Anyone familiar with four years of twists and turns surrounding Birmingham's ambition to build a library fit for the 21st century will not be remotely surprised at the central conclusion of a comprehensive scrutiny inquiry.
A cross-party committee of councillors, after spending weeks poring over reports and quizzing those most closely involved with the project, decided that they could not reach a decision. There were more questions than answers.
The aims of the scrutiny investigation were clear enough - to ensure that the options for a Library of Birmingham were specified in a similar, comparable and sufficient degree of detail to enable a properly informed decision to be taken.
* What do you think? We want know - get in touch by email, messageboard or feedback form *
The picture that emerges from the scrutineers' work is of a lack of accurate financial costings and an absence of any real information about how the split-site library would work. Nor was there any conclusive evidence to explain why the council cabinet decided to drop the Eastside Lord Rogers library scheme.
The 174-page scrutiny report provides plenty of ammunition for those who believe the cabinet system of local government places too much power in the hands of too few individuals and would like to see a return to a committee structure.
"We were immediately struck by the surprising lack of clarity which existed about various proposals," the report begins.
There are other killer quotes, suggesting a surprising absence of detail upon which to base one of the most important decisions taken so far by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition: "What was to be the intended form of the unit at Eastside in the two centre option? What would be the quality of the build? Would this be a completely separate building from Millennium Point, an extension of Millennium Point or would the content be housed in Millennium Point? Could all these alternatives really have the same cost?
"What was the planned size of the new library? Different sizes were regularly referred to. What was the likely cost of the scheme? Again, different costs could be quoted......it was not immediately obvious to us how the cost given in the cabinet report of July 2005, of £42 million for the archive and history centre had been arrived at."
The most far-reaching point to be made by the scrutiny committee, however, is contained in a question to which there appears to be no obvious answer.
Why, given the detailed work by Gardiner & Theobald, Gleeds and Jura on the original options for a new library, including the Rogers scheme, did the cabinet not ask the same consultants to examine the split- site proposal?
Such an examination ought to be put in place immediately, according to the scrutiny committee.
Will the cabinet dare to ask the experts? Don't hold your breath.
paul_dale@mrn.co.uk
