Gordon Anderson, of Alina Ltd, Nelson Road, Dartmouth, writes:

In response to the letter of submitted by the new chairman of the Dartmouth Business Improvement District, Chronicle, September 18, can I respectfully suggest that he practises what he and the BID board preached and pledged at the AGM in March of this year: ‘to become more open and transparent in our dealings with levy-payers.’

There are multiple issues and concerns held by many levy-payers that are not ‘inaccurate claims’. These concerns must not be ignored by the BID board; they must be addressed and answered, otherwise the BID is seen as both hypocritical and behaving in an omnipotent manner.

For example, the BID’s web page claims that 63 per cent of businesses voted in favour of the BID, whereas the reality is that five times more businesses did not vote in favour of the BID than did. The BID’s claim, then, is blatant spin and untruthful.

The previous chair of the BID informed Norton Park chalet owners that all businesses in the TQ6 postal area were subject to the levy fee, yet several similar businesses, both large and small, in the same postal area were given exemptions from paying the levy fee.

What criteria were applied in reaching this decision?

The geographical boundary and the levy fee were both changed without an alteration ballot, but the request for an extraordinary general meeting – by more shareholders than are legally required – was refused by the BID board.

Why does the Dartmouth BID need 50 per cent more levy fee income than Falmouth, which is four times larger than Dartmouth? Explain your profligacy.

Why have ministerial guidelines regarding BIDs been ignored regarding raising more than 50 per cent of income from the lowest bands of levy fee charges?

Why haven’t the BID board’s minutes of meetings and the fact-finding report to Falmouth been published? Surely both are not too embarrassing or secretive.

This behaviour is hardly ‘open and transparent’. You are custodians of our money and, as such, are obliged to publish the information.

Finally, to whom is the BID board accountable? You are co-signatory to an operating agreement with South Hams Council, yet the council claims to be impotent over the BID’s actions.

None of the town council, local MP, local government ombudsman, secretary of state for communities and local ­government or the prime ­minister will admit to having any responsibility for the BID’s behaviour. Hardly democratic.

I challenge the BID board to hold a public meeting for levy-payers to raise their issues and concerns and for the BID board to shed its poor public image

of acting in an omnipotent manner.

After all, we haven’t had any face-to-face contact with the BID board for six months now.

Actions always speak louder than words.