Editorial policy

Archived articles are preserved for continuity. They carry the date they were written and the context that mattered then. We do not go back and smooth out old phrasing or update figures that have since changed.

New guides expand the same topics without inventing news events. If a guide explains the reserved-functions list or the local-property-tax process, it describes the current rules and cites the statute or circular. It does not claim to have broken a story or interviewed a minister.

We prioritize clarity, usefulness, and topical consistency over clickbait. A good headline names the subject and the benefit. A bad headline teases, hides the point, or makes a promise the text cannot keep.

Every piece is written for two readers at once: the councillor who needs the answer before Tuesday's meeting, and the curious citizen who wants to know why her town's budget looks the way it does. If one of those readers gets lost in the first three paragraphs, we have failed.

We do not publish opinion columns, guest posts, or press releases disguised as articles. The voice across the site is institutional, practical, and as neutral as the subject allows. Where law or procedure is contested, we say so.

Corrections are handled on a separate page. If new legislation changes the ground under an old article, we may add a short note at the top pointing to the updated guide. We do not silently rewrite history.

No article will include a fake expert quote, a fabricated statistic, or a claim that cannot be traced to statute, circular, council minutes, or the public record. If we lack a specific fact, we write around it or leave the point out.

The editorial team is small. We rely on councillors to tell us when a guide is wrong, unclear, or missing the practical detail that makes the difference. That feedback loop is the only quality control that matters.

This policy will not change to chase search traffic, social shares, or the latest content fashion. Boring works. Boring lasts.