The council meeting focused on the Waste Collection Contract Procurement, with extensive debate on the process, decisions made, and member involvement. The discussion revealed concerns about the lack of transparency and member input in decision-making, as well as the potential risks of proceeding without adequate review.

1. Decision to Proceed with Fortnightly Waste Collection: The council decided to switch from weekly to fortnightly waste collection. Proponents argued it was necessary for cost savings and efficiency. Opponents worried about the potential negative impact on waste management and public dissatisfaction. This decision could lead to significant operational changes and potential public backlash.

2. No Public Consultation: It was revealed that there was a decision to avoid public consultation on the waste collection changes, deemed a hindrance by some members. This decision was criticized for lacking transparency and disregarding public input, which could affect public trust and the successful implementation of the new waste collection strategy.

3. Delegation of Decision-Making to Officers: The council discussed the extent of authority delegated to council officers, which included making key decisions on the waste contract. There were concerns about whether this bypassed necessary political oversight and could lead to decisions that might not fully align with elected representatives' views or public interest.

Interestingly, the meeting also highlighted internal disagreements and confusion about the process and previous decisions, indicating a need for clearer governance and communication within the council.