Now that the ruling party have successfully sounded the death Nell on Party in the Park, I am growing increasingly concerned that the MAY FAIR is next in line.
I do hope I am wrong, however last years wayforward group (24th Nov 2009) discussed options and from reading the briefing notes (and more importantly reading between the lines) there does not seem to be a hugh amount of favour for it.
Aside from the costs ( which as I know can be worked up as easily as down) there appears to be a great deal of apathy in what has a historic place in our town heritage.
The May Fair traces its origins back to a charter by Henry VIII in 1545, when it use to take place on St Georges day and the two days following. When in 1752 England adopted the Gregorian calender the date was moved to May, hence the name May Fair.
Now, call me a sceptic if you wish, but I can see the writing on the wall, a similar thing happened with Party in the Park, it kinda works like this!
Make it so expensive by what ever means you can and it becomes easy to say " We can't afford it in the current climate, lets wait and see what the outcome of the "market testing" of Cultural Services suggests....blah blah blah..........and you guessed it the event gets put off whilst this process is carried out never to raise its head again, can you see a trend here? Ermm.............. like Party in the Park.
Sorry, but in my view we have to keep some traditions going, this is a historic event, love it or hate it! and is something that MUST be maintained, otherwise whats the point of anything?
Watch this space as I attempt to resurrect the St Georges day parade that was cancelled a few years ago because of " health and safety" complete TOSH!!
Wednesday 17 February 2010
Friday 12 February 2010
LIEsure services, the jury's out
My letter to the local media over the recent dictate over leisure services here in Boston.
I am sure there will be plenty to write about as the wheels fall off this in coming months and years!
Sir,
I write to express in Public, the grave concerns I raised in Full Council last week relating to the Leisure services contract.
Unfortunately, this matter was not discussed in public, despite my motion to lift this restriction, equally concerning and more disturbing was the BBI flat rejection to allow debate of this matter.
Perhaps it can be explained as the prior weeks scrutiny meeting led to Cllr Dungworth
Walking out of a meeting in which he is portfolio holder, thereby delaying it 3 days.
This delay left little time to get answers ready for Mondays Full Council meeting where the final decision was to be made. The scrutiny meeting attended largely by the opposition was robust and raised a number of grave concerns relating to the appointment of the preferred bidder. A number of questions were raised and answers to these were produced at the Full council.
Under these circumstances, myself and members of the opposition felt it prudent not to appoint a contract whilst there were so many questionable aspects surrounding the preferred bidder, the full detail that could only be realised by those who bothered to attend the meeting and read up on the reports and supporting information.
I wish to make quite clear that I am very keen to see the training pool opened at once, however this contract does not allow for that.
I wish to see good value for money and a service we can be proud of, however initial investigations point to a very disappointing history from the preferred bidder
( See Mere Leisure Centre Grantham) and the BBI seem content to make do with what we can get!!
These arrangements land the Council with the liability of maintaining the PRSA and have allowed the BSI to write off over £3m of debit to the council. The tax payer has nothing to show for it…….scandalous.
These arrangements by their very nature, make the ability of you the taxpayer to complain to me the elected member in order to resolve issues that a private company are directly responsible for even more difficult than at present.
I am not convinced that there is enough power within the contract to manage robustly any shortfalls in service and standards, in the event that the preferred bidder fails to deliver what the taxpayer desires.
And finally I question, has the BBI, with its voting majority delivered to the borough another DABSI mess.
I hope not but I am not at all convinced.
Cllr David Owens
British National Party
I am sure there will be plenty to write about as the wheels fall off this in coming months and years!
Sir,
I write to express in Public, the grave concerns I raised in Full Council last week relating to the Leisure services contract.
Unfortunately, this matter was not discussed in public, despite my motion to lift this restriction, equally concerning and more disturbing was the BBI flat rejection to allow debate of this matter.
Perhaps it can be explained as the prior weeks scrutiny meeting led to Cllr Dungworth
Walking out of a meeting in which he is portfolio holder, thereby delaying it 3 days.
This delay left little time to get answers ready for Mondays Full Council meeting where the final decision was to be made. The scrutiny meeting attended largely by the opposition was robust and raised a number of grave concerns relating to the appointment of the preferred bidder. A number of questions were raised and answers to these were produced at the Full council.
Under these circumstances, myself and members of the opposition felt it prudent not to appoint a contract whilst there were so many questionable aspects surrounding the preferred bidder, the full detail that could only be realised by those who bothered to attend the meeting and read up on the reports and supporting information.
I wish to make quite clear that I am very keen to see the training pool opened at once, however this contract does not allow for that.
I wish to see good value for money and a service we can be proud of, however initial investigations point to a very disappointing history from the preferred bidder
( See Mere Leisure Centre Grantham) and the BBI seem content to make do with what we can get!!
These arrangements land the Council with the liability of maintaining the PRSA and have allowed the BSI to write off over £3m of debit to the council. The tax payer has nothing to show for it…….scandalous.
These arrangements by their very nature, make the ability of you the taxpayer to complain to me the elected member in order to resolve issues that a private company are directly responsible for even more difficult than at present.
I am not convinced that there is enough power within the contract to manage robustly any shortfalls in service and standards, in the event that the preferred bidder fails to deliver what the taxpayer desires.
And finally I question, has the BBI, with its voting majority delivered to the borough another DABSI mess.
I hope not but I am not at all convinced.
Cllr David Owens
British National Party
Tuesday 2 February 2010
Next on the agenda!
I have formally requested that the scrutiny committee take an in depth look at how we manage, govern and control HMO's ( house's of multiple occupancy).
This is an area that I know causes no end of personal strife to many people in Boston, and something which most if not all councillors will never have to face.
However, I feel that as a council we have a duty to deal with issues that the people of our Borough feel concern them most, and this is one of many areas that falls within that category.
The controls and enforcement that allow such matters to arise are in need of a real debate to establish how best to resolve current and future issues where the blight of poorly managed HMO's is affecting the daily lives of those who have to put up with them.
I shall keep you posted on progress.
Please remember all these meetings are open to the public, and you have every right to attend.
This is an area that I know causes no end of personal strife to many people in Boston, and something which most if not all councillors will never have to face.
However, I feel that as a council we have a duty to deal with issues that the people of our Borough feel concern them most, and this is one of many areas that falls within that category.
The controls and enforcement that allow such matters to arise are in need of a real debate to establish how best to resolve current and future issues where the blight of poorly managed HMO's is affecting the daily lives of those who have to put up with them.
I shall keep you posted on progress.
Please remember all these meetings are open to the public, and you have every right to attend.
Success
Some good news, after my continued requests to have the Community Cohesion spend analysed by the scrutiny committee, I have today been advised that this will come before them on March 10 th. I would urge anyone with the slightest interest in this to come along to the meeting, ITS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, and there is nothing to fear.
For more information give me a call on 07980-261023
For more information give me a call on 07980-261023
Monday 1 February 2010
Where has all the money gone?
My personal interest in seeing that we know where our money is spent.
The following a series of some of the email's between those who can give us, the taxpayer the answers.
READ FROM THE BOTTOM UP
Richard,
Thank you for you reply, I would very much like to stress, that whilst officers of the council need to prepare reports, more importantly I would expect that those beneficiaries that have drawn on this funding report in both a written and verbal manner are held to account for such.
Obviously these parties are beyond your direct control, however the relevant committee has explicate powers to call these partners to account and every effort should be made to ensure they are.
r
Cllr David Owens
>>> Richard Harbord 31/01/2010 18:12 >>>
I have this matter in mind and will find a convenient date and which panel as soon as I can.I need to give officers time to produce a factual report to discuss.
I will comew back to you in the next few days
Richard
Richard Harbord
Chief Executive
>>> David Owens 01/30/10 4:01 AM >>>
All,
Further to my requests in December, and given the timing in relation to budget setting, I once again request that this subject comes before scrutiny, I feel it is imperative that we gain a thorough understanding of how the £660,000 of tax payers money has and is being spent. I expect to see representation of all those parties i.e. CAB and CVS in this scrutiny and wish to see them and others account for all expenditure that has been charged under the heading of Community Cohesion.
Regards
Cllr David Owens
>>> David Owens 08/12/2009 13:58 >>>
Alison,
You may recall from a forum meeting last week the subject of items for inclusion under this banner was discussed. Richard Harbord stole my thunder somewhat, in suggesting that Community cohesion is brought to scrutiny as an example.
The purpose of this email is to make a formal request that this subject come before your committee at the earliest opportunity.
To refresh your and other members memories,
£660,000 of funding was granted to BBC for this fund to be spread over 3 years, we are nearing the end of year 2. Whilst any funding to assist cohesion in Boston is most welcome, we as elected members have a duty to ensure that this money is spent wisely and appropriately.
The past and current reporting methods of how this money is spent, leaves a great deal to be desired and would benefit all concerned to open this area to view by all.
The CAB, CVS, Mayflower are all partners in this enterprise and I suggest should be included in the meeting/s should they be called.
We would also need to know precisely what each of the recipients of funding is actually doing in relation to funds it is receiving and were staff have been taken on to fill new roles ( of which there are at least 4,) what have they delivered whilst in post and what plans are there for the future when funding ceases at the end of 2010/11.
It may be of interest to know what percentage of CAB and CVS,s total funding comes from this cohesion fund, as it may be prudent to ensure that this fund stream meets with the criteria of the Community Cohesion Strategy (as detailed in appendix B of the report to cabinet dated 23rd July 2008) and that there is clear evidence of all recipients meeting the strict criteria.
I have obtaining a breakdown for the past present and future spending under this funding stream and I am slightly concerned that they appear to be somewhat lacking in any real detail.
Kind Regards
Cllr David Owens
The following a series of some of the email's between those who can give us, the taxpayer the answers.
READ FROM THE BOTTOM UP
Richard,
Thank you for you reply, I would very much like to stress, that whilst officers of the council need to prepare reports, more importantly I would expect that those beneficiaries that have drawn on this funding report in both a written and verbal manner are held to account for such.
Obviously these parties are beyond your direct control, however the relevant committee has explicate powers to call these partners to account and every effort should be made to ensure they are.
r
Cllr David Owens
>>> Richard Harbord 31/01/2010 18:12 >>>
I have this matter in mind and will find a convenient date and which panel as soon as I can.I need to give officers time to produce a factual report to discuss.
I will comew back to you in the next few days
Richard
Richard Harbord
Chief Executive
>>> David Owens 01/30/10 4:01 AM >>>
All,
Further to my requests in December, and given the timing in relation to budget setting, I once again request that this subject comes before scrutiny, I feel it is imperative that we gain a thorough understanding of how the £660,000 of tax payers money has and is being spent. I expect to see representation of all those parties i.e. CAB and CVS in this scrutiny and wish to see them and others account for all expenditure that has been charged under the heading of Community Cohesion.
Regards
Cllr David Owens
>>> David Owens 08/12/2009 13:58 >>>
Alison,
You may recall from a forum meeting last week the subject of items for inclusion under this banner was discussed. Richard Harbord stole my thunder somewhat, in suggesting that Community cohesion is brought to scrutiny as an example.
The purpose of this email is to make a formal request that this subject come before your committee at the earliest opportunity.
To refresh your and other members memories,
£660,000 of funding was granted to BBC for this fund to be spread over 3 years, we are nearing the end of year 2. Whilst any funding to assist cohesion in Boston is most welcome, we as elected members have a duty to ensure that this money is spent wisely and appropriately.
The past and current reporting methods of how this money is spent, leaves a great deal to be desired and would benefit all concerned to open this area to view by all.
The CAB, CVS, Mayflower are all partners in this enterprise and I suggest should be included in the meeting/s should they be called.
We would also need to know precisely what each of the recipients of funding is actually doing in relation to funds it is receiving and were staff have been taken on to fill new roles ( of which there are at least 4,) what have they delivered whilst in post and what plans are there for the future when funding ceases at the end of 2010/11.
It may be of interest to know what percentage of CAB and CVS,s total funding comes from this cohesion fund, as it may be prudent to ensure that this fund stream meets with the criteria of the Community Cohesion Strategy (as detailed in appendix B of the report to cabinet dated 23rd July 2008) and that there is clear evidence of all recipients meeting the strict criteria.
I have obtaining a breakdown for the past present and future spending under this funding stream and I am slightly concerned that they appear to be somewhat lacking in any real detail.
Kind Regards
Cllr David Owens
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
