I agree with hatboy. BAF is good and bad in parts. The judgement to be made is (1) does the good outweigh the bad and (2) what are the chances of improving the bad? I've seen examples of good. I think the UDp meeting was better for being facilitated by BAF rather than just put on by officers or councillors. Ward meetings can, and do, provide opportunities for people who've been banging their head against the beaurocracy to deal with council officers directly, with the support of their neighbours. And to keep coming back with their problem until it's sorted. They can also address bigger issues that impact across a ward or wider, like the skateboard park or the Windmill. I'm not sure where else that would happen. If the City Academy meeting was unsatisfactory, then I suspect that was down to whoever was organising it - possibly just mismanagement of time(I wasn't there). If people who were there are unsatisfied, then they should complain and copy to their councillor. Can't say I liked Sound magazine much myself. It was a bit to "company house mag" and designery (awful for people with visual impairment). But I agree, there should be a substitute and I understand one is being sought. I believe it wasn't BAF's decision to stop it, but a funding decision on the part of the council. I don't think that BAF is an agent of the council (nor does the constitution say that) but it is dependent on the council for funding. I'd argue that BAF needs to think very carefully about that relationship and how it might diversify funding to enable a more arms legnth approach. But what, if anything, would you put in BAF's place Anna?