire

***

According to the report, Mr Dani said: “It's a privilege being mayor in the town and one that I'm grateful for.

“I do all the things out of my own pocket – the mayor in Boston no longer gets chauffeured around the town and I think this should come back.

“The mayor no longer has that power that it once had.

“It's not a great payment in the first place.

“Being a mayor is a seven-day job and there will be some days where I leave the house at 6am and don't get back in until 10pm.

“The mayor is a representative of Boston and we should be given more power.

“This isn't just for me but for future mayors in Boston.

“We are supposed to represent the people and we can have no political say on what goes on in our town.

“The money isn't enough at the moment.”

According to the report, Mr Dani also wants to see the role of mayor changed …

“I want to create a revolution where the mayor is in the role for four years.

“We need to serve the public properly and the mayor should have a say as to what goes on in the town.

“It shouldn't be about chains, the mayor should be portrayed to the public as a high figure who will do things to benefit the town.”

  

***

It’s disheartening to read such sentiments.

The role of the mayor is an honour, and not a job that pays money, and is bestowed to mark seniority of ‘service’ to the town and the people.

Once, in more stable political times, that could mean a long wait before achieving office – but in recent years people have sprung like Zebedee in the Magic Roundabout from election to serving as mayor in the blink of an eye … 

Mr Dani, for example, only became a councillor 4½ years ago.

And as for having the same mayor for  a quadrennium – we think that the novelty for the voters would soon wear off and do the reputation of the role more harm than good. As for power – fate forefend that councillors of any rank should have more than they do already, as they so often prove themselves unable to wield it either sensibly or usefully.

***

And what it the point of making economies in the way that the mayoral office is run only to see them overturned a year later?

Why not give every councillor a blank cheque to make out to themselves as they please?

***

We are also reminded of a point we have made several times in the past about the ‘importance’ of the role of mayor.

If the office of mayor is as significant to the people of Boston as Worst Street claims – why doesn’t the council publish a list of engagements so that we can see the good that our first citizen is doing for us?
Especially as it appears to be a seven day a week job.

It would be one small step towards the openness and transparency that we hear bragged about so often.

***

Interestingly, coverage of the meeting reports that the mayoral pay hike – which is to be backdated to July last year – was approved by a vote of 16 for, two against, and one abstention.

This reflects the feelings of only 19 of out of our 30 ‘representatives’ – just 63%.
The same meeting also endorsed the shameful rise in the cost of collecting our garden waste bins – of 50% for the first bin from £30 to £45 and 33% for subsequent bins from £15 to £20.

We're told that there were eight apologies for absence –  more than 26%.
What a pity that our ‘representatives’  couldn't have made that extra effort for something so important – unless, of course, it was an exercise in keeping one's hands clean of controversy

***

Just a reminder about the garden waste collection rip-off.

Worst Street claims around 15,500 customers use the brown bin service – so the current £30 a bin charge generates £450,000.

The 50% price hike will bring in at least another £232,000 a year – bringing in a grand total of £680,000.

There are no figures for additional bins – which means a hidden bonus coming in against a background of minimal inflation since charges first came in four years ago ...

***

And again, it’s worth pointing out that the only form of information available to taxpayers was an opaque mention in the transformation proposals listed as “Environmental Operations – review of charging structure” … alongside a suggested income of £220,000.

A figure for charges only emerged as a proposal during a meeting of Worst Street’s Corporate and Community scrutiny committee, where it was approved in a slightly amended form – otherwise the charges would have been eye-wateringly higher.

We said at the time how odd that this should have happened – as the job of a scrutiny committee is to …. errrr … scrutinise, rather than propose policy.

***

Despite the lack of transparency and openness there was a so-called ‘consultation’ offered to members of the public.

The published results showed that only sixteen people responded – perhaps because the survey was placed online and on the council’s social media sites, with a paper copy available from the Municipal Buildings.

Whilst we know that people flock to the internet and social media in their millions, we think that Worst Street is wrong to imagine similar enthusiasm  for its own online efforts.

***

Small though the sample was, the majority spoke with one voice when they managed to work out that the cost of collecting their garden rubbish was about to go through the greenhouse roof…

Here’s a selection: “Waste prices increase will lead to more fly tipping … more cost to council to clean up … extra fees for green waste will encourage fly tipping, not everyone has access

to a trailer to go to the Council recycling centre, nor the extra cash to pay for the service …increase in number of unscrupulous white van tippers who con the elderly in paying for waste removal … seeking excessive higher charges (above the net cost of the service) will contribute to increasing fly tipping …  the brown bin was a cash cow introduction/extension … fly tipping of garden waste has increased since charges began on brown bin. It would make sense to not charge for the emptying as the cost to clean up probably would be more than the charge … more fly tipping of waste …”

***

We regard those views as pretty emphatic – but apparently, councillors do not. 
And we do wish that they would stop calling these charges ‘savings’ – they represent crude profiteering by exploiting people who in most cases have no choice but to pay.

***

When it was announced that a climate change task and finish working group was to be established along with another one to look at Boston’s night time economy, we expressed the hope that these meetings might be held in public in that way that such enquiries once were.

Sadly, this does not look as if it will be the case.

***

A report of the scrutiny meeting by Mike Gilbert – a former senior councillor and creator of the Blue Revolution Party – told us: “the climate change group chair Anne Dorrian gave her apologies for missing the meeting. **

“The Chief Executive explained that it has met and agreed its terms of reference.”

***

So here we go again, a committee with an unknown membership has met and got started – and open and transparent Boston Borough Council is staying stum.

***

Similarly, last week’s full council meeting included questions from councillors on the night – which once appeared on the public agenda before the meeting.

This is now no longer the case – even though the opportunity to publish them ahead of the meeting presents no problem.

***

It’s almost as though Worst Street wants the voters to know as little as possible about what goes on behind their doors.

***

We had to smile when we read a post by Worst Street leader Aaron Spencer as flood warnings were issued for Boston.

“I’m glad to see that this mornings [sic] high tide has past [sic] through with no major issues.

“I’ve been out since early morning with colleagues from Boston Borough Council, along with partners from the Environment Agency to ensure that our town is safe.”
After his walk on the waters he added: “I will continue to liaise closely with partners to ensure that all residents who could potentially be impacted are supported.”

***

Readers with long memories will recall the 2013 flooding and the uproar over the refusal to issue sandbags – something that Worst Street once did but then decided not to do any more.

Not only was an “executive” decision taken stop issuing sandbags, the council even sought the advice of an “a nationally-recognised flooding expert” to rubbish their use.

And to rub salt rather than sand into the wound, Worst Street declared: “For the avoidance of doubt, in a flooding incident, Boston Borough Council does not supply sandbags, neither empty nor filled, to any resident or business in Boston borough as the responsibility for safeguarding homes and businesses lies with the owner.”

***

Observers at the time noted wryly that – among the few buildings to actually have sandbags at their doors as flooding struck – were the Boston Borough Council West Street offices.

***

So, we imagine that what Councillor Spencer means when he says that all potential victims will be supported would be what happened last time had flooding occurred – help would be available in the form of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted and the flood damage had been done.

***

A reader ‘in the know’ draws our attention to a planning application in which a cabinet member plays a part to stick ‘branded’ vinyl advertising stickers on a building being converted in High Street/Bridge Street for up to a year while the work goes on.

Our informant tells us: “What’s interesting to note is that the work has already been done.

“It’s strange when the planning department has been contacting local businesses asking them to remove vinyls from windows. 

“Will this go to the planning committee as required by the policies of the Boston Borough Council or will it get ‘nodded’ through?”

Who could possibly guess?

***

Our thanks to the Boston sub-Standard for this week’s clanger which comes from the ‘newspaper’s’ website

Have no fear – we are not being advised on how to get a free dose of something nasty.

It would seem that the constraints of the templates that govern the layout of these pages cut off the line that said “home test kit.”

It just goes to show that even the staff don’t bother to read their own newspaper these days!

***

** (BiG, Skirbeck – We PROMISE to TURN UP, to REPRESENT YOU and to be HONEST and ACCOUNTABLE in the process)  

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