Exactly six months before Christmas Day, the leaders of Boston Borough council last night got an early present when their plan to form an “alliance" with East Lindsey District Council squeaked through by a single vote.

***

It provided another excruciating webcast for those of us with time on our hands and showed just how far Worst Street has to go before it can present itself as a half-way decent council.

***

To the listener, the audio was a blend of that old children’s’ favourite Sparky’s Magic Piano, with councillors taking turns to sound like the enchanted instrument, and an audition for soundalikes to reprise the catchphrase of the well-known thirties’ comedian Sandy Powell – can you hear me, mother?

***

For the viewer, it seemed as if a cleaner at that great comedy film company Ealing Studios had swept up the out-takes from the editing room floor and randomly spliced them together to produce a spoof of pictures in the style of the Blair Witch Project.

***

To spare you a lot of pain, we’ll keep this short and sweet – though the event itself was long and sour … as have been other previous meetings.

***

It was never going to end in anything but tears for the opposing councillors, who – despite repeatedly pulling myxomatotic rabbits from their battered top hat – again failed to deliver the magic that they needed on the night.

***

Of the more vocal members, Councillor Anne Dorrian  as usual tried her best to pour sand into the  fuel tank of the leadership limousine with an imaginative final amendment which suggested that the present Boston Chief Executive stayed on pro tem to work alongside the man named to take over his job from 1^st July – something that we are sure would have led to many happy hours of chat at the water cooler.

***

The Austins were in there too – reprising their triple act first seen at the last meeting when the addition of Councillor Viven Edge caused so much consternation.

This time there were no masks – instead what Councillor Alison Austin referred to as a game of “musical chairs” as the trio swapped seats to appear in front of the camera as their turn was called. It helped that Councillor Edge’s trademark – wearing a hat at all times – made recognition that much easier.

***

Interestingly, just one councillor was absent – and what a difference that made. Former leader Aaron Spencer – the man who went from being In Our Face to In Disgrace completed the hattrick by being Lost In Space last night.

***

At the last meeting (the one that saved his bacon as he was on the brink of being ‘sacked’ for not attending council for six months) he supported an amendment to delay the alliance for even longer than that so councillors could do what they do best – talk about it a lot.

That – coupled with an unhelpful abstention – saw the motion succeed … after which the proposed alliance plan was withdrawn, to be tweaked and re-presented to last night’s “extraordinary” meeting in what narrowly proved to be an acceptable form.

This creates a scrutiny “framework” to let Worst Street “shadow” the evolution of the joint officer corps, and gives the council .an option to end the alliance after 12 months by giving three months’ notice on 1st April next year if they don’t like it.

***

There was also the addition of a “bribe” of free parking until Christmas if the deal went through – which attracted surprisingly little comment last night.

***

At the end of the night – made longer by a comfort break for some of the more delicate bladders among the older members of the council, no doubt – the voting nudged itself just far enough for the leadership to claim victory … by the sliver of one vote.

***

Had Councillor Spencer been there and voted as he did last time the result would have been a draw – and there is no doubt that a casting mayoral vote would have sent things the way the leaders wanted, although probably not what they would have liked, as that would have been an even more hollow victory.

***

When push came to shove, the Tory drones who make up the majority toad the party line – and yes, we do know that that is not the correct spelling.

***

So – a win in extra time – but definitely no Man of the Match award ... though Councillor Dorrian came pretty close.

***

The opposition made many of the right noises and had some good arguments. But by and large they struggled to communicate the passion needed to fire the emotions of those who might have been persuaded to waver and defy their Tory masters.

***

The architect of this project would appear to be deputy leader Nigel Welton who – despite being handicapped in his efforts by his boss – stuck to his guns throughout … although we would have rather heard fewer threats.

***

Whilst we are broadly in favour of an alliance between Worst Street and another council – or perhaps even two – this has not been a great night at Worst Street.

***

The ruling group has limped away with a paper victory; a lame duck vote – one that must leave East Lindsey deeply concerned at how things will go forward, and make any other councils that might be asked to consider an alliance in the future think long and hard about whether it would be worth it.

We sense a rocky road ahead, as we believe that given the myriad concerns expressed by the opposition, they will be looking for ways to torpedo the alliance rather than see it sail proudly into port.

***

And whilst it has been interesting to watch the debates on our home computers, we wonder whether this will continue now that lockdown is drawing to a close.

It should do.

Meetings are not easy to attend for a lot of interested observers of local democracy – and the minutes that emerge weeks later reflect nothing of what has really happened.

Especially, they do not indicate what our councillors are really like – something that may well come back to bite them at the ballot box at the next local election.

***

For that reason alone, we suspect that our representatives will be more than happy to disappear back down their respective rabbit holes where scarcely anything that they say is seen and heard by the people who elected them.

It’s a move that should not be allowed.

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

Worst Street’s ruling group are nothing if not imaginative when it comes to trying to get their own way with the plan for a strategic alliance with East Lindsey District Council.

***

After seeing their bid to get the deal signed, sealed and delivered  by 1^st  July brought to the brink of delay, they backed down and withdrew the motion – then did some behind the scenes wheeling and dealing and have now amended the proposal to try to make it palatable to non-Tory members.

The move is on the agenda at an extraordinary meeting called for Thursday, which will be broadcast over the internet – and if you want to watch it live, you can  register to do so by clicking here 

***

To cut a long story short – and we need to, because the full council meeting that debated the issue on 10^th June lasted 4 hours, 43 minutes and 34 seconds – the new Cunning Plan is designed to win over some doubters.

***

In a nutshell, an amendment creates a scrutiny “framework” to let Worst Street “shadow” the evolution of the joint officer corps, and gives the council .an option to end the alliance after 12 months by giving three months’ notice on 1^st April next year … or nine months after the date the alliance becomes operative, whichever is the latter.

***

Quite how that will placate the majority of councillors who forced through a motion to delay the merger for a minimum of six months to allow for detailed scrutiny and discuss of the plan is anyone’s guess.

***

Unless you factor in some less than subtle pressure which we think borders on blackmail.

***

In recent days the issue of free parking has come to the fore – with our neighbours in South Holland, East Lindsey and South Kesteven all extending free parking for the time being to speed recovery in their town centres.

***

Contrast that with Boston, when – as soon as a date for shops to reopen was announced – we heard town centre portfolio holder Chelcei [sic] Sharman trumpet: “We have managed to hold car park charges off as long as we can to help residents and local businesses, but as businesses start to reopen we feel it is the right time to reintroduce normal parking fees.”

Come again?

What that says to us is that Worst Street didn’t bother to charge for parking when the shops were shut and scarcely anyone went into town – but once business resumed, saw the chance to shoot fish in a barrel by turning the parking meters back on.

***

That little piece of transparent greed was exposed for what it was once other districts kept their parking free.

Cue Cunning Plan II.

***

In a letter dated 19^th June, Boston’s deputy leader Nigel Welton wrote to MP Matt Warman in response to his open letter to all councillors urging them to back the Manby alliance.

And tucked between the lines came the opportunity to play the parking card for all it was worth …

 

***

Interpretations may vary – but our view is that it is a move to compromise opposition to the motion before Thursday’s meeting.

Put simply it says: “Vote for the deal and we’ll give you free parking. Block it for six months as you voted last time and you’ll get the blame.”

***

If nothing else, it’s certainly open and transparent!

***

Your guess is as good as ours when it comes to wondering quite how opposition councillors will handle this little ‘gotcha’.

If they stick to their guns over wanting fuller scrutiny, they will assuredly find themselves taking the fall for denying drivers who use the town centre an extension of free parking.

***

Already, the word is that opposition has been compromised by the offer to allow members to “shadow” – i.e. tinker with – the officer structure, and provide a ‘get out of jail free’ card if they don’t like the ways things are going. Frankly, we doubt that much will happen with these concessions unless something truly major is taken against.

***

So, are our “leaders” quietly confident about getting their own way on Thursday?

Some say they are – but we remain unconvinced that things will yet go as smoothly as they would like.

***

Whilst we support the idea of an alliance with another authority as a means of both securing and enhancing Boston’s future, we cannot go along with the ham-fisted and transparently obvious moves by the leadership to get its own way, regardless.

The more it seems to seek to suppress scrutiny and debate, the more convinced will people become that something is going on that the powers that bain’t don’t want us to know about.

***

Thursday 25^th – Just in …

On the day of the meeting, we have received an e-mail from our long-standing contributor ‘Scanner’ – someone who is ‘in the know’ when it comes to Boston Borough Council, and who writes:

“I see that the proposed amalgamation of East Lindsey District Council and Boston borough Council -- at first claimed by our Council Leader not to be a merger but just an alliance– has not been decided, after a series of almost farcical meetings that stalled the campaign. There are several questions that should be answered.

“Which council minute gave our staff permission to spend 18 months carrying out the investigations that led to this report?  How many staff were involved, and how much time did they spend, at what cost and what expenses did they incur?  Also, did other duties suffer because of this?  If this did not affect their normal duties, are they surplus to our requirements (see below)?  If no full council permission was forthcoming at the time, surely this exercise was illegal?

“What was the breakdown of the saving?  I’m sure Councillor Skinner claimed that most of the staff at the sharp end were safe – so this £1.5 million each year (originally £1.8 million) is be saved only by cutting staff and their on-costs at officer level.

“It is proposed that our BBC Chief Executive is replaced   by East Lindsey’s Chief Executive.   I have no idea of his capabilities but I would respect him more if he had to defend his appointment against other candidates.

“Mr Drury is not on £1.5 million p.a., so this cannot be the only saving.  Let’s suppose there are, say, twenty officers that cost £150,000 pa, each. Sacking ten would save that sum. Logically, therefore, whatever the number of officers dismissed, those remaining must do the new work as well as what they were already doing. If this is the case they must, at present, be under-used. Why do both councils employ so many? It doesn’t need a merger to sort that problem out!

“We have not been advised where that the merged base will finally be. I expect it will be in East Lindsey and we will have a small office in West Street as a consolation. How many councillors will represent us, have even the councillors been told? We must be in a minority given the respective sizes of the areas. Even in these days of better communication, there’s nothing like face to face confrontation and I don’t think East Manby’s very easy to reach from Boston.  Note. too, that Lincolnshire County Council now has no office in Boston.

“Finally – the most important question of all to our councillors …what has happened to transparency and public consultation?” The investigations began over 18 months ago – behind closed doors. The decision was admitted publicly in the newspapers only two weeks before it was to be made. Was this deliberate?  It is only the result of indecision by some councillors that the matter was not a fait accompli by now. I see that some residents in East Lindsey have, belatedly woken up to this proposal and are voicing their discontent.

“Surely, the public are entitled to have their say on changes that will have such an important effect on their lives? We have a Conservative government preaching local accountability and transparency. But it seems that local Conservatives have tried to push through important decisions without telling the public (and most councillors?) the detailed plans – only dangling the lure of saving £15 million (or is it £18million?). Aren’t we intelligent enough? Deliberately giving no time for opposition to their plans?

“Lincolnshire County Council may be on the side-lines, waiting to gobble up the whole of the county. (Out goes LOCAL and transparent government.  In comes ‘Big is Beautiful’). That’s no excuse for local turkeys to vote for Christmas.

“At least us mere morons should have a vote on the County Council’s and the Government’s   ideas for local participation and democracy, but will we?”  

 SCANNER

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 

Protests over the Boston plan for  a strategic alliiance with East Lindsey District Council have now emerged in that authority – in an open letter to residents from SUDS ... the Skegness Urban District Society.

***

Their group leader, Councillor Danny Brookes, says in an e-mail to other group leaders: “The Suds group feel that this is an underhanded way of dealing with this situation and changing the deal but not changing the deal is clearly a disservice to all our councillors and residents, as we did not vote to give Boston a get-out clause and this would have definitely changed the way we voted.

“This deal needs to be fair and above board. Doing this will definitely put us on guard for any future dealing this council feels it wants to push through”.

***

The letter doesn’t mince its words – demanding that the proposed merger between Boston and Manby is brought back to the council so that councillors and residents are not feeling “conned and lied to”.

***

The full letter says …

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

Even though they’re probably punch drunk from their last meeting, Worst Street councillors are rolling up their sleeves for a second round of verbal fisticuffs in a second attempt to drag the proposed alliance with East Lindsey District Council off the ropes and back into the ring.

***

Without going into all the dismal details, the council meeting of 10^th June ended after 4¾ hours with the plan being withdrawn after opponents supported a move that would have seen it delayed for a minimum of six months for everyone to have a good old natter about it.

***

Withdrawing the proposal spared it from being automatically shelved for at six months under the rules.

The difference may seem trivial – as many things about Worst Street are these days – but there was always the chance that if resubmitted after the delay, another six-month embargo could have been imposed.

***

Now, Worst Street leaders are seeking a compromise that they presumably believe will see the deal go through.

In a second extraordinary meeting this year – which tends to redefine the meaning of the word extraordinary more than a little – two tweaks have been made.

***

The meeting on Thursday 25^th will be told: “Consultation with councillors from outside the administration indicated that the proposal could be made acceptable by incorporating an amendment … which would provide this council (but not ELDC) with the option of ending the alliance after 12 months and by devising a scrutiny process that runs alongside the implementation of the arrangement to inform any such decision.”

***

So, some wheeling and dealing by the leadership has seem some opponents change their view.

Who are these people?

Who knows – but a look at how the voting differs from the last meeting will give some clues.

***

The whole thing balanced on a knife edge last time – or actually, a Viven Edge as regular readers will recall.

***

But given the fickleness shown last time, who can say whether the Tory leadership move will be enough?

Time will tell.

***

Of greater concern is the fact that something that a couple of weeks ago was declared crucial to the long-term survival of Boston as a council and critical for the good of the taxpayers, has now become a declaration that “Well, we’ll nose around it for a few months and if we don’t like the smell we’ll throw it out of the window.”

***

Presumably, the confidence among our so-called ‘leaders’ is such that they believe that these first few months will bring about a Damascene conversion for the waverers and that we will all live happily ever after.

***

If they’re wrong, the cost to the taxpayers will be immense – but that’s never been of great concern in the past so why start bothering now?

***

Later this morning, Boston and Skegness MP Matt Warman added his threepenn'orth to the debate in an open letter to Worst Street.

Here's what he had to say ...

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

The virtual hands in the air at last night’s full meeting of Boston Borough Council were not waving – they were drowning.

***

After months of discussion and recent short-term attempts at persuasion, councillors spent hours debating the proposed merger with East Lindsey District Council – which had simultaneously been debating the same proposal and approved it by 46 votes for, two against, four abstentions and with three councillors absent.

***

But Boston – as is so often the case – delivered its customary turgid performance before collapsing at the final hurdle.

***

Whilst it seemed that quite a few favoured an alliance, the issue in Boston was the timing.

The proposal called for it to take effect on 20^th July – in just over five weeks’ time, when our current chief executive Phil Drury would be paid off and other senior Boston officers would assume roles within a merged council.

***

But an amendment before last night’s meeting called for things to be delayed for at least six months so that everyone could have a good old natter about it first.

***

What followed was as masterclass in how not to hold a meeting – especially when the taxpayers were able to follow the whole thing live, and if they missed it watch it later on YouTube.

***

To cut a long story short – the vote on the amendment tied 14:14 after it proved impossible to obtain a response from Councillor Viven Edge.

Mayor Anton Dani then cast his deciding vote against the amendment, which meat that the debate defaulted to whether or not to vote for the proposal.

***

Cue uproar.

***

Demands to have another crack at contacting Councillor Edge to get her vote were denied, because the mayor’s casting vote had closed the matter, so councillors rambled and haggled over other ideas – eventually deciding to amend the defeated amendment by changing the talk time from six to seven months … which made it err, a new amendment.

Are you following it so far ...?

***

Amid all this came the disclosure by a face-masked Councillor Alison Austin, that an equally masked Councillor Edge was with her – a claim confirmed by twirling her computer to present the ‘absent’ councillor on-screen.

Quite what we make of this in these days of Covid-19 is for others to decide.

***

So, the amended amendment was put to the vote – but not before a warning from deputy leader Councillor Nigel Welton, that approval would kill the proposed alliance “dead in the water” and that a six-month delay would render it null and void.

***

Well, seven months, actually – but if all of the wasn’t bizarre enough for you, and final twist was yet to come.

***

The amended amendment went through – and no sooner had the vote been declared than Councillor Welton proposed that the original motion – the one for the strategic alliance, remember (we’ll be asking questions afterwards) be withdrawn.

***

That was approved – and so hours of debate by the cabinet, the corporate and community scrutiny committee, the chief officer employment panel as well as last night’s dog-hanging – not to mention months of time talking between the two councils was just so much waste of time.

***

It’s the second time Boston has been down this route – the first was more than a decade ago when it pulled out of a three-way merger with South Holland and East Lindsey at the eleventh hour.

***

Then, things just went on much as before – although the two councils that combined back-office services declared the move to be beneficial.

***

Certainly, there now seems little chance that Boston will ever be considered as a future partner by anyone.

As we have often said, it is one of the smallest local authorities in the country, which makes it expensive to run – and which puts it at risk when economies are being considered higher up the chain.

***

Boston’s track record as a council is not impressive, either – and despite all the talk of its status and heritage by councillors last night, we think that it won’t be that long before the writing is on the wall for the borough.

***

Despite the dissatisfaction over the timescale for the alliance, if you are drowning, you don’t ask a would-be rescuer to wait six months before handing you a lifeline.

***

In sporting terms, last night’s meeting relegated Boston to somewhere near the bottom of the Also-Ran Local Council League – with no hope of a play-off in sight to spare them from disaster.

***

East Lindsey – quick off the mark as usual – published its reaction to the Boston debacle this morning.

***

“The proposed Strategic Alliance - a plan that would have saved Boston Borough Council and East Lindsey District Council £15.4m over the next 10 years through a shared workforce - will not be progressed at this time.

“Whilst East Lindsey District Council strongly supported the proposal when it met last night, Boston Borough Council withdrew the item from its agenda after a number of hours of debate.

“The Leader of East Lindsey District Council, Councillor Craig Leyland, said: "It is disappointing that Boston Borough Council didn't agree to enter into a strategic alliance. East Lindsey District Council is a strong, stable and successful organisation and we will continue to work hard to improve services to our communities, whilst continuing to explore further partnership working opportunities that add value to what we do."

 ***

And an East Lindsey councillor e-mailed us to say: “Well, was I watching Billy Smart’s Circus or Boston Borough Council?

“What a sham. Should the officer at least have rung Councillor Edge who went off line. This would have stopped a casting vote.

“As one councillor suggested, contact should have been made with her.

“In fact, she had made an attempt to vote and indeed had gone to another councillor’s house to vote.

“I must cancel my Netflix subscription and pay to watch Boston Borough Council instead”.

***

Whither now?

We suspect that all that’s left is for Boston taxpayers to grin and bear it whilst our hard-earned cash is spent on redundancy payments and the like.

***

Finally, we cannot end without commenting on the overall quality of the meeting.

Despite almost fifteen years of reporting on the to-ings and fro-ings at Worst Street this is the first chance we have had to see our “representatives” in action.

And what a shower, as the late Terry-Thomas would say.

Some of them were barely articulate, while others – some of them long enough in service to know better – failed to grasp how the meeting should be run.

***

It was overall an unedifying experience which left us appalled by what we saw, and sapped what little faith that might have remained in our representatives still further.

Extra:  2pm

The decision not to go ahead has annoyed Boston and Skegness MP Matt Warman, who tweeted: “It’s a profoundly short-sighted decision that risks making the council unsustainable,

“I hope they will reconsider it as soon as possible.

“Taxpayers deserve efficiency above partisan politics.”

***

Meanwhile, sources in East Lindsey have expressed dismay over the Boston meeting.

Not only are people unhappy with the outcome, one member called the decision to try to intervene in the role of the proposed joint chief officer “a disgrace” whilst another comment said that Boston residents deserved better from their councillors.

***

However, it is felt at all might not be lost.

Something opponents of the alliance failed to take on board was that as the motion to adopt it was not defeated, it can be brought back to the table quite quickly.

Had it been defeated, the rules say that it could not have been raised again for six months.

But as opponents didn’t push a vote, it’s thought that we could see it back on the agenda sooner rather than later.

***

Again, observers at Manby believe that opponents in Boston completely ignored concerns for the future and hope that they may still come to their senses … as they believe that joining forces would create a line in the sand where future attempts at devolution are concerned.

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

Tomorrow’s full meeting of Boston Borough Council has just four items on the agenda – and in a break with tradition is meeting on a Wednesday rather than a Monday night.

***

Conspiracy theorists might say that this is because that’s the same night that East Lindsey District Council usually meets – and that Worst Street is already showing the shape of things to come by bending the knee to Manby’s preferred meeting date.

Well, if they weren’t before, they probably will now.

***

Anyway, East Lindsey kicks off at 6-15pm and Boston 15 minutes later, and by the end of the evening both will have voted on the proposal to merge their services.

***

 Before Boston bites the bullet, there are a couple of other interesting items ahead of the top of the bill.

***

The first is a recommendation to extend the current mayor’s term of office by a year – and the other a bid to spare councillors from being sacked if they don’t attend a meeting every six months

***

The reason for the changes is given as the Covid-19 outbreak – and whilst the mayoral move makes some sense, the let-off for non-attendance doesn’t.

***

Certainly, it wouldn’t be fair to appoint a mayor for the current year, as the role will be seriously hampered by the pandemic restrictions, and there wouldn’t be much pleasure in holding the honour if all you can do is sit and rattle your chains.

***

And for the incumbent, – Anton Dani – a second year in office is just what the doctor ordered … as he was quoted last year as saying the first citizen didn’t get paid enough, should get his chauffeur-driven limo back and serve a four-year term rather than just one.

He was reported as saying: ….” The mayor should be portrayed to the public as a high figure who will do things to benefit the town.”

***

As we said, we can see the sense in this rule change – but not in the proposal to extend the non-attendance rule by three months.

***

The Local Government Act 1972 says that “If a member of a local authority fails, throughout a period of six consecutive months from the date of their last attendance, to attend any meeting … they will, unless the failure was due to some good reason approved by the authority before the expiry of that period, cease to be a member of the authority.”

***

The rule is seldom implemented – in Boston the last time was in 2013, when English Democrat councillor Elliott Fountain was removed from his Fenside seat and a by-election called.

***

And the coronavirus pandemic actually makes it easier to attend meetings in some ways.

The rules cover a councillor’s presence at any council committee or sub-committee or advisory committee, as well as attendance at a meeting of an outside body to which they were appointed – and attendance at virtual meetings during the pandemic is also acceptable.

***

Worst Street seems to have spent longer than other Lincolnshire districts in hibernation but is now stumbling along with its customary cack-handedness and conducting meetings online.

This particular full council meeting is obviously one that can and should be attended by all – especially, as there isn’t any need to leave the house to do so.

***

Even then – and despite a meeting hiatus – most councillors have a comfortable time margin before the six-month rule applies.

The largest group of laggards attended  their last meeting in January – which gives them a safety net until July – and attendance this week would re-stamp their passport until December, when it’s hoped that things will be much nearer normal.

***

As far as we can tell, just one councillor is at risk under the current law – former leader Aaron Spencer  ... whose online record shows that he last attended a meeting on 16^th December 2019 … so if for some reason he failed to turn up he would due for the chop next week unless the rules are bent for no really good reason

***

So, ‘turning up’ up’ is no big deal at the moment.

And all councillors should be there in any case – with the much discussed and highly contentious merger with East Lindsey on the agenda which, if approved, comes into force on 1^st July – just 40 days away

***

All councillors have taxpayer-funded iPad tablets which allow them to access remote webinar meetings. All they have to do is log in – there’s no need to speak, although a vote would be nice.

***

So, given the ease of participation and importance of the agenda, why change the law for a few months to accommodate anyone who might simply not be bothered to join the meeting?

Their only possible reason would be to avoid either opposing or abstaining on the merger issue – and anyone too chicken to nail their colours to the mast on something this important to the future of Boston should be considering their fitness to be a councillor in the first place.

***.

As it is, the likely marriage of the two districts could hit a stumbling block at the steps of the altar.

***

Anyone who has married in church recalls that heart-stilling moment when the priest declared: “If any person here knows of any just cause or impediment why these two should not be joined together in holy matrimony, let them speak now or forever hold their peace.”

***

Well, be prepared – because that might just happen

***

A recent addition to the documents on the agenda on Wednesday night are the minutes of the Chief Officer Employment Panel (COEP) held on 20^th May.

Although this was before the cabinet meeting that approved the merger on 27^th May it did not appear with the additional documents – nor at last week’s corporate and community scrutiny committee (CAC) … which voted to delay any decision for at least six months’ jaw-jaw.

***

If you don’t already know, the merger headline is that East Lindsey’s Chief Executive Rob Barlow would run both districts, with Boston’s Phil Drury – who has worked at Worst Street since he was in short pants – step aside … presumably with a handsome farewell settlement.

Mr Drury began his career with the council in 1983 as a youth trainee in the housing department. He left briefly, returning to the housing team and from 1992 held various senior management positions, becoming director in 2006 and becoming deputy chief executive around the same time.

***

The panel members – Councillors Richard Austin, Peter Bedford, Michael Cooper, Anne Dorrian, Paul Goodale, Martin Griggs and Paul Skinner “reached a consensus that the proposal in the report was not the preferred option.”

***

They went on: “The agreement for creating a strategic alliance should be considered in the first instance, involving scrutiny and public consultation, and then, if agreed, a national recruitment campaign undertaken to appoint a Chief Executive with the appropriate skills, knowledge and experience to lead a joint authority.

“Whilst some members knew Mr. Barlow, others did not and the view was expressed that it was difficult to make such an important decision without having all the relevant information on which to base it. A meeting between the Panel and Mr. Barlow or having sight of his CV would have been helpful.”

***

The panel recommended tonight’s full council meeting of the full council not to progress Mr Barlow’s appointment as joint chief executive, nor the proposed arrangements to share two of Boston’s statutory officers with East Lindsey.

***

As well as that, there is a recommendation from the scrutiny committee to delay things for at least six months – so that everyone can have a good old natter about it.

***

That proposal came from Councillor Richard Austin, who appears to have brought the COEP thoughts with him to last week’s meeting of CAC, of which he is also a member.

***

The COEP recommendation read …

***

And the CAC meeting decided …

***

What's the difference?

Very.little – apart from a few words that will drag things out until either the plan is so watered down as to become not worth proceeding with or falls by the wayside.

***

As we’ve said before, if the meeting sees the merger plan approved sans amendment, it needs to have a decent majority.

Anything remotely borderline demonstrates a lack of faith and confidence among councillors that will not go down well with the taxpayers – for whose benefit this whole civic drama is being played out.

Nor does it send a clear message to the staff of both councils, who need to know that they have the support they need to make the whole thing work.

***

Interestingly we have heard from an East Lindsey councillor in the last couple of days, who e-mailed to say:

“I must agree with the findings of the Boston Community and Scrutiny panel.

We as members have been told that this proposal has been in discussion for almost 18 months, yet it only was introduced to members some three or four weeks ago.

“We are led to believe that the proposal, if passed, will commence from the 1^st July.

“What’s the rush? If this has taken upwards of 18 months to iron out, why have members only three weeks to think about the proposal?

At the ELDC. there’s been no scrutiny or members’ day to debate/discuss the matter.

“It has been suggested by the Chair of Scrutiny that we could scrutinise this matter once it has been proposed and passed.??????

“Surely this needs all debating prior to any full decision?

The BBC panel seem to have the right idea, let’s do all the ironing for at least six months prior to a decision being made.

“It concerns me that the Chief Executive has already been decided.

“Once again, is the proposed man for the job the right decision?

“There are so many anomalies that need answers before an open and transparent decision can be made.

“I am led to believe that it is a matter of urgency, due to the possible threat of decentralisation.

“However, this does not need to be rushed through, as unlike the proposal a number of years ago which needed 100% backing, in this instance it doesn’t.

“I personally believe this, in some quarters, is an empire-building opportunity.”

***

Finally, as we said earlier, the meeting is being held online, and if you want a ringside seat at the civic circus you can book one by clicking here 

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