I was warned ahead of time that it was likely to be contentious, and that various factions wanted to change the agenda.
There's this one guy (call him Mr. O) whose a stickler for detail and organization and appears to have some trouble rapidly adjusting to changes in his structure. I was informed that he can come across as being somewhat condescending. Unfortunately for him he made some kind of legal mistake that caused all sorts of internal controversy.
I suspect that gave the people who didn't like him a focus for their anger so they now had something to constantly criticize him over.
Mr. O, being they kind of person who likes to write by-laws and the like was one of the "co-coordinators" (CoCos) from the previous council. (CoCos are responsible for writing the agenda for the next meeting.)
What then happened is though he tried to write a fairly boring and non-contentious agenda that focused on just administrative stuff, a swath of the anti Mr O contingent were desperately unhappy that he wrote the agenda.
The result of that is we spent most of our business meeting arguing about moving Point 6 "approval of the meeting agenda, and adding emergency items" up to the first substantive position.
Eventually we managed to agree to select two new people from the new county council to write the agenda for the next meeting--one from the two major factions.
After suffering through that I now have a much better understanding what something like "The talks at the WTO summit broke down mean".
It means things like America doesn't want to sit next to Syria, and that the allotted time for lunch is to short or too long, and what do you mean by "simple" on line 37 of page 13 of the agenda, and just who did you contract for printing these agenda on anyway.
I'm of the opinion that if there are difficult differences between people, its vastly easier to argue over the petty stuff.