Has the curse of Bedford struck yet again, we wonder?

It is becoming a regular occurrence that – once the so-called leader waxes lyrical about some aspect of Boston – the rot sets in.

A couple of years ago, he claimed the headlines to urge people unable to obtain flood insurance, or who were paying through the nose for it, to seek new quotes.

In one of his monthly “jam tomorrow” columns in a local “newspaper” be droned: “I want to urge all homeowners to shop around for their flood insurance now that the landscape has changed, due, in part, to representations made by Boston Borough Council.

“There are still some insurance companies out there who will not touch some properties they deem to be in an unacceptable flood-risk area. But there are others who have substantially reduced their premiums for properties in Boston borough.

“You have to do a little work and spend some time on this. But it’s worth it. For a few hours spent on the internet I have saved almost £500 on my insurance. My premium last year was £700 and is now just over £200, and I still have the same level of cover.”

With impeccable timing the item appeared in August 2013.

Three months later the worst tidal surge for 60 years topped the banks of the River Haven and sent water rushing through more than 50 streets in the town flooding around 600 properties and forcing hundreds of people to leave their homes.

Local people rallied around and responded to the incident with superb community cohesion, to coin the jargon and it wasn’t long before the event was just a memory for most.

But rather than let matters be, Boston Borough Council ceaselessly reminded us of that dark night, and were still doing well over a year later.

Last week we received a call from our insurance broker, to say that the company which had covered us for a number of years has re-evaluated cover of the town’s postcodes – and added areas previously omitted from those which attracted severely loaded premiums and excesses.

Thus we are able to tell Councillor Bedford that our premium – formerly £500 a year with no flood excess – was re-quoted at more than £1,200 ... with a £6,000 flood excess.

***

The insurance company behind this monument to avarice is AXA, which along with Aviva –  which we abandoned some years ago when it, too, became overwhelmed by greed –  probably covers most properties in our part of the world ... which means that many people in Boston may well receive a nasty shock when the time comes to renew their home insurance.

The colossal rise in premiums apparently is merely due to the company re-assessing the flood risk areas – based no doubt on the excessive assumptions drawn up by the Environment Agency.

Fortunately, our broker found another company willing to quote within pounds of our current premium subject to a couple of questions being answered satisfactorily.

These were – has your home ever been flooded, and do you live within 100 yards of a property that has been?

The answer to both those questions was no – and more affordable cover was retained.

The Environment Agency makes life easy for insurers with its flood risk maps showing Boston inundated, and the deluge flowing all along the Witham valley to Lincoln.

We know that has never and will never happen – but if you're an insurer looking to enhance the bottom line then the opportunity to squeeze your customers until their pips squeak is irresistible.

But it has taken 18 months for the price hike to appear – which makes us wonder whether the constant bleating from Worst Street played a role in the price hike, as with such huge profits to be made we would have expected a much earlier reaction from insurers.

When Councillor Bedford urged all homeowners to shop around for their flood insurance two years ago, it was because he claimed that “that the landscape has changed, due, in part, to representations made by Boston Borough Council.”

We wonder now whether the reverse is true.

***

We hope that the Bedford curse has now run its course if for no other reason than the future prosperity of a local butcher.

At the beginning of June, Boston's Goody Two Shoes News devoted an issue to Bedford’s over assessment of improving fortunes on the job front beneath the headline “Boston means business.”

The piece began: “Boston is booming with more businesses showing confidence in the area’s prosperity and prepared to invest their hard-earned cash.

“Boston Borough Council leader, Councillor Peter Bedford, highlights some of the most recent developments – in particular the expansion with a new shop by a local butcher.

“You know when a local businessman, who knows his market, the area and the potential for new customers, invests it shows real confidence in the town.”

“Councillor Bedford was referring to Carl Dunham, who has opened his second shop in Red Lion Street. ... “

The item mentioned a couple of other developments –  presumably to make some low level business activity sound as if  Apple was moving its headquarters from Cupertino to Fenside –  and that, we thought, was the end of it.

Enter the July edition of the local free magazine Simply Boston.

The magazine regularly hosts a column from the purported leader – which we have often criticised in the past for dusting off an earlier piece which appeared in one of the “newspapers” and recycling it some weeks later.

Not so in July.

A version of the Boston GTSN was reintroduced to read: “One of my responsibilities as leader of Boston Borough Council is to encourage and assist in any way we can, economic regeneration

“That might sound a bit fancy. In essence it means that I do all I can to make Boston a better place to do business in.

“Simple? Anything but in these tough economic times! So I am greatly encouraged when I hear that a local businessman, who knows full well the area and the potential for new trade, invests his hard-earned cash  ...”

There then follows the Carl Dunham saga which flowed seamlessly into the  story as before.

Readers might be forgiven if they only saw the Simply Boston piece for assuming that Councillor Bedford is taking some credit by association with the recent developments.

We are sure that this is not the case – because if so, he would be bellowing it loudly through a megaphone whilst standing atop Boston Stump.

But by juxtaposing his regeneration role with recent developments the impression is clearly given.
Perhaps the leader would like to tell us precisely what his personal part in all this good news was.

***

Don’t forget that you read the news first on Boston Eye before it appeared anywhere else.

Monday's full meeting of the Boston Borough Council Rubber Stamp Factory will almost certainly endorse a recommendation to install Acting Chief Executive Phil Drury into the top job by merging his role as Strategic Director with that of head honcho and paying him £90,000 a year – rising to £95,000 after six months subject to “performance targets” being met.

According to the report before the council, such a move will provide “stable leadership and direction” for the council and deliver financial savings.

We’re not quite sure what is meant by stable leadership, as we would expect any incumbent in such a highly paid post to hang around for a few years before seeking a better deal in pastures new, which, over the years, has proved to be the case.

During our time without parole in Boston we have seen four chief executives in total. They were Mark James, who stayed for five years, Nicola Bulbeck, who spent four years in post, Mick Gallagher who did  three, and Richard Harbord – who ironically stayed as long as Mark James despite being appointed initially on a six month contract.

Given the mobile trend in employment these days – coupled with the desire among the ambitious to move ever onward and upward – these post holders stayed for comfortably average periods, and certainly brought “stability” of a kind to the borough in varying degrees, as well a fresh approach with each new appointment.

We assume that what gives Mr Drury the “stability edge” over all his predecessors, is that aside from a brief  departure, he has worked in Worst Street, boy and man for the last 27 years –  having joined as a youth trainee in 1988.

Although his appointment is being welcomed enthusiastically by leader Bedford  as having acted in the role “admirably” –  and apparently greeted with enthusiasm on the borough’s website – memory recalls that this will be “third time lucky” for Mr Drury ... who was unsuccessful with previous applications when the top job fell vacant.

What we can say – without any implication at all – is that Mr Drury and Mr Bedford will at least be simpatico ...  as Bedford has been a councillor for almost as long as Mr Drury has been in post.

Bedford – as might be expected – is one of the six members of the impressively named  “Chief Officer Employment Panel” which recommended Mr Drury for the post of Top Mouse rather than Fat Cat.

Places are allocated proportionately, so there is another Tory – in this case deputy leader Mike Brookes, a councillor first elected in 1997, and therefore another who will know Mr Drury well.

There are two UKIP councillors –  Brian Rush, a former BBI councillor who later went Independent, quit on health grounds and then made a comeback, and the recently elected Stephen Raven –  plus the Labour group  leader (one of  just two members now)  Councillor Paul Gleeson.

And there’s a soloist – Boston’s political dynasty member and Mayor Richard Austin – listed as an “Independent” whilst really being a “soft Tory”  ... as in “S-Tory.” He has now completed two terms at Worst Street – the first as “leader” – when again he would have worked closely with Mr Drury.

The important question to be asked here is – what qualifies the members of  this “panel” to take such an important decision?

As far as we know, none of them has the experience needed to approve such a crucial post.

So what have we got then?

Some old chums recommending someone they have worked with for years is about the closest conclusion to be drawn.

This is surely not the best way to do business.

According to the borough’s recruitment policy “Boston Borough Council is committed to adopting a fair and consistent approach in its recruitment and selection procedures.

“In accordance with the council’s equal opportunities policy the procedures will promote equal access to jobs, good HR practice and compliance with employment legislation.”

The same document later declares: “Boston Borough Council recognises that people are their greatest asset and considers a clear framework for recruiting staff vital to its success.

“In doing so, we endeavour to have a high quality workforce to support the council in achieving its present and future objectives.

“The recruitment process whilst being fair, efficient and cost effective also ensures that the most suitable candidates in terms of skills, knowledge and attitude are being employed to maintain a motivated workforce, delivering high quality services.”

This policy is quite unequivocal – yet is clearly being bypassed in view of Monday night’s recommendation.

The choice of a new chief executive for Boston Borough Council is a crucial one.

Given Mr Drury’s employment history to date, there is no reason to assume that he will ever consider moving on, and as someone probably in his mid-forties, could therefore be at the helm for 15 or more years.

This makes the decision to appoint him a multi-million pound one – 15 years at £95,000 a year totals around £1.5 million ... before annual increases.

We don’t know Mr Drury from Adam – and he might well be the best man for the job ... even though we feel that Boston is desperately in need of new blood and fresh thinking.

But the only way to determine this is for the post to properly be advertised internally and externally; a short-list drawn up, and interviews conducted by an impartial selection board before an appointment is made.

***

An e-mail from one of our contributors takes up the baton.

It says: “Given the seriously limited numbers of qualified candidates invited to apply for what might be thought a top job, we should not be too surprised by the outcome.

“But it seems that our council continues to ignore, underestimate, and offend, the intelligence of the people they represent – believing that Boston people are so dim that they might have difficulty guessing which candidate was first going to be put forward, and then become a shoo-in.

“I`m afraid they are the ones who are stupid!

“Although I like councillor Bedford, I have to say that I am sure even his supporters must secretly agree that it is well past time for him to step down.as leader

“Politically he has been a disaster .. and his relegation might just give the borough a fresh opportunity and a brighter future.

“In all honesty, I think both he and the Conservatives always knew that he was never up to the job and nor was he leadership material.

“But because he’s been at the heart of the situation described, do we also not need to ensure that his colleagues, new and old, shoulder much of the blame for allowing this situation to have gone on for so long?”

***

Certainly, a long term view appears to be predominating in Worst Street.

Mr Drury’s appointment echoes the American adage that any boy can become President.

Meanwhile, we note that Councillor Bedford has been appointed leader of the council until May 2019.

The phrase “President for Life” springs to mind – in company with names such  as Julius Caesar, Napoleon, “Papa Doc” Duvalier, Kim Jong-un and Robert Mugabe.

***

We also wondered whether someone was trying to tell us something when the list of councillors appointed to external organisations was published.

Three of them were appointed to the Sir Thomas Meddlecott Charity Trust.

The correct spelling of the trust’s name is Middlecott.

***

Another item on the agenda for Monday’s full council meeting is to receive the confirmed minutes of the of the Audit and Governance Committee meeting on 23^rd April and the unconfirmed minutes of the meeting of 22^nd June.

Unsurprisingly, they show that the council may well have money problems in the coming financial year.

In response to questions about mitigation for the high financial risk of the difficult economic times ahead, budget shortfalls and how savings would be made, it was reported that the council’s settlement from the Government would not be known until December, but the expected shortfall in the medium term financial plan was £500,000 for 2016/17 – with similar projections for the next 3-4 years.

Without a hint of irony, the meeting heard that the council had set up the Transformation Programme to achieve the necessary savings.

We mentioned the project last week – it’s the one that has spent at least £12,000 on “consultancy fees” and £20,000 on computer software in a very short space of time.

More worrying was that news that – given the council is supposed to plan ahead –  “Cabinet was yet to put forward proposals for projects for the Transformation Programme for 2016/17.”

What’s going on in the cabinet, we wonder. The last one at least had some members who got themselves noticed – though not always for the best reasons.

This latest bunch is notable for its silence – which we take to indicate meekness and bowing of the knee to the leader.

Time for the cabinet to extract a digit, wethinks.

***

One set of minutes mentioned above details the financing of the PRSA “rescue” plan, which is largely contingent on spending £840,000 –  much of it on biomass heating at the PRSA and Moulder Leisure Centre –  to allegedly generate enough profit to carry out hundreds of thousands of pounds in repairs to the sports arena.

Simples!

This is a long running saga, and this is claimed to be the final answer to the white elephant that has cost we taxpayers millions.

We are not so sanguine about this.

The council is negotiating a 25 year lease with a charitable leisure trust operating under the 1Life company banner called Community Sports, Arts and Leisure Trust.

In these days when twee acronyms dominate, this translates to “C-salt” – which sounds like “sea salt” which is defined as “salt produced by the evaporation of seawater” and therefore has no relevance whatever.

The lease has a value of £1 a year with C-salt (mmwah!)  accepting repair and insuring responsibilities for the first five years, and the same for the following five capped at  £100,000.

Interestingly, there is a “break clause” for both parties at year 10.

Somehow, we fear that this will be the point where the PRSA is once again dumped back in our laps – despite all the promises.

Perhaps an early way to protect our interests as taxpayers would be the formation of  a counter group known as  Respond  –  Save Our Local Expenses Significantly.

The acronym for that would be R-soles.

***

We're pleased to learn that former Councillor Carol Taylor resumes blogging again from Monday. She packed it in after losing her seat at the May elections –  a decision which was a great loss as, unlike all other politicians at Worst Street, she was the only one to speak her mind and was unafraid to criticise the authority when it frequently got things wrong.

Now, of course, she is even freer to speak as she finds, and we look forward to her return to the internet.

You will be able to read the blog –  Carol, Taylor, In my opinion by clicking here 

***

Meanwhile followers of local politics may well be wondering what has happened to the Boston Labour Party blog, which has not been updated for a couple of months.

Labour group leader on Boston Borough Council, Paul Gleeson tells us: “We have not stopped blogging.  We were all a bit ‘bruised’ after the result of our election campaign, especially after losing two experienced and hard-working comrades like Paul Goodale and Paul Kenny.  

“Politically we are focusing on more internal party matters until after the summer and come September we will be back, hopefully with a wider range of contributors.  

“Finally, Paul Kenny who was one of the main authors of our local articles is taking a well-deserved rest from political activity.”

***

The dead hand of Worst Street has come up with yet another tale that rubbishes the area by slathering it across the borough’s website – therefore telling the world at large.

The e-mail  accompanying  Thursday's council bulletin delighted in telling us "Drinks den hooligans spoiling family park," and the message was further  underlined beneath the over-sensational headline “Drinks den menace found in family park,” 

The story revels in reporting that an “illicit” drink den has been “uncovered” in a hidden corner of a children’s play area.

It played well in the local “newspapers” of course ...  once again being issued  to them first –  something that we criticised in last week's blog.

But it was  not so good that the Boston Target could resist the need to  make it even better, by telling us that a drink “and drug” den had been uncovered –  although no mention of the latter appeared anywhere.

The area is described as “hidden from view” in Dame Sarah Swift Park at Kirton,

It is “littered with empty cases of booze,” broken bottles and crushed cans, and the council tells us that wooden flooring has been laid and a quilt indicates "overnight activity."

It's said that every picture tells a story – but we felt that the  photo that accompanied the Worst Street handout could equally be saying something far less dramatic.

The area scarcely seems hidden, but almost open to view.

There are three medium sized supermarket packs of hooch on the ground and a few empty tinnies –  far fewer that the number that you can see some days in other more open public areas of the borough.

The “flooring” is a small broken pallet, whilst the quilt shows nothing more serious than a desire to keep one’s bum dry whilst sitting on the ground – the sort of thing that people do whilst picnicking.

This is yet another story – like the Council That Painted Dog Poo Pink – that is a small and distinct local problem which has been inflated beyond its importance for the publicity that the council can wring from it for itself, and which does the borough no service at all.

It’s the sort of thing that a few years ago the local bobby would have handled with little or no fuss.

And the word “illicit” is something of a sledgehammer to crack a nut, since it means “forbidden by law, rules, or custom.”

We hadn’t realised until now that youngsters have never previously found somewhere out of the way to snaffle a drink when they ought not to be.

It takes us back to February this year – when Boston Borough Council threatened local lads kicking a ball around on a couple of their football pitches with fines of £80.

We fear that if this sort of counter-productivity continues, Boston Mayor Richard Austin may as well abandon his “Great Past and a Bright Future” campaign which Worst Street seems determined to undermine.

***

Fortunately, the park in Kirton is not on the route to be taken today by the judges for Britain in Bloom.

As they perambulate the specially devised route which is calculated to impress and also to avoid the bleaker, more neglected areas of the town, the powers that be will be hoping for yet another badge for Boston – which is all that seems to matter to them these days.

Boston's Goody Two Shoes News seems to have been dominated in recent weeks by tales from the potting shed in anticipation of this date – and whilst we have no objection to brightening up the town we say again that this should be a year-round activity, and not just brown-nosing a bunch of total strangers in the hope of medals that are doled out to just about every competition entrant.

***

A similar story is shaping up regarding Boston new membership of the former Hanseatic League - Die Hanse.

Needless to say, we had to over-egg the pudding and stage a knees up for invited guests only at Boston Guildhall, who were told of business and tourism opportunities opening up involving 300 million people in 16 countries with a combined gross domestic product of  $10,000 billion.

Boston Mayor, Richard Austin, was in his usual optimistic mode when he announced: “I am quite confident that we are gathered here to celebrate the opening of a new chapter in the history and development of Boston.

"We are about to reawaken the collaboration and cooperation that made Boston such a dominant player in the history of England all those centuries ago.”

How many times have we heard waffle like this spouted over the years?

King's Lynn is frequently cited as a major beneficiary of membership this organization ... and we are sure that this is true, as it has a wealth of historic buildings relating to the medieval league.

Boston does not. The best we have come up with so far is an artist’s impression of what the Hanseatic steelyard in Boston might have looked like 700 years ago –  and no-one seems quite sure where it was when it was here.

Frankly it is a ridiculous stretch of the imagination to suggest that the gross domestic product of a largely industrialised chunk of Germany can in any way impact to Boston’s profit or benefit.

There is nothing to build.

***

We sympathise with the anger felt by Boston Sausage maker Mountains after a traffic warden ticketed one of their vehicles which was unloading meat for the shop apparently within seconds of it stopping.

The company took to both its Twitter and Facebook pages, declaring on the latter: “We have to say how upset and disgusted we are to receive a parking ticket whilst unloading fresh meat outside the shop today.

“The environmental health officer has instructed us to park as close as possible to the shop to make loading and unloading as easy and as quick as possible.

“So to get a ‘parking warden’ slap a ticket on our windscreen before we've even opened the shop door is both upsetting and unreasonable.

“Do they not see we're just trying to run a business as professionally and as smoothly as possible?

“The sky high car parking fees, highly inconsiderate road works, insufficient market place parking bays and idiotic power hungry traffic wardens will eventually kill this town off!

“The town is on its knees and I'm not sure how long all the decent businesses will put up with this crap before the ship sinks”

We understand that there was previously a loading and unloading area outside the shop, but that Lincolnshire County Council removed it – doubtless to make life easier for the Into Town bus intrusions.

Boston Sausage is a worldwide ambassador for the town and local Lincolnshire produce, and deserves encouragement rather than victimisation.

We have previously mentioned the number of times we have seen Clownty Hall traffic wardens touring quiet streets or deserted populated areas where they can meet their ticket quotas without the risk of an argument.

They are still not addressing the major parking problems which beset Boston, and have ignored them for so long that we somehow doubt that they ever will.

It’s just a pocket picking exercise, and one that may well lose Boston business and jobs.

***

The news that one in 20 people in Boston cannot speak English ought really not to come as much of a surprise. In fact we think that the figure may well be a lot higher –  as it apparently does not include many of the indigenous population ... who, when not filling their faces with baps,  often seem scarcely articulate unless their choice of words begins with the letter F!

***

Finally – as we enter the slough they call the silly season – we shall be taking a break for a couple of weeks. We’re still here, though for your e-mails, and will publish if a special need arises.

We are also online on Twitter, and will post comments as and when necessary there as well.

We’ll be back on Friday 7^th August

  

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com

It never ceases to amaze us that Boston Borough Council seems to consider we taxpayers so stupid that we will swallow any garbage that it chooses to shovel in our direction.

Last week we commented light-heartedly about the poor response to the Mayoral initiative urging us to write in and say what makes Boston a special place.

The idea is that all the comments will be published on the borough’s website, so that anyone browsing for information about Boston will be greeted by an irresistible paean of praise which will make them want to uproot from wherever they live, and come here instead.

Unfortunately, the story promoting this appeared in the same week as one promoting the news that Boston Borough Council was spraying dog dung luminous pink to shame those who let their curs foul the streets and fail to clean up after them.

We believe that type of publicity this is called counterproductive.

click to enlarge

Our blog appeared last Friday, and it came as no surprise that by close of business that day, there were no fewer than 17 comments extolling Boston beneath the banner “You said WHAT I LIKE ABOUT BOSTON.”

Not one of the comments exceeds the limits that might be defined as damning with faint praise, and two of them said the same thing –   but from different contributors.

Three of the signatories are members of staff at Boston Borough Council; two are members of Lincolnshire Community and Voluntary Service; two are members of Boston College – including the principal; one owns the Assembly Rooms; another is a senior officer at the RSPB Freiston Shore site, who recently went on record as saying that he thought water voles were charismatic.

In that case, we can understand why he thinks that Boston is such a fine place.

Both Peter Hunn, Boston Borough Council's principal community safety officer and Communications Officer Andrew Malkin were so entranced by the camaraderie of Bostonians during the 2013 floods that they praised them identically.

Already, this exercise is discredited – and ranks alongside the hopeless Boston Borough Roll of Achievement.

This, you may recall was a list of people largely drawn up by relatives –  but so few responded that it was padded out with figures from history ... several of whom have no connection with Boston whatever.

We suspect that someone noted our poking about on the website, as by Tuesday morning, there was one comment fewer – Mr Malkin had removed his word-for-word piece which had also been attributed to Mr Hunn.

Later it was replaced by a different write-up – mostly praising Central Park and plugging his own book about Boston Guildhall.

***

Whether there is a whiff of manipulation in all of the above is not for us to say – but it does typify what is so wrong with Boston.

A half-cocked idea, inefficiently launched, attracts mostly the usual suspects – the great and the good, whose contributions were not really those being sought.

The list was so shoddily assembled as to allow identical quotes to be attributed to two different people, plus the remarkable coincidence that almost half of those who have responded have appeared in the Boston Target’s series Boston People ... itself a directory of the great and the good of the town.

It is a considerable stretch of the imagination to believe that these contributions were unsolicited, and just came out of the blue.

It seems that Worst Street believes that you can fool all of the people, all of the time  –  which was the only thing that Abraham Lincoln said was impossible in the world of legerdemain.

Mind you, he also said – when referring the Battle of Fredericksburg – “If there is a worse place than hell, I am in it."

But Worst Street did not exist at the time..

***

Once in a while it’s worth taking a look at the way Boston Borough Council spends its money. Information is offered by way of “transparency” in  the form of a list of spending exceeding £250 which includes just about everything except the office copy of the Sporting Life.

Whilst the list is exhaustive, the items which appear on it sometimes have little meaning to casual readers, other than to pique their interest –  and could use a little more by way of explanation.

For instance, bills for agency staff running into thousands of pounds a month are exactly what it says on the packet – although it would be interesting to know why Worst Street spends so much on hiring people in.

When we get our post in the morning we attack it with a paper knife – and although we appreciate that the borough’s mail room is far busier, it seems to us that a “mail opener” costing £3,000 must be in the Rolls Royce category.

Something called “The Yaboo Company” which specialises in sound recording and music publishing charged an “annual music service fee” for 2015/2016 of £6,520.

A couple of Civic Dinners set taxpayers back almost £2,000; “Easter activities” cost £1,700, plus a further £2,500 for a guide to what was going on.  

Consultancy fees for the “Transformation Project” in April were £8,000 and our old favourite – interest on the £1 million pound loan that no one can find in the records was £111,250.   

This loan – of which no apparent record exists – was taken out in January, 1991, over 60-years at an interest rate of 11.125 per cent ... which means that by the time it is paid back it will have cost we taxpayers £6 million.

The Transformation Project incidentally, is described by Worst Street as “one of the key strands of our Medium Term Financial Strategy  ...  made up of a number of individual projects to save money, improve efficiency and improve services.

It’s off to a cracking start, then, with £8,000 in “consultancy” fees, following more than £4,000 in fees the previous month.

There’s also been a hefty bill for specialist computer software – totalling more than £20,000 so far this year.

In the odds and sods department, “Haven Art Workshop Expenses” included £385 for an “LED frosted candle.”

Then there was a bill for £315 for crowd barriers –  even though the cost of hosting the Olympic torch as it passed between Wrangle and Boston for 15 minutes and through Boston itself for half-an-hour in 2012 included almost £5,000 for crowd barriers and traffic cones,

Perhaps a few more people should go on the “Mindfulness” training course. The most recent cost £200 each for a three hour session for six staff.

***

We never cease to wonder at the ingenuity of Boston Borough Council when it comes to getting things wrong.

Last week Worst Street was out painting dog turds and now is in partnership with our favourite arts organisation – Transported – to seek out and recognise our “local heroes.”

These, we are told are “community-spirited people in Boston Borough who quietly go about their duties, paid or otherwise, so we can all enjoy a more pleasant place to live.”

Their reward for their selflessness is to be immortalised in artworks to be displayed on the sides of Boston Borough Council’s “refuse and recycling vehicles” – dust carts to the likes of us.

What a fine piece of gratitude.

The only way to humiliate these splendid people further would be to herd them into a tumbrel and haul them around the town.

Or perhaps we could  bring the stocks on The Green back into use.

***

We mentioned last week a freedom of information request about the distribution of the borough council daily bulletin which turned out to be a puny 784.

As we said then, this raises an issue of value for money, as given the staff time involved it cannot be a cheap item.

In the run-up to the general and local elections, the frequency was reduced because regulations prohibited mention of anything deemed politically controversial, as well as references to individual councillors or political groups,  and events involving candidates –  nor could it issue photographs which included candidates.

Oddly – although the elections are long since passed –  the policy seems little changed. Organisations which have nothing to do with Boston Borough Council  are readily given free puffs in the bulletin –  and we recently saw a “special” devoted to the RAF Coningsby annual freedom parade through the town centre ... which took the form of  a load of almost identical photographs. The bulletin is regularly an outlet ranking alongside Practical Gardening or an adjunct to the Lincolnshire Community Voluntary Service – even though it has its own newsletter and mailing list.

It’s almost as if so little is worth reporting from Boston Borough Council that their own little effort has to be padded with news from elsewhere until one of those rare occasions when there is something to report from Worst Street

It’s called pot boiling.

Often, the stories in the bulletin appear in our local “newspapers” before they reach the borough website which is paid for by our council tax – but is it acceptable for Boston Borough Council effectively to provide a reporter and photographer at our expense to save our lazy local hacks from covering events.

Strangely, whilst the local papers are quite content to publish whatever is handed to them on a plate, they appear less keen to attend council meetings and cover the debates and decisions taken.

Sometimes, these meetings are farcical – last week’s B-Tacky springs to mind –   which was not reported. Neither was the decision to reject the £10m riverside development so highly praised by Council Leader Pete Bedford.

Boston Borough Council seldom chooses to communicate what goes on in the council chamber.

It apparently expects us to attend – even though the newspapers that ought to be our eyes and ears cannot be bothered.

The result is an easy ride for Worst Street which is getting easier all the time, thanks to the indolence of local journalists, and which further steams up the windows through which we are supposed to view the council's “transparency.”

***

A long standing critic of the Boston bulletin is the Labour group leader Councillor Paul Gleeson, who has questioned whether it breaches guidelines set out by the Department for Communities and Local Government.

He told Boston Eye: “I do think the borough needs to have a fresh look at the bulletin,

“I am not too sure they know what they want to achieve, and with such a small circulation there must be a question as to what is being achieved anyhow.  

“Interestingly, one of the arguments used to counter my assertions over the frequency of publication of the bulletin vis a vis ministerial guidance was the low numbers of people it was sent to!”

In other words – it doesn’t matter that it's a load of tosh, because no-one reads it!

***

We mentioned last week’s B-Tacky meeting  which saw political alliances conspire to block each other so effectively that the meeting failed even to elect a chairman.

Among those voting with the Conservatives was the erstwhile “Independent” Councillor Alison Austin who is now a member of the so-called but aptly-named  “soft” coalition that allows Leader Bedford to keep his sticky paws on the Worst Street gear levers –  although what he does all day is anyone’s guess.

Confused members of St Thomas Ward – the renamed patch which Mrs Austin now commands – have now received an explanation in her “Newsletter” ... which in keeping with the council ethos contained no news at all.

“I remain an Independent councillor,” she writes. “I’m working with the Conservative administration to ensure a stable council and one which can make some positive progress during its term. I do not accept a party whip and would not support anything that I did not consider in the long-term interest of the people of Boston.”

Thanks for the clarification.

Strangely, the councillor’s independence and sense of fair play was called into question as the recent B-Tacky meeting that we mentioned when a presentation being made by a member of the public – who also happened to be a candidate in the election which saw Mrs Austin elected – complained  ... and broke off  his presentation ... because of Mrs Austin “sniggering with what can only be described as a smirk on her face.”

In a formal letter to the council, he said: “I felt this was rude and very disrespectful behaviour towards a member of the public. This kind of behaviour is unbecoming of such a senior member of the council and could put off members of the public interacting with the council.”

***

After our report concerning plans to shoo the present acting Chief Executive into the full time job after a token exercise of jumping a couple of low level hurdles –  rather than  run  the risk of  advertising externally and encountering an outside candidate filled with exciting ideas that are too good to ignore –  an insider has written to comment.

Our correspondent says: “Let us not forget that to all intents and purposes, our former part time Chief Executive (Richard Harbord) was brought in mainly to negotiate a settlement for the then outgoing Chief Executive*.

“Despite this, it seems he then seriously – and expensively – overstayed his usefulness.

“I understand that he had also been charged with laying the foundations for the appointment of a new chief executive.

"Whether that might have been a full time post, or – as with many other administrations – a shared position is neither here nor there.

“The fact is, this council has over the past few years failed to develop as other districts have. It began by outsourcing many of its customer services and as a consequence weakened itself so much that it must now seriously re-evaluate not only the present, but also its future municipal position.

“As with most things to do with Boston, we once again  have shilly-shallied around for so long, foolishly wasting so much time that we are yet again forced into pushing the panic button.

“It seriously beggars belief that a particular senior officer having been around for so many years, is now suddenly being spoken of in glowing terms as the right man to fulfil the Chief Executive role.

“So why has the leader, Councillor Bedford, allowed this council to waste hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money buying the services of Mr Harbord, and why did he continue to do so  for many many months whilst this brilliant candidate was sitting under his very nose?  

“Sadly, maybe the only conclusion we can draw from this is that our council is no longer fit for purpose, and indeed the selection process, especially in this particular case, is not just seriously flawed but completely ineffective.”

*The outgoing Chief Executive mentioned above was Mick Gallagher, who resigned six years ago after three years in post and cleared his desk in record time on the eve of the publication of an Audit Commission report that heavily criticised the authority's management and financial arrangements.

***

Earlier mention of B-Tacky reminds us that the committee is soon – if it hasn’t already – to be tapped up by Boston Borough Council for money to help run a Christmas market this year.

We would have thought it was a little late in the day to be doing this – but perhaps it is better late than never as the word on the street was that the town wouldn’t be celebrating Tinselmas this year.

What we do need to point out though is that it is not the job of B-Tacky to fund borough wide events.

It would be one for the council to do so from the general taxation, and it would be wrong for the committee to agree – even though it has spent outside its guidelines in the past.

We mention this as the rudderless B-Tacky appears clueless when it comes to just about everything, and a quick look at the committee's constitution might well be in order.

***

The Great British High Street Awards for 2015 competition is back and reportedly bigger and better.

Last year saw High Streets, towns, villages and cities up and down the country enter and once again there will be seven categories, whilst for the first time, local people will be asked to join the vote for winners.

The deadline for applications is 1^st September, and more information is available on the link here 

Why do we mention this?

Because despite all the drum banging about what a wonderful place Boston is, no-one seems bothered about taking things any further where an event like this is concerned..

Last year’s event – which was won by Belper ... a right dump a few years ago as we recall –  was conspicuous by the fact that Boston almost alone played little if any part in the competition.

***

At least the Boston Target is unstinting in believing that Boston deserves more than it gets – at least if this website snippet is anything to go by.

Somehow we missed the news that Boston Stump has been awarded cathedral status.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com

A while ago we compared the over-optimism of borough council leader Pete Bedford with the “Cameron effect.”

Over the years, Cameron has lent his support to individuals or teams who have often rapidly gone on to crash and burn and disappear without trace.

So it seems to be with our leader...

A couple of years ago, he waxed lyrical about plans for the 161-berth Gosling Marina, including a bar and an 80-seat family restaurant, on which work was expected to have started last year –  but doesn’t appear to have done.

At the time, Bedford trilled: “...we hope the marina will give the town a much-needed boost and regenerate the waterfront.

"When it is built, it should bring millions to the town, push up property prices and get people coming to Boston - it is a very exciting prospect.”

Unfortunately, a prospect is all that it seems to have been as the website for the marina is still “coming soon” and, we are told, there has been nothing going on at the site –  and requests concerning progress have been ignored.

Given a misjudgement such as this, one would have thought that Bedford would have been a little more circumspect with future comments.

***

But no,

Back in February the leader was dangling another glittering bauble before our desperate eyes hinting coyly: “Because we are in the very earliest stages of planning I have to say ‘watch this space’ but serious interest has been expressed to the council in developing of Haven Wharf on the river along High Street.

“Parts of the building have been disused for about 20 years and this shows confidence in the barrier scheme being delivered on time and able to do its job of flood protection.

“I think we are in for an exciting time ahead.”

When the £10 million plan did surface, the idea was to demolish existing buildings within the site comprising the former Boston Auctions premises fronting White Horse Lane, the ASP Glazing premises, the linked three storey warehouse fronting the river and associated lean to and open storage buildings on the site.

In their place, it was proposed to build two seven-storey detached apartment blocks containing a total of 75 apartments plus  three, three storey four bedroomed terraced dwellings fronting White Horse Lane and one, three storey four bedroom dwelling.  

We certainly would have been in for exciting times –  had the plan not been roundly rubbished by the borough’s own planning officers and recommended for refusal.

The reasons why it was a Very Bad Idea are too numerous to mention –  but you can find the report to last week’s planning committee by clicking  here

Over the years, Boston has suffered badly as a result of the race to make the place look modern and “sexy.”

We now have some truly ghastly looking buildings which in many cases took the place of ancient historic buildings.

The ancient Peacock and Royal coaching inn was demolished in 1960 to accommodate Boots the Chemist. 

The former Scala Theatre and cinema is now Poundstretcher, the one-time Falcon Inn was demolished for the benefit of Argos,  and  – probably worst of all –   the Red Lion was knocked down to build what was first a Woolworth store and is now QD.

A plaque put up in the store noted: “On this site once stood the Red Lion Tavern, recorded in the compotus of Saint Mary’s Guild 1515 as “the Hospitium of the Red Lion in Bargate” It then belonged to that Guild, as it also did in 1524. In 1640 it was said to have formerly belonged to the Sibsey family, having been sold by Ralph Poole to Richard Sibsey and Johan his wife in the reign of Queen Elizabeth.”

On occasion, we have been critical of the town’s planners for being over-sensitive in allowing development in areas which – whilst being deemed to have historic significance – have suffered so badly that one more nail in the coffin would make no difference at all.

The riverside site by Haven Bridge cries out for sensitive development and must not be allowed to become a piggy bank for developers.

Although Worst Street bangs on about Boston’s “heritage” there is little of it left – and we must seek to preserve and enhance that which survives.

***

Oddly, whilst we would imagine that the role of leader would be to lead, it appears that the task has now been assumed by Boston’s mayor, Richard Austin.

In his state of the union message after being elected, he said: "The image and reputation of a place is its most important asset.

“It affects so many aspects of life in that community. It affects the location of businesses, the decision of vital professionals and their choice of where to live and work. In fact it can affect the prosperity and well-being of everyone in the community.

"My most important task is to protect and enhance the reputation of the Borough of Boston whenever I can; this is a very important issue, and it is so important that I ask everyone in this council chamber to help in this task.

“Indeed I would like to go further and ask everyone in this borough to help promote Boston to the wider world."

***

He has now gone beyond those fine words  – and is trying to rope us all into his crusade.

The plan is to create “a positive on-line document available anywhere in the world” to help promote Boston’s great past and bright future.

He said: “I want to hear from anyone with their views on what makes Boston a special place –  it could be the cost of living, its intimate nature as a small market town, its amenities, open spaces, clean air, countryside and big skies, sports facilities, friendly people, the history and heritage which surrounds us or anything else.

“I just want people to appreciate where they live and work and be positive about it so Boston can be better appreciated by everyone. ...”

“Their positive contributions will appear on the council website so that anyone searching ‘Boston’ will discover what a great place it really is.”

According to Worst Street’s propaganda channel GTSN – Goody Two Shoes News – he said this was “important for the wellbeing of residents – those who may have been born here, lived here a long time or newly arrived – and would help give a good first impression to those thinking of relocating, especially those furthering their professional careers or businesses looking to move and expand.

“That makes it important for the prosperity of Boston and the wellbeing and prosperity of all those who live and work here.”

As always, in its desperation to rush the good news to the public eye, Boston Borough Council’s website immediately posted a link to Councillor Austin’s new site.

Unfortunately, it might have been better to have waited until some comments had arrived before posting the other link

Last time we looked, none had become two –  so at least the page doesn’t now appear so stupid.

Councillor Austin has also contacted schools asking students to write about the town and borough in the way best suited to them – creative writing, poetry, artwork or photography.

In many ways Councillor Austin's  appeal is what we would expect a town mayor to come up with – although the way that he has raised the ante ought really to be in the job description of the so-called leader.

Instead, Bedford seems content to sit on the side-lines and let others do the talking for Boston.

Torindy Councillor Austin claims ownership of the slogan “Boston – a great past an exciting future”

Sounds good, doesn’t it?

Boston’s greatest past was in medieval times – although it missed out on a mention in the Domesday Book in favour of Skirbeck – but prospered as a wool town when sheep hair made the nation’s fortunes ... and Boston was second only behind London in prosperity

But the wool trade declined, the rivers silted up, and Boston went into a decline from which it never really recovered.

Cue: “An exciting future”

Quite where this part of the slogan has come from is anyone’s guess, as nothing that we can think of is suggestive of any such thing.

The borough faces many problems from a variety of sources – and quite how a few playground poems will turn this around can only be imagined.

Perhaps the Boston Target was right, when its website report claimed that Councillor Austin felt that his website document “would have a goof impact on the town ...

The dictionary defines “goof” as “an incompetent, foolish, or stupid person; a careless mistake; a slip, or blunder; to waste or kill time.”

And are we alone in finding a lecture on the importance of image and reputation somewhat ironic coming from a political chameleon that suddenly dismissed years of espoused independence to form a beneficial “soft” coalition with the Conservative group to ensure their continuing control of the council chamber.

***

More than one little bird has whispered to us to say that the search for a new Chief Executive of Boston Borough Council is effectively over.

We understand that the current acting post holder Phil Drury is the sole choice of the borough’s chief officer employment panel and will remain as Acting Chief Exec until he meets certain “targets” – after which he will assume the throne.

Mr Drury is a long serving officer who has previously been unsuccessful when the top job has been up for grabs.

Quite how this fits in with earlier statements by the council is hard to fathom.

There is no reason why this post should not have been filled long ago – although way back in 2011 Leader Bedford was quite unambiguous when he stated that the council “could no longer sustain” a full time officer and was looking at alternatives including a job share with another authority.

Mr Drury currently receives “acting” pay over and above his regular salary, although we are told that the council still saves money on the arrangement.

The council’s recruitment policy “is committed to adopting a fair and consistent approach in its recruitment and selection procedures ...  (which) will promote equal access to jobs, good HR practice and compliance with employment legislation ... (and) an obligation that every appointment shall be made on merit.” ...

Or should we say that was the policy until now.

***

If we were a senior figure in the Worst Street council chamber we would be becoming a little nervous..

This week saw the annual Local Government Association Conference at Harrogate.

Boston had a couple of delegates there of course – membership tickets cost £600 each, exclusive of accommodation ... but we qualify for the discount, having just paid the annual £6,100 membership fee,

This year’s chairman will be a familiar face to our representatives from Boston.

He’s Councillor Gary Porter, Conservative leader of South Holland District Council – which regularly shames Boston Borough Council through its enthusiasm to take on new ideas ...principal among them the decision to share the chief executive role.

In an interview with the Local Government Chronicle, Councillor Porter said that requiring poorly performing councils to be scrutinised by their stronger counterparts would help local government win extra powers through devolution.

He said it was essential that weaker councils improved if the sector was to win the trust of MPs and other parts of the public sector.

“Parliament judges us on our worst colleagues and we can’t afford in the next few years for that to be the case,” he said.  

“We cannot deny that some of our colleagues in local government really could do with a kick up the backside. And if we try to deny that we will never be taken credibly.”

We wonder whether he had an image of a nearby council in his mind's eye when he issued his warning.

***

Almost as if on cue, one committee of Boston Borough Council has kindly volunteered itself for a kick up the backside.

We’re talking about BTAC – the Boston Town Area Committee – which held its first meeting since the election on Wednesday night.

As is customary on these occasions a chairman and vice chairman are elected.

And this was where a committee that we thought could sink no lower in competence than its predecessor showed just how wrong we were.

For the space of half an hour, in a swelteringly hot room, the committee received two nominations for a chairman which failed on a vote that split politically – if that’s how you describe an anti-UKIP alliance – 7:7.

Undeterred, alternatives were sought.

How about a job share between the two nominees on the basis of six months each?

FAILED 7:7

What about a lottery to pick a chairman?

FAILED 7:7

How about a temporary chairman – just for the night?

FAILED 7:7.

At one point the suggestion was made that they simply packed up and went home – until it was remembered that they had an agenda and that members of the public were in the chamber to witness this sorry saga.

Eventually – and only after the idea was initially rejected, a vote was taken to allow the meeting to be chaired by an officer for the evening.

Such a move is almost unheard of, and suggests that a few councillors need lessons on the direction known as UP.

BTAC – which we shall continue to refer to as B-TACky after this week’s fiasco – is supposed to be the “parish council” for the town wards, and ought therefore to be above petty politics..

Its membership comprises seven UKIP councillors, four Tories, two Labour and one “Independent” who is really a Tory.

Between them the non-UKIP members joined forces to ensure that anything that might benefit a UKIP member was unable to happen – which interestingly saw the Torindy Alison Austin and two Labour councillors snuggle up with the Conservatives.

So, the members started as they presumably mean to go on – playing silly games, rather than thinking of the electors of the wards they represent.

It is always a pleasure to encounter and admire a group of politicians who know what they want, and stand up for it.

But what do you make of a bunch of childish councillors who don't even know what they don’t want, and who are effectively willing to pee on the voters rather than behave like adults.

***

When first we saw Boston Borough Council’s latest innovation, we mistook it for another of the bizarre stunts normally associated with Transported’s arty-farty luvvies.

Beneath the headline “Dog poo slalom for children walking to school,” Boston’s GTSN reported that council staff have taken the novel step of painting piles of dog droppings pink to show their owners how many there were, and how thoughtless it was to leave them on the ground.

As a slalom is defined as “a race that follows a zigzag course, laid out with markers such as flags,” we were bemused by the choice of noun –  until we remembered that Worst Street stuck flags in dog turds in Central Park a couple of years ago.

Had they perhaps combined the two actions into an exciting sport for the summer holidays, we wondered?

Of course not –  and we are not saying that the problem is anything other than anti-social and thoroughly vile.

But yet again, Boston Borough Council is elevating local troubles to the top of the agenda – and losing sight of the big problems facing the borough as a whole.

Not only that –  but as with the flagging campaign –  the council warns that dog mess it presents a serious health hazard especially to children, but then declares “the pink-sprayed poo will be left for a few days to act as a guilty reminder to offending dog owners before a borough council team cleans it all away.”

So who's to blame is a child receives an infection in the interim?

Unsurprisingly, Worst Street is not a pioneer where the painting of dog droppings is concerned.

Credit for that goes to New York – no, not our near neighbours, but the other one they call the Big Crapple –  where a vigilante with a paint spray has been outlining unwanted faecal contributions in green spray paint (see photo above.)

If you'd like to explore this distasteful subject further the link here

will show you more examples of excremental art.

***

Were it not for the fact that our local “newspapers” seize upon the illustrated freebies written for them in Worst Street – which also helps them justify using a photo of the unpleasant sight of a pile of fluorescent pink dog shite when otherwise they might think twice –  far fewer people might be offended had this unpleasantness been confined to the Boston Daily Bulletin.

A reader who is becoming increasingly exercised by the irrelevance and trivialness of the “publication” recently used a freedom of information request to find out exactly how many people ask for this intellectual treat to be delivered to their computer mailboxes each weekday morning.

Back came the reply: “There are 784 email addresses in our mailing list” –  and in an effort to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, the council added “this also includes secondary schools and colleges which then are forwarded onto pupils to receive.”

We don’t know about you, but somehow we find the idea of today’s “yoof” gagging for the latest drivel that the council has to offer through the sanctuary of their school or college almost as ridiculous at the material that they receive.

Surely, with so much being spent to "entertain" so few, there is a question of value for money that needs asking in these straitened financial times. 

***

As if we didn’t have enough by way of troubles, one of our local “newspapers” is celebrating the possibility that Lincolnshire will become the new place for Londoners to exploit.

We especially liked the idea that “Prime real estate in Lincolnshire is being snapped up as buy-to-let investments by London based first-time buyers as they are priced out of the capital.

“With the average house price in London reaching an eye-watering £514,000, people seeking property are being drawn towards Lincolnshire where the average cost of a home is £384,000 cheaper than in London and for just £130,000 in Lincolnshire buyers can expect a two-bed semi with a garage and a good-sized garden.

“With these figures buyers are quite rightly tempted away from the capital to counties like Lincolnshire as they are able to get much more square footage for their money.

“Even though the sacrifice is that these buyers won’t be living in the property as they continue to rent themselves in the capital it makes financial sense.

“Many first-time buyers want to get on the property ladder but aren’t prepared to give up their London life and jobs and this is the compromise.”

How generous and brave of these people to buy our houses –  thus denying local people the chance –  to produce enough income to keep them in style in London ... and, as inevitably happens, drive local prices still further beyond the reach of the locals.

***

Finally, many thanks to those readers who sent their best wishes to Mrs Eye –  whose help with this blog is indispensable.

She is recovering slowly but steadily from major emergency surgery –  it will be some time before she is leading anything like a normal life, but is gaining strength as the days go by.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com