Although affected by it daily, most people find local council matters very boring. Few bother to vote. Not many know the name or names of local councillor(s). Fewer still know – or care – how they operate.

Forest residents are, nevertheless, being asked next month how they think their district council should function in future. Accompanying each council tax demand and "Forest Link" newsletter, a leaflet explains the options and allows ratepayers to "vote" for their preferred mode of restructuring.

The background is the Government's attempt to make local councils more directly answerable to their electors. Attracted by the American system of directly elected mayors, they are requiring all councils to consider this and other options.

Option one is a directly elected mayor operating with a cabinet of councillors. This new system was introduced in London last year, with "Red' Ken Livingstone MP – standing as an independent – defeating candidates from the three rival major parties.

Option two is a directly elected mayor with a council manager appointed by councillors. These would continue to fix the annual budget, and would appoint overview and scrutiny panels from among themselves to monitor the mayor's policies and decision-making.

Option three is a leader with a cabinet of fellow councillors, elected by all councillors. "Backbenchers" would agree the annual budget and policies, and sit on overview and scrutiny panels monitoring the cabinet's activities.

These options were discussed last year, with the full council agreeing a leader-with-cabinet model. Preparations were made to introduce the new system, with names of possible cabinet members and their six portfolios being announced.

Various unexpected things then happened. Several Labour councillors, mostly from Cinderford, broke ranks to complain that such a scheme would concentrate power in too few hands. Then, while initially having agreed the recommended structure, the Lib-Dems also complained of a lack of representation of minority groups.

Most unexpected of all was a change of heart by the government. It suddenly announced that small councils could consider the further option of staying more or less the same.

Bruce Hogan was a tad aggrieved at this change of tack.

"It is obviously a little frustrating for those who have spent many hours preparing for a new system to have the goalposts moved at the eleventh hour," he said.

Interviewed by the Review before that about-face, he explained why he thought the present committee system was too cumbersome for modern circumstances. Meeting on a six-weekly cycle, they weren't able to make decisions sufficiently quickly – especially since their recommendations could be second-guessed at full council.

"The committees are very unwieldy. Agendas are so crowded that members are expected to decide on matters covering perhaps a hundred pages of an agenda in a three-hour meeting.

"Also, some topics gum up the works., They may be very controversial, but they reduce the time available for considering other topics which may be just as important in the long run.

"There is such widespread dissatisfaction with the present arrangements that no change is not an option. The government is requiring a clearer separation of executive decision-making functions and scrutiny. The weakness of things as they stand is that the same councillors carry out both.

"There are huge potential pitfalls in a new system, but there are also huge potential gains."

The Leader plus Cabinet model was, he pointed out, seconded by the leader of the Independent group and voted through with only a single councillor opposing.

"Under the system, the full council retains its right to replace the leader and/or cabinet members," he said. "It would also review how the system was working out.

"If things are going horribly pear-shaped, we could pull the plug on it."

He and his colleagues now have less leeway in experimenting. The Government wants a new constitution to be lodged with the Secretary of State for Transport and English Regions by the end of this year.

If it is approved, it would be applied by May 2002.

The new round of consultations up to early April is being launched with no formal council recommendation.

"We are starting from scratch," council managing director (chief executive) Meg Holborow told the Review.

"I wanted people to express their views first," she says. "Once those have been assessed, the issue will be considered by the council at its May 24 annual council meeting.

"If their recommended structure is approved by the Secretary of State, it would be implemented before next March. This means it would be in place for a year before the 2003 district council elections."

The options now include a Revised Committee system. Councils with a population of less than 85,000 may choose a framework of not more than five committees, each with no more than 15 members.

As with the other options, the council must introduce overview and scrutiny panels. Councillors on policy committees would not be allowed to be members of panels scrutinising their own performance.

All the above is complicated by a further factor. Consultations in other council areas have, quite naturally, produced mixed results. (In Gloucester more residents opted for a Leader plus Cabinet model, but a majority plumped for a combination of the two Mayoral options).

As the Forest leaflet explains: "Those options involving a directly elected mayor can only be implemented following a referendum of the electorate of the Forest of Dean.

"Such a referendum will be held following receipt of a petition signed by a minimum of 3,136 electors (5 per cent of the electorate). A referendum could also be held if a substantial proportion of the public favour one of the elected mayor options.

Tangentially, I asked Meg who is paying for all this.

"We are, or more exactly the council tax-payers are. Central government has given us no extra funds to cover these procedures."

She adds that the Forest council has kept costs to a minimum – £4,000 so far. Some other Gloucestershire councils have spent this many times over.

What happens next is anyone's guess. As usual, the Review's letters page is open for readers' views.