So no matter what blanket rule a council seeks to apply, there will always be arguments for change.

This is most particularly the case in ruling on development applications, and lawyers across the land have put their children through private schooling on the profits of defending and prosecuting cases in the Land and Environment Court.

But Bathurst Regional Council managed to tie itself in grey knots of a very different kind during last week’s monthly meeting.

The vast majority of Bathurst residents who have never attended a council meeting might not be aware that monthly meetings traditionally begin with public question time – a chance for residents to raise matters of concern with council.

The agenda for last Wednesday’s meeting indicated that would be the case again but this turned out to be a question time with a difference, open only to members of the public who had not nominated for next month’s council election.

The decision, the gallery was told, was consistent with the usual practice of Bathurst Regional Council, though a quick check by the Western Advocate indicated no such rule was employed ahead of the 2012 council election.

We’ve also been told the decision was made to avoid public question time becoming a political platform for candidates to grandstand ahead of the election, and that is fair enough.

The grey area, though, was that no such gag order was placed on current councillors who will be seeking re-election next month.

A more sensible approach, as suggested by candidate and keen council watcher Bob Triming, would have been to limit all discussion during question time to matters on that night’s agenda – giving candidates in the public gallery the same guidelines as candidates already within the chamber.

The Office of Local Government has indicated Bathurst Regional Council was within its rights to nominate strict guidelines for public question time.

Indeed, the OLG made the point that council is not required to begin its meetings with public question time at all.

But last week’s decision – assuming it was well-intentioned – was handled in such a ham-fisted way that it appeared little more than a gag on the public.

And, as always in politics, perception can quickly become reality.