J
All but
one of the non-Tories at Worst Street have signed an open letter “to the
residents of the Borough of Boston” saying that whilst they aren’t against an
alliance with another local authority, they won’t support one “without first
having adequate time to analyse the proposals in depth.”
***
It’s the
latest in the long-running and often acrimonious saga over the joining of forces
with East Lindsey District Council which began on 1st July – that was
railroaded through by just one vote after being stalled and then amended to try
to make it more acceptable.
But quite
what form any refusal of support might have or what it might entail, is anyone’s
guess
***
Throughout
this debate, the Tory leadership has been on the defensive – with charges that
it presented a fait accompli by announcing the alliance after months of
behind-the-scenes negotiation, and stressing that the need to implement it was so
urgent that there was no time for discussion.
The best
assurance on offer was that it would be all right on the night.
***
Since
then, of course, the whole affair has been overshadowed – with Lincolnshire
district councils being told of a September deadline for plans for a unitary
authority to replace the existing local government framework being submitted to
Whitehall.
The re-shake
would also involve the North and North East Lincolnshire authorities,
***
The letter
to the voters regarding the East Lindsey “merger” says:
“We, the undersigned, wish to make
it clear to the people of the Borough of Boston that we are not opposed to a
strategic alliance between our Borough Council and another district
council. However, we will not support
any alliance without first having adequate time to analyse the proposals in
depth. After all, we are your elected
representatives and this matter concerns the independence of your Borough
Council, the unique identity of your Borough and, of course, how your council
taxation is spent.
As you may
have read, the strategic alliance between Boston Borough Council and East
Lindsey District Council was announced to councillors and citizens in the press
dated Wednesday 13th May, following nearly eighteen months of secret
negotiations. The Conservative Party
attempted to push the proposals through Full Council on the 10th June
but was unable to win the support of sufficient councillors to ensure success
and so had to wait until the 25th June before they could force it
through by the slimmest of margins. One scrutiny committee meeting was
permitted and the three-hour meeting revealed many more questions than answers,
and, to this date, much of the financial information needed to reassure those
of us who have serious doubts about the wisdom of this venture remains hidden
from scrutiny.
The
Conservative Party administration believes that the changes are purely internal
and thus not a matter for the Borough Council to consult all council taxpayers
before implementation. We disagree. The Conservative Party has been pleased to
share the predicted benefits with you but has not yet revealed the detailed
costs. We too do not know all the
details, as so much is hidden. Are you
happy to hear that your councillors are denied access to the facts? We think you should know all the costs as you
will be footing the bill.
Alliances
that have proved to be a success have been proposed by councils that have had
open consultations with councillors, staff and citizens right from the start,
and have been prudent to take plenty of time to consider all aspects and
opinions. However, that is not the
situation here, as secrecy and haste have dominated the decision-making
process. We are very concerned about the
future of our Borough: your Borough. We
are deeply worried about the preservation of Boston’s heritage, independence,
and unique identity. The question is, of course, “Who do you think runs your
Borough now? ”
***
The letter
is signed by Councillors Alison Austin of St Thomas Ward – interestingly styled
as “Leader of the Opposition”, Richard Austin (Wyberton), Peter Bedford (Coastal), Alan Bell (Fenside), Michael
Cooper (Five Villages), Anne Dorrian, (Skirbeck), Viven Edge (Witham), Paul
Goodale (Station), Neill Hastie (Witham), Brian Rush (Staniland), Peter Watson (Kirton
and Frampton), Judith Welbourn (Coastal), Colin Woodcock (Skirbeck), and Stephen
Woodliffe, (West), Chairman of the Corporate & Community Scrutiny Committee
***
As always,
there are questions with something like this
The letter
was sent to Boston Eye by Councillor Richard Austin, and we asked him what
had become of the opposition threat of a possible judicial review of the
Boston/East Lindsey alliance?
He
replied: “We are having a meeting early this week to discuss the judicial
review and to check whether or not the conditions that have been requested have
been complied with.”
***
Tuesday
sees yet another “extraordinary” meeting of the full council to discuss the “severance
arrangements” for the former chief executive Phil Drury, who left as the alliance
became a reality.
***
A number
of councillors have protested the size of this settlement – and the phrase “eye-watering”
has been used more than once to describe it.
***
However, if
you’re a voter, you won’t need a box of tissues to tissues at your side for Tuesday’s
Webinar of the meeting – as the plan is to throw the off switch on viewers
from the taxpayers and the press before the discussion starts … using section
100A(iv) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that it involves the
likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 3 of
Part 1 of Schedule 12A.
You know
the one we mean
***
As
councillors are only being asked to “consider” this resolution, we asked Councillor
Austin whether – given the letter's assertion that the public should know
"all the costs" of the alliance – the Opposition will combine to
oppose the exclusion of the public and press from the meeting.
***
We
received what the cliché writers call a dusty answer – saying “unfortunately
the press and public are excluded from this due to the confidential personal
information that will be presented.
“I’m
afraid there is no way that we will be able to get this changed.”
***
Without
wishing to seem confrontational, our understanding is that councillors do not
have to go along with this – although it would seem that they intend to … so
once again, the people who pay the council’s bills won’t get to find out how
much of their council tax has been spent, or on what.
***
One small
step for free speech kind is being promised by Councillor Neill Hastie,
who told us in a Facebook exchange: “Judy Reid and I plan to and will be putting a motion forward for it to be a recorded vote relating to both parts so
the people will know exactly which councillors voted and how on each part …
“… The
results from the two votes will be recorded in the actual minutes, but just
none of the information from the pink (confidential) papers.”
***
As well as
that, we noted an unusual intervention from Councillor Brian Rush on Facebook.
He wrote: “The
people of Boston, in my opinion, need to take full responsibility for allowing
the current social and economic status of Boston to have occurred!
In the not
too distant past, Boston has experienced, two very different political revolutions!
The first wax [sic] to the now infamous Bypass campaign, of 2010 … the
second the Ukip revolution, for which the National spotlight once again, shone
brightly on Boston! Suffice to say that despite the initial flush of success
...the glory was short-lived! But there is still a lesson to be learnt here. I
do not expect this statement to be universally accepted ...but my only hope can
be, that enough people scream NO TO ANY ALLIANCE WITH ANY AREA UNTIL WE KNOW
ALL THE FACTS, AND GET TO VOTE ON IT! Please lobby your Councillor, and demand
that HE/SHE Votes NO ALLIANCE TILL WE HAVE ALL THE FACTS!”
***
Once we
had cleared the foam from our computer screen, we took a closer look at this message
– and emerged baffled.
Worst
Street historians will recall that Councillor Rush was a key figure in both the
Boston Bypass Independents and the borough’s Kippers – of whom he was at one
time the local leader.
***
He now
seems to be saying that both parties cocked things up but blames us for voting
them into power.
And his
demand that we say “no to any alliance” comes a little late – given that
the alliance with East Lindsey has been agreed and has come into effect.
***
But it’s
good to see our councillors taking an interest.
***
Having
said that, there is one councillor who hasn’t …
A look down
the list of signatories to the open letter is interesting reading in its own
right.
It is
signed by five former group leaders – two of them formerly of the
Conservative group – and the number would have been one higher but for a single
absentee from the list.
***
Missing in
inaction is Councillor Aaron Spencer – listed on WorstWeb, the borough website
– as not specifying membership of any party … which would make him independent
in our book.
***
So we
wonder if – all things being equal the council council elections are held in
May next year – Councillor Spencer may be keeping his powder dry in the hope
that the Tories will forgive and forget his past misfortunes and give him a chance
to be their candidate once again.
Certainly,
as an independent candidate for county hall in Boston North, there are no
prizes for guessing how the result might turn out.
***
Sadly, the
theme of so many recent blogs has been the curtailing of transparency and openness
in Boston Borough Council – and it is disappointing to see that it continues
unabated.
***
Last week’s
Environment and Performance scrutiny committee presented a glitteringly bad
example.
It was a
public meeting; shared with the voters over the internet – but that didn’t
prevent the Chairman Judith Skinner from bypassing the openness that we have
been promised and denied for so long in Worst Street.
***
The issue
at hand was the task and finish group review on regulating and safeguarding our
day time [sic] and night time [sic] economy.
It has to
be said at this point that task and finish groups do not have to be held in public
– and regular readers will know that Councillor Mrs Skinner has already
demonstrated her keenness for this restriction.
***
But it
also has to be said that until she became involved with such meetings two
previous and highly significant T&F debates were held in public –
and the response showed how useful that was.
***
Last week
though – as if to rub salt into the wound – we were treated to this sequence of
events …
***
Councillor
Mrs Skinner told the meeting that she wanted to make members aware that the
task and finish group was still active and had undertaken “significant work” before
the pandemic.
She and
vice chairman Paul Goodale “recently had a meeting to look at options to move
the review forward and all members have been e-mailed a list of
options.”
The only
member not there last week was Councillor Stephen Woodliffe “who indicated that
he would like to support option one.”
***
Generously,
Councillor Mrs Skinner told this “public” meeting: “If anyone would like me to
read out the options that’s fine, or – Councillor Goodale – would you like to
move one of the particular options?”
Councillor
Goodale replied: “I’m happy to move option one – I’m happy to move any …
but I’d like to hear what other members views are but I’m quite happy to move
our recommendation.”
So, he did
just that, with Councillor Mrs Skinner seconding the proposal – and the meeting
approved it unanimously and in secret before our very eyes.
***
Soon, the
pandemic will be over, and council meetings will resume in the chamber without
the need to share them with the public online, as the taxpayers will have to
attend to see local democracy in action
We think
that this is a bad move – but one that we are sure will be most welcome in the
soundproofed walls and behind the curtained windows of Worst Street.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment