Well in my own small way I'm trying. Not least by bunging it on here.

I think finding out that £x of my Council Tax money was spent addressing pointless performative nonsense like this is a decent start in that exposure.

The thread above is making clear that it IS pointless.

True, but it's important to highlight this I think.

Ironically, the amount of time (and therefore council money) spent by officers providing redacted versions of information that Reform councillors already have access to can be quantified and requested via FOI....

So the question is why aren't the people who were elected to scrutinise the council - councillors - doing the scrutinising? That's demonstrably their job? Outsourcing that to a "DOGE" body is ludicrous.

It is actively wasting public money to introduce a pointless, unelected third party into the equation. That third party will be entitled to less information, and will get it more slowly. No council motion can override/break UK Law and change this.

Councillors ARE PART OF the council. They were elected as such. They are therefore entitled to see all kinds of information necessary for them to discharge their duties. Again, this is in the constitution.

The "DOGE" body will result in council officers spending pointless time and effort collating, redacting and applying legal exemptions/exceptions to information that is already available to elected councillors but cannot be legally released otherwise.

The above section confirms that Members have access to information that would otherwise be considered "confidential" and non-disclosable in the event of an FOI/EIR request by an external body. They simply need to ask officers for it.

Hey - thank you for that, much appreciated.