710 Pages. One Cabinet Meeting. Is This Democracy… or an Endurance Test?

There's confidence.

There's optimism.

There's wishful thinking.

And then there's believing that elected councillors can properly scrutinise 710 pages of reports, challenge officers, understand every financial implication, ask intelligent questions and make informed decisions... all before one Cabinet meeting.

Welcome to Sandwell.

On Wednesday 15 July, Sandwell's Cabinet will meet to decide the future of services affecting every resident.

Housing.

Roads.

Schools.

SEND.

Anti-social behaviour.

Council finances.

Regeneration.

Pride in Place.

Housing contracts.

School capital.

Corporate performance.

Millions upon millions of pounds of taxpayers' money.

All wrapped up in a 710-page agenda pack.

Not a typo.

Seven hundred and ten pages.

If you fancy having a look yourself—and I genuinely admire your optimism—you can find the agenda here:

Sandwell Cabinet Meeting – 15 July 2026 Agenda

Bring coffee.

Possibly an oxygen tank.

War and Peace? Lightweight.

To put 710 pages into perspective...

You could read George Orwell's 1984.

Then Animal Farm.

Have a sandwich.

Walk the dog.

Cut the grass.

Come back...

...and you'd probably still have another risk register or appendix to get through.

I've seen fewer pages in university dissertations.

I've bought shorter Haynes manuals.

The old Argos catalogue was less intimidating.

At this rate Cabinet Members won't need tablets...

...they'll need forklifts.

Transparency? Or Death by PDF?

Whenever residents complain that councils aren't transparent, the stock answer usually goes something like this:

"Everything is publicly available."

Technically...

Yes.

So are the complete Hansard archives.

Publishing information isn't the same as making it understandable.

Uploading 710 pages to a website doesn't automatically make a council open.

Sometimes it just makes it harder for anyone to see what's actually happening.

It's a bit like hiding a needle...

...inside another needle...

...inside a haystack.

Let's Be Honest... Nobody Can Properly Read This

Here's the uncomfortable truth.

No Cabinet Member can realistically:

• read 710 pages;

• understand every legal implication;

• digest every financial risk;

• challenge every recommendation;

• compare every appendix with previous reports;

• carry out ward casework;

• answer residents;

• attend meetings;

• hold down a job;

• have something resembling a family life...

...and still turn up fully prepared to debate nineteen substantial reports.

Not Labour.

Not Reform.

Not Conservatives.

Not Independents.

Nobody.

If anyone says they've absorbed every page cover to cover in the time available, they either possess superhuman powers...

...or they're bluffing.

This Isn't Scrutiny. It's Survival.

Cabinet exists for one reason.

To scrutinise.

To challenge.

To test assumptions.

To ask awkward questions.

To say:

"Hang on... have we actually thought this through?"

Instead, meetings increasingly risk becoming:

Approved.

Approved.

Approved.

Noted.

Delegated.

Approved.

Next item.

By page 642 even the strongest councillor is probably wondering whether they accidentally enrolled on an Open University degree in municipal administration.

Meanwhile... Buried Somewhere Around Page 300...

Hidden amongst the mountain of paperwork is something rather inconvenient.

The Council's own performance report.

And guess what?

It's hardly a glowing report card.

Dozens of performance indicators remain red.

Housing is struggling.

Customer services are struggling.

SEND remains under pressure.

Complaints remain high.

Some indicators have stayed red quarter after quarter.

These aren't opposition figures.

They're the Council's own figures.

Yet instead of seeing an overwhelming focus on fixing those problems...

...we get another action plan.

Another strategy.

Another framework.

Another transformation programme.

Another governance structure.

At this rate Sandwell produces more strategies than Netflix produces documentaries.

The Great Delegation Machine

Another phrase appears so often in these reports that it deserves its own loyalty card.

"Delegated Authority."

Approve the principle...

Delegate the detail...

Report back later...

Maybe.

It's becoming Cabinet Bingo.

Tick them off as you go:

☑ Approve

☑ Delegate

☑ Endorse

☑ Framework

☑ Transformation

☑ Partnership

☑ Review

☑ Action Plan

House!

Now, delegation has its place.

No council could function without it.

But there comes a point where residents are entitled to ask:

Exactly what is Cabinet deciding... and what is being quietly handed over afterwards?

Because if every major decision ends with "delegated to officers", what exactly is the democratic value of Cabinet beyond approving the cover sheet?

Quantity Isn't Quality

Somewhere in local government a strange myth has taken hold.

That the thicker the agenda...

...the better the governance.

Rubbish.

A 710-page agenda isn't evidence of openness.

It's evidence of a system drowning in its own paperwork.

Good governance isn't measured in kilograms.

It's measured by whether elected Members have enough time to understand what they're voting on.

Here's a Crazy Suggestion...

Split the agenda.

Hold another Cabinet meeting.

Prioritise genuinely urgent business.

Publish proper executive summaries.

Give Members the chance to actually read, think and challenge.

Because if decisions affecting hundreds of millions of pounds can't justify an extra meeting...

...what exactly can?

The Bigger Problem

This isn't about whether the reports are good or bad.

Many of them contain worthwhile proposals.

This is about whether the process itself is fit for purpose.

Democracy doesn't become stronger because you've uploaded more PDFs.

It becomes stronger when elected Members have the time, confidence and information to properly scrutinise what's put in front of them.

Right now, it feels as though scrutiny is being buried under paperwork.

Not deliberately perhaps.

But effectively.

And there's an old saying...

If you want to hide something, hide it in plain sight.

Or, in local government...

Hide it somewhere around page 487.

One Final Thought

If I handed a university student 710 pages on Monday and expected a properly researched dissertation by Wednesday, they'd laugh.

If I handed a barrister 710 pages the day before a trial, they'd ask the judge for an adjournment.

If I handed a surgeon 710 pages before an operation, you'd probably ask for a second opinion.

Yet somehow we expect councillors—many with full-time jobs, businesses, caring responsibilities and hundreds of residents relying on them—to digest 710 pages of highly technical reports before making decisions affecting every household in Sandwell.

Then we wonder why public confidence in local government isn't exactly soaring.

Good governance isn't about seeing how many reports can be crammed into one meeting. It's about giving elected Members the time, information and confidence to properly challenge decisions before they're made.

If we genuinely want stronger democracy in Sandwell, we need stronger scrutiny—not simply bigger agenda packs.

Because at the moment, this doesn't look like robust local democracy.

It looks like a speed-reading competition sponsored by the printer toner industry... with accountability buried somewhere between Appendix 14 and Annex C.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #Cabinet #LocalGovernment #Democracy #Scrutiny #Governance #Transparency #Accountability #Housing #SEND #Regeneration #CouncilFinance #CommunityVoice #LocalPolitics

Sandwell’s Big Theme Machine: Same Council Fog, New Political Test for Reform

Sandwell’s Big Theme Machine: Same Council Fog, New Political Test for Reform

Sandwell Council has apparently organised itself around five shiny theme areas:

Growing up in Sandwell.
Living in Sandwell.
Healthy in Sandwell.
Thriving Economy in Sandwell.
One Council One Team.

Lovely.

It sounds like the sort of thing you would find on a council PowerPoint, probably with soft colours, smiling stock images and a diagram involving arrows pointing confidently at each other.

But as ever with Sandwell, the question is not whether the words sound nice.

The question is: who is actually responsible when things go wrong?

Because residents do not live inside corporate themes. They live with broken housing repairs, unanswered complaints, dirty streets, neglected parks, ASB, SEND pressures, confusing consultations, planning decisions they struggle to influence, and the familiar Sandwell experience of being passed from one department to another like an unwanted parcel.

The council says its current plan runs to 2027 and is built around four strategic themes — Growing up, Living, Healthy and Thriving Economy — all underpinned by One Council One Team.

That may be the official structure.

But the lived reality for many residents is much simpler:

One Council.
Many departments.
Endless confusion.
No obvious owner.

And that is the first big test for the new Reform-controlled council.

The themes sound neat. The council underneath does not.

On paper, the themes are easy enough to understand.

Growing up in Sandwell should cover children, education, safeguarding, SEND, school attendance, young people and corporate parenting.

Living in Sandwell should cover the things residents see and feel every day: housing, repairs, parks, waste, fly-tipping, street cleaning, ASB, neighbourhoods and community safety.

Healthy in Sandwell should cover adult social care, public health, carers, health inequalities, prevention and vulnerable residents.

Thriving Economy in Sandwell should cover regeneration, jobs, business, town centres, planning, investment, infrastructure and the local economy.

One Council One Team should be the glue holding it all together: governance, finance, complaints, customer services, scrutiny, transformation, culture and performance.

So far, so sensible.

But then we reach Sandwell reality.

Services do not sit neatly in one box. Damp and mould is housing, health, children’s welfare, adult social care, repairs, complaints and sometimes legal risk. ASB can be housing, police, neighbourhoods, youth services, public protection and community safety. SEND transport can involve children’s services, education, finance, procurement, transport contracts, families and schools.

So when the council says “One Council One Team”, residents are entitled to ask:

Does that mean joined-up action?
Or does it mean everyone is involved and nobody is responsible?

Because Sandwell has been here before.

Many times.

With a lanyard.

Red flag one: portfolio churn

Cabinet portfolios are supposed to help residents and councillors understand political responsibility.

Who owns housing?
Who owns parks?
Who owns ASB?
Who owns regeneration?
Who owns SEND?
Who owns complaints?
Who owns the resident journey when the system fails?

But when portfolios keep changing, titles shift, responsibilities move, and services are grouped and regrouped under different political headings, public accountability becomes foggy.

One year it is environment. Then neighbourhoods. Then leisure. Then place. Then community. Then regeneration. Then some grander title with “inclusive” or “sustainable” added for decoration.

The council’s Cabinet papers make clear that Cabinet Members have defined portfolio responsibilities.

Fine.

But defined for whom?

For officers who already understand the internal structure?
For councillors who sit through briefings?
Or for the resident trying to work out who is responsible for the park, the fly-tip, the repair, the noise nuisance, the dangerous alleyway or the ignored complaint?

Because if a resident needs a municipal treasure map to find accountability, the structure is already failing.

Red flag two: senior officer churn and directorate reshuffling

This is not just political. It is managerial too.

Sandwell has been through government intervention, commissioner oversight, post-intervention recovery, senior leadership restructuring, directorate changes, service director changes and now a full political change of control.

Government intervention began in March 2022 and ended in March 2024.

That is not ancient history. That is still recent in council terms.

The council itself was still talking in March 2026 about post-intervention improvement and its ambition to continue improving after the end of intervention.

So let us be honest.

Reform has not taken over a stable, simple, well-understood council machine.

It has inherited a council that has spent years rearranging itself, explaining itself, rebuilding itself, reviewing itself and congratulating itself for improving itself.

Now add new political leadership, new Cabinet appointments, new scrutiny dynamics, many new councillors and a public expecting change.

That is not a smooth handover.

That is a governance stress test.

Red flag three: “Place” risks becoming the council’s everything drawer

The word Place sounds harmless.

In council language, however, it often means: “We have put half the visible council under one enormous heading and good luck finding the exact bit you need.”

Housing? Place.
Regeneration? Place.
Parks? Place.
Waste? Place.
Public protection? Place.
Assets? Place.
Town centres? Place.
Planning-related growth? Place.
Environment? Place.

Wonderful.

Just chuck it all in Place.

That may suit internal management charts, but it does not help residents unless the council clearly explains who owns each service inside that huge directorate.

If everything is Place, then Place risks becoming the black hole where accountability goes to have a little lie down.

Reform should demand service-level accountability immediately.

Not “Place will look at it”.

Not “this sits within the wider operating model”.

Not “this aligns with the Council Plan”.

A name.
A portfolio.
A director.
A performance measure.
A public update.

That is the minimum.

Red flag four: performance language can hide failure

Sandwell’s themes should not become a soft cushion for poor performance.

The council says it monitors performance against the Council Plan themes.

Good.

Then publish it in a way residents can understand.

Not a maze of PDFs.
Not obscure committee packs.
Not polished summaries where the bad news is buried under seventeen paragraphs of “progress continues”.

Residents need to see:

What is green?
What is amber?
What is red?
What is getting worse?
Who owns it?
What is the recovery plan?
When will it be fixed?

If housing repairs are poor, say so.

If SEND is under pressure, say so.

If adult social care is struggling, say so.

If regeneration projects are slipping, say so.

If complaints are increasing, say so.

If FOIs are late, say so.

If residents keep reporting the same failures, say so.

The public is not stupid. What annoys people is not just failure. It is failure wrapped in corporate optimism and served with a side order of “lessons will be learned”.

Red flag five: intervention may have ended, but culture does not change by press release

Sandwell leaving government intervention was obviously significant. The council said in March 2024 that ministers had confirmed intervention would end.

Good.

But ending intervention does not magically fix culture.

It does not automatically fix scrutiny.

It does not automatically fix transparency.

It does not automatically fix resident engagement.

It does not automatically fix weak communication.

And it certainly does not mean the new controlling party should simply accept every officer assurance with a grateful smile and a complimentary biscuit.

Reform must remember this:

A council can leave intervention and still retain old habits.

The language may improve.
The charts may improve.
The reports may improve.
The culture may still resist challenge.

That is why the new administration must get to grips with accountability immediately.

Red flag six: Annual Council is not just ceremonial

The Annual Council meeting on 26 May 2026 includes the election of the Leader and approval of executive arrangements, Cabinet portfolios and appointments for 2026/27.

This matters.

Because this is where Reform either starts to clear the fog — or adds another layer to it.

The new Cabinet portfolios must be understandable to the public.

Residents should not have to guess whether a problem belongs to Housing, Environment, Neighbourhoods, Community Safety, Place, Public Health, Customer Services, Regeneration or “One Council One Team”.

The new administration should publish a simple Who Owns What guide.

Not eventually.
Not after a review.
Not when the transformation programme has finished transforming the transformation.

Now.

What Reform needs to do quickly

Reform has won control. That is the easy bit compared with actually running the place.

Now it needs to prove it can govern.

And the first test is clarity.

Reform should demand a public “Who Owns What” map

For every major resident-facing service, the public should be able to see:

Cabinet Member.
Senior officer.
Directorate.
Scrutiny route.
Public contact route.
Performance indicators.
Current red risks.

Housing repairs.
Damp and mould.
Parks.
Waste.
Fly-tipping.
ASB.
SEND.
School transport.
Adult social care.
Public health.
Regeneration.
Planning.
Complaints.
FOI.
Customer services.

Name the owner.

Then publish the performance.

Then update it.

That is not revolutionary. It is basic democratic accountability.

Which is probably why Sandwell has historically found it so difficult.

Reform must not fall into Labour’s old trap

The old Labour machine in Sandwell loved the language of plans, partnerships, strategies, boards, frameworks and reviews.

Everything was always being aligned, embedded, strengthened, developed, refreshed or transformed.

Meanwhile, residents were often left asking the same question:

Who is actually sorting this?

Reform must not simply put new names on the same fog.

Do not rename portfolios unless residents can understand them.

Do not accept “cross-cutting” as an answer.

Do not allow “partnership working” to become a hiding place.

Do not let Place become an accountability warehouse.

Do not let officers bury red risks in polished reports.

Do not let public commitments vanish when personnel change.

Do not let scrutiny become a theatre of polite nodding.

And above all, do not confuse being in control of the council chamber with being in control of the council machine.

They are not the same thing.

The big danger for Reform

Reform has a majority, but it also has a lot of new councillors, a steep learning curve and residents expecting visible change fast.

If Reform does not grip the council structure quickly, officers will run rings around them with process.

Not necessarily maliciously. That is just what large organisations do. They absorb change, slow it down, translate it into internal language, and send it to a board to be reviewed by a group that reports to another group.

Then, three months later, everyone agrees that “progress is being made”.

Residents, meanwhile, are still waiting for the repair, the answer, the clean-up, the enforcement, the transport, the decision, the callback.

Reform needs to get ahead of that.

The first demand should be simple:

Show us the red risks.
Show us the missed targets.
Show us the complaints.
Show us the officer owners.
Show us the Cabinet owners.
Show us the recovery plans.
Show us what residents can see publicly.

No fog.
No waffle.
No corporate incense.

The test is brutally simple

Can a resident look at Sandwell Council’s website and understand who is responsible for a service?

Can a councillor quickly find the officer owner for a problem?

Can a scrutiny board see what is red, what is worsening and what is being done?

Can a community group track promises made to them?

Can a tenant see housing repair performance?

Can a parent see SEND transport accountability?

Can residents see whether regeneration promises are actually being delivered?

If the answer is no, then the themes are not accountability.

They are wallpaper.

Final word

Sandwell’s themes may sound pleasant enough.

Growing up.
Living.
Healthy.
Thriving.
One Council One Team.

Very nice.

But Sandwell does not need another collection of cheerful headings.

It needs visible responsibility.

It needs public dashboards.

It needs named owners.

It needs proper scrutiny.

It needs honest red-risk reporting.

It needs residents to stop being bounced around a system that appears to understand itself far better than it serves the public.

Reform now has the wheel.

The question is whether it will drive the council — or be driven by it.

Because if “One Council One Team” means joined-up action, brilliant.

But if it means everyone involved and nobody accountable, then residents will quickly discover that Sandwell has not changed at all.

It has simply changed the badge on the fog machine.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #SandwellPolitics #ReformSandwell #LocalGovernment #CouncilAccountability #OneCouncilOneTeam #GrowingUpInSandwell #LivingInSandwell #HealthyInSandwell #ThrivingEconomyInSandwell #HousingRepairs #SEND #Regeneration #PublicServices #LocalDemocracy #Scrutiny #Governance #ResidentsFirst

Sandwell Labour’s 2026 Pledge Sheet — The Party That Broke the Windows Now Wants Praise for Buying a Broom

Sandwell Labour’s 2026 Pledge Sheet — The Party That Broke the Windows Now Wants Praise for Buying a Broom

Sandwell Labour has launched its glossy 2026 pledge sheet.

Bright red background. Big yellow promises. CCTV cameras. Fly-tipping teams. Anti-social behaviour officers. More bins. Pop-up recycling centres. Crisis funds. Food banks. Roads. Parks. Play areas.

At first glance, it looks like action.

Look again.

What it really says is this:

After years in charge, Labour has finally discovered the problems residents have been shouting about for years.

Fly-tipping. Anti-social behaviour. filthy streets. Poor enforcement. neglected town centres. residents left battling systems that do not answer, do not explain, and do not learn until election season arrives with a camera, a leaflet and a slogan.

This is not a party of renewal.

This is the management team asking for applause because the building is on fire and they have found a bucket.

The Big Trick: Council Budget Dressed Up as Labour Pledge

The first red flag is the way Labour presents these promises.

The leaflet says “Sandwell Labour Pledges for 2026.”

But many of the headline items are not fresh party promises. They are already part of the council’s 2026/27 budget: 62 new CCTV cameras, 34 pop-up recycling centres, new litter bins, doubled anti-social behaviour funding, £1 million for play areas, extra roads and pavements money, and road safety investment. Sandwell Council itself published those budget priorities after the February 2026 budget decision.

So let us call this what it is.

Taxpayer-funded council decisions are being politically gift-wrapped as Labour election pledges.

Residents pay. The council budgets. Labour campaigns. Then the leaflet arrives pretending it is all a generous party offering from the people who have been running the place for years.

That is not bold leadership.

That is incumbency marketing.

Fly-Tipping: Labour Discovers Rubbish Exists

Labour now promises a new fly-tipping enforcement team, Environmental Enforcement and Rapid Response Officers, and two new vehicles.

The council says it will invest close to £1 million, create eight new posts, buy vehicles and launch a rapid response to fly-tipping incidents.

Fine. Good. Long overdue.

But why now?

Fly-tipping has not suddenly appeared in Sandwell. It has been blighting streets, alleys, entries, green spaces and neighbourhoods for years. Council papers have described fly-tipping as a significant issue, with 8,000 to 10,000 incidents reported each year, and more than 8,000 reports already recorded in the first three quarters of 2025/26.

That is not a minor nuisance.

That is a borough-wide failure of deterrence, prevention and enforcement.

The council has also said that since October 2025 enforcement action led to 20 fixed penalty notices, with several cases pending prosecution.

Twenty fixed penalty notices against thousands of fly-tipping reports is not exactly Judge Dredd in a hi-vis jacket.

Residents should ask:

Where were the enforcement teams before the election year?
Where were the prosecutions?
Where was the prevention strategy?
Where was the ward-by-ward hotspot data?
Where was the grip?

Labour now wants credit for sending a team to clear up a mess that grew under Labour’s watch.

CCTV: Cameras Are Not a Strategy

Labour says it will install over 60 new CCTV cameras, with 30 deployable.

Again, the council budget confirms 62 new CCTV cameras to help tackle fly-tipping and anti-social behaviour.

But CCTV is not magic.

A camera does not issue a fine.
A camera does not knock on a door.
A camera does not prosecute.
A camera does not comfort a resident who has spent two years reporting the same alleyway, the same nuisance neighbour, the same street-corner problems.

CCTV is useful only if it is part of a serious enforcement chain: monitored, reviewed, acted upon, linked to prosecutions and reported back to residents.

Otherwise it becomes the perfect political prop.

Big enough for a leaflet.
Small enough to avoid a proper explanation.

The question is simple: will the council publish where these cameras go, why those locations were chosen, what outcomes they produce, and how many offenders are actually caught?

If not, this is not accountability. It is theatre with a lens.

Anti-Social Behaviour: Doubling Staff After Years of Complaints

Labour says it will create a brand-new Anti-Social Behaviour Team, doubling frontline staff.

The council says its dedicated anti-social behaviour officers will increase from 17 to 39 as part of a £1 million-plus investment.

Again, good.

But again, why did it take this long?

For years residents have complained about nuisance, intimidation, noise, street drinking, drug activity, harassment, repeat offenders, neighbour disputes and people being bounced between housing, police, environmental health, community safety and councillors.

Now, in an all-out election year, Labour has discovered “frontline staff.”

Residents should not be blinded by headcount. They should demand outcomes:

How many ASB cases are opened?
How many are resolved?
How many repeat offenders are dealt with?
How many complainants are satisfied?
How many cases are closed because the council says “no further action”?
How many victims are left feeling abandoned?

A bigger team is only meaningful if it ends the culture of delay, deflection and departmental ping-pong.

Bins, Pop-Up Recycling and the Politics of the Obvious

Labour promises more than 100 new street bins with segregated recycling in high-volume areas.

The council budget also promises new litter bins and 34 pop-up recycling centres across the borough.

Again, this tells us something important.

If Sandwell now needs extra bins, pop-up recycling centres, CCTV and a fly-tipping enforcement squad, then Labour’s own leaflet is basically admitting the current system has not been working well enough.

The borough does not need a photo opportunity next to a bin.

It needs:

proper collection capacity,
clear street cleansing schedules,
real enforcement,
transparent hotspot data,
ward-level reporting,
and proper scrutiny of whether waste policy changes have increased pressure on already struggling communities.

A bin is not a strategy. A pop-up recycling centre is not a waste revolution. And a leaflet is not a clean street.

Cost of Living: Compassion in a Box, Council Tax in the Post

Labour promises a crisis fund, extra council tax support, free welfare advice, and investment in food banks and pantries.

That sounds warm. It also sounds revealing.

If the Labour-run council needs to campaign on food banks, crisis funds and extra welfare support, then it is admitting many Sandwell households are struggling badly.

At the same time, the council has increased council tax for 2026/27, while presenting the increase as modest for Band A and Band B households.

But struggling residents do not live in a press release. They live in weekly budgets.

For some families, a few pounds more is not “modest.” It is another squeeze.

So Labour’s message becomes:

We will take more from you, then campaign on helping you cope with having less.

That is not social justice. That is a political washing machine.

“Protecting Services” — Protected From Whom?

The leaflet lists what Labour claims it has been protecting: libraries, community centres, leisure centres, youth services, green spaces, meals on wheels, public health activity, dementia care, animal welfare, family hubs and more.

Fine. Let us ask the obvious question.

Protected from whom?

Labour runs Sandwell Council.

If services are at risk, residents are entitled to ask who set the budgets, who made the choices, who designed the consultations, who controlled the cabinet reports, who voted the decisions through, and who has been in power while public confidence has eroded.

“Protecting services” is a lovely phrase. But it needs evidence.

Are services protected in budget?
Protected in staff numbers?
Protected in opening hours?
Protected in access?
Protected in quality?
Protected in outcomes?
Or merely protected as a line in a leaflet?

Because in Sandwell, too often, residents see the brand, the slogan and the press release long before they see the delivery.

The Governance Shadow Labour Wants Everyone to Forget

Sandwell Council was placed under Government intervention in 2022 after serious governance concerns. The Government’s Sandwell intervention collection exists because there was a formal best value intervention into the council.

The intervention ended in March 2024, with ministers saying the council was no longer failing its Best Value Duty, but the ministerial letter still referred to the need to sustain improvement and build further resilience.

That matters.

Because Labour now wants residents to move straight from “intervention ended” to “everything is fixed.”

No.

Ending intervention is not a gold medal. It is not a civic knighthood. It means the council was judged capable of continuing improvement without commissioners breathing down its neck.

The proper question is not: “Did the commissioners leave?”

The proper question is:

Has Sandwell Labour genuinely changed the culture that allowed the intervention to happen in the first place?

Or has it simply learned to write shinier reports?

Complaints: The Public Are Still Telling Them Something Is Wrong

Sandwell’s own Customer Feedback Annual Report for 2024/25 says Stage 2 complaints increased by 75% to 378.

The council’s housing complaints material also refers to 890 housing complaints received in 2024/25.

That is not just noise. That is feedback from the real world.

Behind every complaint is a person, a household, a tenant, a resident, a family, or a councillor enquiry that did not disappear because a corporate strategy said “learning lessons.”

Residents are sick of councils that “learn lessons” with the speed of a glacier and the memory of a goldfish.

Sandwell Labour should stop asking for praise for promising improvements and start explaining why so many improvements are still needed.

The Blackheath Leaflet: Fourteen Years Is Not Just Experience — It Is Evidence

The Blackheath candidate leaflet says Kerrie Carmichael has worked hard for residents for the past 14 years and points to improvements in Britannia Park, Blackheath town centre, Sons of Rest Community Centre and the Lench’s Memorial.

That is the classic incumbent pitch: local, familiar, experienced.

But 14 years cuts both ways.

If you have been there for 14 years, you do not just inherit the record. You are part of the record.

So when the same leaflet talks about fly-tipping, lighting, CCTV, roads, cleaner streets and anti-social behaviour, residents are entitled to ask:

After 14 years, why are these still headline problems?
After 14 years, why is Labour still promising basics?
After 14 years, why does every election leaflet sound like the council has only just found the map?

Experience is only an asset if it produces results. Otherwise it becomes a very long receipt for unfinished work.

The Real Red Flags

This Labour pledge sheet exposes more than it intends.

It shows a party that wants to campaign like an insurgent while governing like an incumbent.

It wants to be thanked for fixing problems it presided over.

It wants to call council spending “Labour pledges.”

It wants to use taxpayer-funded budget choices as political campaign material.

It wants to talk about CCTV without publishing outcomes.

It wants to talk about enforcement without showing years of failure.

It wants to talk about protecting services without explaining who put them under pressure.

It wants residents to forget the governance intervention, the complaints, the consultations, the waste problems, the town-centre decline, the service frustration and the endless culture of “we are learning lessons.”

The problem is not that every pledge is bad.

Some of them are necessary.

That is exactly the point.

They are necessary because the borough has been allowed to get into a state where more enforcement, more cameras, more bins, more crisis support and more basic street-level action are now election material.

Final Word

Sandwell Labour says it is “a caring council that gets things done.”

Residents may have a different version:

A council that waits until the problems are unbearable, packages the obvious as a pledge, spends public money, prints a red leaflet, and asks for gratitude.

The people of Sandwell do not need more slogans.

They need clean streets, safe neighbourhoods, honest consultation, transparent spending, competent services, proper enforcement, open governance and councillors who remember that public office is not a family heirloom, a party entitlement or a four-year photo opportunity.

Sandwell has had years of promises.

Now residents should ask the only question that matters:

If Labour is the answer, why are so many of Sandwell’s problems still the question?

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #SandwellLabour #LocalElections2026 #SandwellPolitics #FlyTipping #AntiSocialBehaviour #CouncilTax #WasteManagement #CCTV #Governance #PublicServices #Accountability #Vote2026 #SandwellVotes

Sandwell Council vs The Weather: A Rivalry Older Than Your Nan’s Hot Water Bottle - A Guest Blog

We welcome a guest blog written by Tomasz Lewandowski.  A satirical but grounded look at winter services, waste collection and rising costs in Tipton and Sandwell — where icy pavements, missing grit bins and overflowing rubbish meet shrinking council services and rising bills.

Sandwell Council vs The Weather: A Rivalry Older Than Your Nan’s Hot Water Bottle

This morning in Tipton had that special sort of cold that makes you question every life choice that brought you outside. The sky looked innocent enough — that pale, smug winter blue — but the air had teeth. The weather app, in its usual chipper tone, promised 0°C in the day and a hard freeze overnight. As if that’s meant to be comforting. “Hard freeze expected,” it said. Like it’s a delivery slot.

And somewhere in an office in Sandwell, you can almost picture the collective gasp: “Winter? In January? Again?”

Because here’s the thing: the weather hasn’t “surprised” Sandwell Council so much as it’s turned up like an ex you keep pretending you don’t recognise — and the Council keeps hiding behind the curtains, whispering, “If we don’t move, it might go away.”

The Grit Bin Myth: “They’re Out There… Somewhere”

If you’ve ever gone looking for a grit bin when the pavements are like a free ice rink, you’ll know the feeling. It’s less “public service” and more “local legend”. You start asking neighbours like you’re on a treasure hunt:

“Alright, love — you seen the grit bin round here?”
“Nah. Might’ve been moved. Might’ve been nicked. Might’ve been a social experiment.”

According to an audit-style report on Sandwell’s winter infrastructure, Sandwell does have a network of 540+ grit bins — but they’re not evenly spread, and they’re often clustered in specific “risk” spots like hills and awkward junctions, leaving big flat residential stretches feeling like “salt deserts”.

So yes, the bins exist. In the same way unicorns “exist”: technically possible, rarely spotted, and you’ll be judged for claiming you saw one.

“You Can’t Ask Us to Fill It”: A Masterclass in Modern Customer Service

Here’s where it gets properly British — not in the charming tea-and-biscuits way, but in the bureaucracy with a straight face way.

The same report notes that residents can’t use the council form to request a grit bin be refilled, and can’t request a new one either. The bins are checked and refilled on the council’s schedule, not when residents say, “Ours is empty and Gladys is doing the splits on the pavement again.”

It’s like being told:
“Thank you for contacting us about your empty kettle. We regularly review kettles. Please boil water at a later date.”

And before anyone says, “Well, just grit your own pavement” — that used to be easier when community schemes helped. The report states Sandwell’s “Snow Champions” salt shaker scheme isn’t running this winter, and no equipment will be available through it.

So the message is basically:
Slip carefully. Godspeed.

Bins Every Other Week: A 100% Increase in… Waiting

Now, let’s talk about the bins — because honestly, if the weather doesn’t get you, the rubbish will.

Sandwell moved to alternate weekly collections (the “every other week” approach). And I know what you’re thinking: That’s a reduction, mate. But let’s be fair — it is, in a way, a 100% increase in the time between collections.

Your rubbish used to leave your life every week. Now it stays for two. That’s not a cut — that’s a relationship.

You know how it goes:

• Week one: “It’s fine, it’s just a bit full.”
  
• Week two: “Why does the kitchen smell like a bad decision?”
  
• Week two, day five: “We’re naming the bag now. It’s part of the family.”
  

It’s a bold strategy: reducing services while increasing your bond with your waste. Very community-minded. Very sustainable. Very please don’t open the lid without emotional support.

(And yes — the report links wider dissatisfaction with waste collection changes to a general sense that “nothing works”, which then colours how people experience winter services too. Once you’ve had missed bins and messy streets, an empty grit bin feels like the sequel nobody asked for.)

Pay More, Get Less: The Local Cost-of-Living Circus

Here’s the bit that stops being funny for a moment — because it’s not just “a moan”, is it?

Young professionals are already juggling rent/mortgages, commuting costs, and food prices that make you stare at a tin of beans like it’s luxury goods. Pensioners are counting the heating like it’s a timed activity: “Right, half an hour of warmth, then it’s cardigan o’clock.” And in Tipton and across Sandwell, plenty of families are already stretched thin — not “tighten your belt” thin, but “there is no belt left” thin.

The report cites Sandwell facing a budget gap of over £19 million and a Council Tax rise of 4.99%.
So on one side you’ve got rising costs; on the other, shrinking services. And in the middle, you’ve got us — trying to get to work, get the kids to school, get to the shops, and get home without doing an accidental pirouette on black ice.

And you have to ask: what exactly are we paying for when the basics keep being downgraded?
 Or to put it in proper local terms: how come the bill keeps going up, but the service keeps going missing?

“Priority Routes”: Brilliant If You Live on One

To be fair, winter gritting is expensive and complicated. The report explains Sandwell focuses on priority routes — major roads, bus routes, key access points — and doesn’t generally grit side roads unless things get very bad.

Which is lovely if you live on a main road. You’ll be flying along like you’re in a glossy brochure for functional local government.

But if you live on a side street — the ones where real life happens — you’re left watching the gritters go by in the distance like Santa for people who live somewhere important.

And look, we get it: councils are squeezed, demand is high, and social care eats a huge share of budgets. But residents aren’t asking for luxury. We’re asking for:

• pavements that don’t double as injury claims,
  
• bins that don’t require a spreadsheet and a prayer,
  
• and a system that doesn’t feel like it’s held together with wishful thinking and “online forms that can’t do the thing you need”.
  

So What Do We Do? (Besides Moan, Obviously)

Moaning is a proud British tradition, but it’s also a starter, not the main course.

A few things that actually help — especially when budgets are tight:

• Neighbour check-ins: If you’re younger/able-bodied, keep an eye out for older neighbours when it’s icy. A quick “Need anything from the shop?” is worth more than any press release.
  
• Community grit mindset: If you can afford a small bag of grit/salt, consider splitting it with a neighbour. Not everyone can.
  
• Make noise where it counts: Budget consultations, councillor surgeries, local meetings — tedious, yes, but it’s where “cuts” become real decisions. If you don’t turn up, they assume you don’t mind.
  
• Document patterns: Missed collections, unsafe spots, recurring issues — log them. Councils respond faster to evidence than to vibes.
  

Because the truth is: we’re already working. We’re already earning. We’re already paying. And it’s hard not to feel like we’re being told:
“Just crack on — you’ll manage.”
 But managing isn’t the same as thriving, is it?

And when the weather “surprises” Sandwell Council yet again — when the frost hits, the bins overflow, the services shrink — we’re left doing what we always do: shuffling forward, careful-footed, trying not to slip, trying not to laugh, trying not to cry.

Margaret Thatcher once said " The problem with Socialism is that at somepoint you run out of other people's money"

Tom

https://www.facebook.com/share/1C42WCR8z5/

#SandwellCouncil #Tipton #LocalGovernment #CouncilServices #WinterInSandwell #GritBins #IcyPavements #WasteCollection #AlternateWeeklyCollections #CostOfLivingCrisis #CouncilTax #PublicServices #LocalAccountability #BritishSatire #PoliticalHumour #EverydayBritain #CommunityMatters #PayMoreGetLess #NotFitForPurpose #GuestBlog

Editor’s Note

This guest blog is published because it reflects a pattern many residents recognise, even if it’s rarely captured in official language. The issues raised here — winter safety, waste collection, rising costs and shrinking services — aren’t presented as isolated failures, but as part of how everyday life now feels when local systems no longer align with lived reality.

What makes this piece important is not just the humour, but the accuracy of the experience it describes. People don’t interact with councils through strategy papers or budget tables; they experience them through pavements, bins, online forms, and the ability to move through their neighbourhoods safely and with confidence. When those basics start to feel unreliable, frustration follows — often long before formal complaints or consultations ever do.

Publishing voices like this isn’t about attacking individuals or dismissing the financial pressures councils face. It’s about documenting how decisions land on the ground, and why trust erodes when residents are asked to pay more, self-manage more, and accept less — without meaningful ways to influence outcomes.

🏛️ PREVIEW: What Tuesday’s Full Council Meeting WON’T Tell You — but You Definitely Should Know

🏛️ PREVIEW: What Tuesday’s Full Council Meeting WON’T Tell You — but You Definitely Should Know

A resident’s honest, sarcastic and eyebrow-raised guide to what’s really on the agenda.

Full Council is back on Tuesday, and once again the agenda reads like a perfectly-behaved school report card: neat headings, long documents, reassuring titles, and absolutely no sign of real-world context.

So, as a public service (because the Council certainly won’t provide one), here is the real, resident-friendly, and not-drinking-the-Kool-Aid version of what’s coming up — and why you should care.

1. Apologies for Absence

Councillors announce who won’t be attending.

No reasons required.

No context offered.

No pattern analysed.

If a councillor hasn’t shown up since the last ice age, you won’t know. The minutes won’t tell you. Your bin might know more.

2. Declarations of Interest

Technically this is the section where councillors are supposed to declare whether they might be connected to anything being discussed.

In practice?

Tumbleweed.

Apparently Sandwell councillors have no external roles, friendships, loyalties, influences, or past lives. Astonishing.

3. Minutes of the Last Meeting

Council will approve 55+ pages of minutes in under a minute.

Imagine skimming War and Peace and saying, “Yes, all seems fine.”

Unchallenged. Unquestioned. Unverified.

The “actions” (if they existed) could be stuck to the underside of a desk for all we know.

4. Announcements

Here comes the glossy promotional bit.

Expect:

Success stories

Ribbon cutting events

Inspirational slogans

Do not expect:

SEND chaos

Highways issues

Service complaints

Homelessness pressure

Anything involving reality

This is the greatest hits album. The B-sides? Never released.

5. Public Speaking Time

“No public questions received.”

This isn’t a sign of contentment — it’s a sign that the rules are designed like the Krypton Factor:

100-word limit

Must relate directly to the agenda

Must be submitted early

No follow-up

No speaking back

Sandwell says it wants resident engagement.

Just… preferably not from residents who actually want to speak.

6. Members’ Questions

Q1 – Violence Against Women & Girls (VAWG)

Expect a carefully crafted answer about “partnerships”, “listening”, and “commitments”.

Do not expect:

Clear data

Performance outcomes

Mention of grooming gangs

Mention of historic child sexual exploitation

Anything remotely resembling uncomfortable truth

In other words: a safety strategy where the biggest safety issue is quietly left in a filing cabinet marked “Not Today”.

Q2 – Hate Crime Graffiti

Likely answer: “We take this seriously.”

Reality:

Residents often wait far too long, and no one ever provides:

statistics

response time targets

enforcement outcomes

A bit like cleaning graffiti with invisible ink: technically something happened, but no one can show you.

7. Petitions

Welcome to the Petition Bermuda Triangle, population: every petition ever submitted.

They get “received”.

They do not get “tracked”.

They definitely do not get “updated”.

If residents want to know what happened to their petition, they’d have more luck asking a psychic medium.

8. Council Tax Reduction Scheme (CTRS)

A 135-page legal document.

No plain-English explanation.

No poverty modelling.

No real-world examples.

The Council will say it protects vulnerable residents.

Protected… how? With what? According to which analysis?

Nobody in the room will know, because the room was never told.

9. Housing Rents & Charges

Rent rises will be approved.

Not a single person in the chamber will be presented with:

projected arrears impact

hardship modelling

eviction risk

benefit alignment

Imagine flying a plane without instruments.

This is that, except the plane is thousands of homes.

10. Polling District Review

Polling stations move like pieces on a board game.

You won’t be shown who is now further away, who loses walkability, or who needs public transport.

We all support accessible democracy, as long as you can find where it’s moved to this year.

11. Committee Appointments

Quiet reshuffles.

No explanation.

No performance criteria.

No accountability.

Like moving deckchairs on the Titanic — but at least on the Titanic they told you why.

12. MOTIONS FOR DEBATE

12(a) – Women & Girls’ Safety

A warm, sincere motion — that avoids the actual elephant in the room:

historic and ongoing child sexual exploitation.

It’s a bit like offering a fire safety policy that proudly excludes “fires”.

12(b) – Blood Tests (Phlebotomy)

The motion talks about Wednesbury.

The problem is Sandwell-wide.

Residents everywhere are waiting up to three weeks for blood tests, with GP phlebotomy long gone and digital booking systems that exclude whole sections of the community.

This isn’t a localised issue; it’s a borough-wide service failure wearing a Wednesbury badge.

12(d) – Small Businesses

Who doesn’t want to support small businesses?

But to do that you need:

data

targets

analysis

actual tools that work

Instead we get a motivational postcard.

No mention of:

high street vacancy

business closures

failures of the “Business Ambassadors” programme

what the Chamber of Commerce even does for Sandwell

A supportive message with no engine underneath.

FINAL WORD

Residents deserve:

real answers

real data

honest conversations

decisions grounded in evidence

Tuesday’s meeting will be polished.

It will be organised.

It will be official.

What it won’t be — unless residents keep asking — is truly transparent.

Always ask questions. Always expect detail. Sandwell works better when residents aren’t treated as bystanders.

ADDENDUM 

🔥 **THE PART THEY NEVER SAY OUT LOUD:

CSE, Grooming Gangs, and the Hypocrisy of “Women & Girls’ Safety” Motions**

There is one subject that Sandwell Council manages to walk around with Olympic-level agility: Child Sexual Exploitation.

Every year, we get another warm, reassuring motion about “Violence Against Women and Girls”, full of uplifting slogans, partnership pledges and “we will continue to strive…” paragraphs.

But somehow — every single time — the biggest, most traumatic, most well-documented issue involving actual girls is quietly missing.

Not mentioned.

Not acknowledged.

Not even whispered.

❗ The omission isn’t accidental — it’s political.

Earlier this year, Labour MPs voted down a Conservative proposal for a national inquiry into grooming gangs — a statutory, full-powers investigation into systemic CSE failures across the country.

Only after intense backlash, media pressure and survivor outcry did national Labour start rowing back and cautiously supporting some form of inquiry.

But the damage was done.

It confirmed what many survivors already suspected:

CSE is the issue too many people want quietly contained, not openly confronted.

❗ Yet here in Sandwell, local Labour councillors now present themselves as champions of “Women and Girls’ Safety”.

All well and good — but it’s a bit like celebrating fire safety without mentioning arson.

Or producing a road safety strategy that avoids the topic of cars.

How can anyone claim to take “violence against women and girls” seriously while carefully editing out the rape, grooming and exploitation of girls that has haunted communities across the West Midlands for decades?

❗ This omission rewrites reality. It erases victims. And it undermines trust.

Residents are not stupid. They know CSE has happened here.

They know learning reviews exist.

They know not all of them have seen daylight.

They know multi-agency safeguarding once failed catastrophically.

A motion that refuses to mention CSE is not “sensitive”.

It is not “responsible”.

It is not “protective of survivors”.

It is politically convenient — that’s all.

🧨 THE HYPOCRISY IN A SINGLE SENTENCE

They voted against a national grooming inquiry — then wrote a local motion pretending to defend girls.

If that doesn’t deserve scrutiny, nothing does.

📢 WHAT RESIDENTS DESERVE TO HEAR (BUT NEVER DO)

How many CSE cases have been recorded in Sandwell in the last five years?

How many multi-agency failures were identified?

How many learning reviews remain unpublished?

What support is being offered to survivors?

What cultural changes have actually occurred in schools, police and services?

Why does the Council refuse to treat CSE as a core part of VAWG policy?

Until those questions are answered, VAWG motions will remain glossy brochures — emotionally comforting, politically marketable, and strategically incomplete.

🔍 FINAL WORD

If a council cannot say the words Child Sexual Exploitation,

it cannot claim to be protecting women and girls.

If national politicians vote down a grooming inquiry,

they cannot pretend to hold moral authority on safeguarding.

And if local motions avoid the hardest truths,

residents have every right — and every reason —

to demand better.

ADDENDUM II

🏛️ THE QUIET COUP: HOW SANDWELL COUNCIL REWROTE ITS CONSTITUTION TO SILENCE THE PUBLIC

And where exactly is the “Independent Person” while this happens?

Sandwell Council has always had an interesting relationship with transparency.

The kind of relationship where one partner says, “We’re absolutely committed,” while quietly turning the lights off, locking the door, and posting the key into the nearest drain.

But the latest round of constitutional changes takes this to an entirely new level — a level where public engagement isn’t merely discouraged… it’s practically criminalised.

Welcome to the new Sandwell Constitution:

An elegant, carefully engineered device for minimising inconvenience from the public.

Let’s break down what’s really happened.

🔪 1. PUBLIC QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN STRANGLED BY DESIGN

It used to be possible for residents to ask questions at Full Council.

Not easy, not pleasant — but at least possible.

Now?

It is a bureaucratic assault course with electrified fences.

The new rules:

100-word limit (shorter than some parking signs)

Must relate directly to an agenda item chosen by councillors

Must be submitted well in advance

Must be vetted

May be rejected for reasons not published or explained

Cannot include supplementary questions

Cannot challenge or correct an answer

Combine all that and you get what the council wanted:

Public questions without any actual public participation.

It’s engagement theatre — all the props, none of the meaning.

🧩 2. THE COUNCIL NOW CONTROLS WHAT THE PUBLIC IS ALLOWED TO CARE ABOUT

By forcing residents to only ask questions about agenda items chosen by Cabinet, the council has quietly seized control over:

what the public can talk about

which issues are allowed into the chamber

which problems can be ignored indefinitely

If the public wants to ask about:

pollution,

SEND failures,

environmental mismanagement,

housing delays,

CSE safeguarding transparency,

service cuts,

broken complaints processes…

Too bad.

Unless Cabinet chooses to put it on the agenda (spoiler: they won’t), the public is gagged.

This is not democracy.

This is curation.

🚨 3. THE “NO FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS” RULE IS PURE DEFENSIVENESS

This is perhaps the most telling change.

A resident asks a question.

The council gives an answer (true, false, vague or irrelevant — doesn’t matter).

The resident cannot reply.

Cannot challenge.

Cannot correct.

Cannot clarify.

If the council wants to give a script instead of an answer, the constitution protects them.

🏴 4. THE COUNCIL MADE THESE CHANGES TO PROTECT ITSELF FROM SCRUTINY

This isn’t a side-effect.

This is the purpose.

After years of:

scandals,

external interventions,

weak governance findings,

poor public trust,

complaints mishandling,

and… well, you know the list,

The logical response should have been more transparency, more resident voice, and more accountability.

Instead, Sandwell chose:

Less openness.

Less challenge.

Less scrutiny.

More control.

It’s the political equivalent of saying:

“We hear your concerns, and in response, we have soundproofed the building.”

🧑‍⚖️ 5. WHERE IS THE “INDEPENDENT PERSON” IN ALL OF THIS?

Good question. A very good question

Under local government standards law, the “Independent Person” exists to:

uphold ethical conduct

ensure fairness

protect the public from abuses of process

advise on complaints

intervene when governance looks questionable

So where is this Independent Person while:

democratic access is restricted,

public rights are curtailed,

scrutiny is weakened,

participation rules are rewritten to suppress residents?

Answer:

Nowhere visible.

No public statement.

No challenge.

No commentary.

No assurance.

Not even a gentle cough in the background.

This silence is either:

an oversight,

a misunderstanding of the role,

or a worrying sign of compliance with decisions that undermine public confidence.

Either way — residents deserve an explanation.

📉 6. THE EFFECT IS SIMPLE: FEWER QUESTIONS, LESS PRESSURE, LESS ACCOUNTABILITY

These constitutional changes will reduce the number of public questions.

That is the whole point.

Then, conveniently, councillors will claim: “Residents are happy — nobody is complaining.”

It’s brilliant, in a dark sort of way.

Remove the microphone

→ then declare the room silent

→ then congratulate yourself on how content everyone is.

This logic is used in:

failing councils,

authoritarian regimes,

and occasionally, by toddlers who hide behind curtains made entirely of their own fingers.

🧭 7. WHY THIS MATTERS TO RESIDENTS

Because if residents cannot ask questions publicly, then:

councils can avoid tough topics

poor decisions go unchallenged

mistakes are buried

safeguarding concerns get ignored

officers are not held accountable

Cabinet can operate without real scrutiny

the public becomes a passive audience rather than an active citizenry

This is how democratic deficits start.

Not with headlines — with procedures.

Quiet, subtle, technical changes that close doors one at a time.

🔥 8. WHAT RESIDENTS SHOULD DEMAND NOW

1. The immediate restoration of meaningful public questions

No artificial word limits

No agenda restrictions

No hidden veto power

2. The publication of an annual report on public participation

Number of questions submitted

How many were rejected and why

How many received complete answers

3. A public statement from the Independent Person

Do they believe these changes support good governance?

If not, why have they remained silent?

What safeguards can they offer the public?

4. A wider review of democratic access and inclusion in Sandwell

Because reading the Constitution shouldn’t feel like reading a manual on how to safely dispose of criticism.

🧨 FINAL WORD

Sandwell didn’t improve public engagement.

It reduced it.

Codified it.

Neutered it.

And wrapped the whole thing in procedural niceties.

The only people who benefit from fewer questions are the people who don’t want to answer any.

Residents deserve more, expect more, and — constitution or no constitution — will continue asking questions.

And that is precisely why the Council had to rewrite the rules in the first place.