City Council Meetings - Report by Gaby van den Biggelaar, the facilitator

1. Assignment

On Wednesday, March 18, 2026, the residents of the municipality of Son en Breugel elected their representatives to the municipal council for the next four years. They are divided among the following political parties:

  • Village Vision: 5 seats
  • VVD For You 5 seats
  • CDA: 3 seats
  • D66: 2 seats
  • GrL/PvdA 2 seats

On March 19, a meeting was held with the relevant party leaders and the mayor to discuss the election results. It was also decided to appoint an independent mediator, who would be approached by the political group that received the most votes, namely Dorpsvisie. The following mandate was formulated for the mediator:

  • Explore the possibilities for establishing a stable and broadly supported administration;
  • In doing so, assess the level of support for a council agreement as an alternative to a coalition agreement;
  • Identify the main themes and potential points of discussion for an agreement.

After a brief period of consideration, I accepted the assignment. I find it both fascinating and an honor to contribute in this way to local democracy in Son en Breugel.

This exploratory phase is concluded with this report, which includes a recommendation regarding a preferred option for the composition of the administration, a recommendation regarding the type of agreement under which the council and the executive committee could operate, and a list of themes and topics that can be addressed during the upcoming council term.
These findings will serve as the basis for the next phase, in which the council and its political groups will work on a substantive program.

2. Procedure

I began by familiarizing myself with the elections (news coverage, debates, and the campaign) and the results. I read the election platforms and then reviewed a number of policy documents and council reports. I spoke with the mayor (including about several policy issues, the council’s procedures, and cooperation with the executive board) and with the interim clerk. The latter serves as a support staff member for the explorer.

In week 13, meetings were held with representatives of all political groups. It was agreed with all political groups that the meetings would be held in confidence. The meeting minutes prepared by the clerk are intended solely to assist the facilitator and therefore remain confidential.

To serve as a guide for these discussions, the following topics were sent to the political groups in advance (summary)

  1. Interpretation of the results and the role and position of our own caucus moving forward
  2. Substantive priorities (key issues, obstacles, potential compromises, and agreements)
  3. Preferences for the new executive board (Municipal Executive); arguments for and against specific options; are there any obstacles? Requirements ways to overcome these obstacles.
  4. Preferences regarding governance and collaboration models

All political parties accepted the facilitator’s invitation. The discussions took place in an open and constructive atmosphere. It is heartening to see that all political parties are deeply committed to the well-being and welfare of the residents of Son en Breugel. All political parties emphasize a sound, reliable, and disciplined financial policy, and all parties relate this to the desired autonomy of the municipality of Son en Breugel. All political parties envision an administration consisting of a maximum of three aldermen.

3. Findings

During the discussions with the political groups, the topics outlined in the mandate were addressed, albeit in a different order than specified in the mandate. The topics under 3 and 4 could not be considered in isolation from one another. To a lesser extent, this also applied to the question under 2. This is related to the experiences from 2022. In 2022, substantive discussions began regarding input for a council-wide agreement. Discussions on the composition of the executive committee were addressed later. Most political groups indicated that they wished to proceed differently this time. In 2022, the pressure to reach an agreement on the composition of the executive board in the final phase was perceived as undesirable. In addition, a number of political groups make their participation in a council-wide agreement contingent on whether or not they participate in the executive board. More on this later.

This report addresses the questions formulated in the assignment. As will become apparent, these cannot be viewed separately from one another.

  • A. Formation of a stable and broadly supported administration
  • B. Preferred form of an agreement (council-wide agreement or coalition agreement)
  • C. Key Themes

Re: A. Formation of a stable and broadly supported administration

A “supported” administration refers to a preference for an administration based on the support of the council, ideally a majority within the council. In the Son en Breugel council, a majority requires 9 seats. The election results and the distribution of council seats offer various numerical possibilities for forming a majority. There is no single obvious numerical majority combination. In other words: the political groups have a choice. It is clear, however, that forming a majority is not possible without the participation of one of the largest groups (Dorpsvisie or VVD Voor U). Several options have been discussed. These include a combination of Dorpsvisie and VVD Voor U, possibly supplemented by a third party; a combination of Dorpsvisie and CDA with a third party; and a combination of VVD Voor U, CDA, and a third party. The political groups were asked about their preferences and obstacles.

During the discussions, several arguments were put forward to support the various options.

  • To do justice to the election results. The political groups do not interpret these results in the same way. The fact is that there are two parties with 5 seats, one of which received more votes than the other. Most political groups view the results as a marginal change compared to the previous elections, partly given the fact that some groups or parties have merged or split. Other groups highlight their largest gain (in terms of votes) or, conversely, their stability compared to 2022.
  • Several political groups emphasize the desire for a stable administration, led by experienced officials and supported by stable political groups with experienced council members. A stable administration is specifically cited as important for the village (less uncertainty for residents, greater trust in the administration, and stability within the organization).
  • This refers to reliable leadership that is willing to engage in constructive cooperation within the executive committee, between the council and the executive committee, and within the council itself. It means not going back on previous decisions; while differences of opinion are acceptable, the interests of the village take precedence over the political profiles of the various factions.
  • In this context, the term “loyalty” is also mentioned: the willingness to take responsibility for administrative decisions (even if you hold or held a different opinion internally).
  • Governance style or party culture. This is not so much about differences in substance, but rather about behavior and methods aimed at achieving effective governance.
  • Mutual trust; not everyone has to agree all the time. The basic requirements are reliability, openness, and respect. 

During the discussions, certain themes and preferences emerged. As a facilitator, I explored these further and asked whether—and where—there might be room for flexibility within the preferences and positions that had been expressed.

Conclusion 1

Based on the requests and suggestions put forward by the political parties, maintaining the current parties as the municipal council of Son en Breugel appears to have the broadest support and is therefore the preferred option. My recommendation is that representatives from Dorpsvisie, CDA, and GrL/PvdA form the administration, with further consideration given to whether the third administrator Alderman be a “joint” Alderman representing multiple political groups (specifically D66).

Ad B. Desired format for a substantive agreement

During the discussions, the political parties were asked how cooperation within the council and between the council and the executive committee should be structured. More specifically: Which approach best contributes to stability, trust, and good relations between the executive committee and the council?

Four options were on the table, ranging from a more traditional coalition agreement to a council-wide agreement without a coalition, with two hybrid forms in between: the formation of a coalition followed by a council agreement, or the formation of a coalition with a council agreement followed by an implementation program drawn up by the executive committee.

The political groups assessed these questions based on their experiences during the previous council term, during which they worked with a council agenda (“Working Together for Son en Breugel 2022–2026”) that was endorsed at the time by the Dorpsvisie, CDA, PvdA/GrL, and D’66 groups. The intention was to allow more room for council-wide debate and to give the council greater control over topics it deemed important. This agenda included topics and themes the council wished to focus on. This list was developed with input from all political groups. Further agreements were made on a number of topics, which were laid out in the administrative agreement by Dorpsvisie, CDA, and PvdA.

Experiences with the 2022 council-wide agreement have been mixed. Generally speaking, there is agreement on the process to be followed: unlike in 2022, political groups want to first decide on the formation of the administration, followed by discussions on a substantive agreement. 

How do the political parties view working with the council agreement? Positive aspects mentioned include: it contributes to the separation of powers, clarifies everyone’s role, allows for shifting majorities, avoids political wrangling, many decisions are made unanimously (sometimes following amendments and motions), and it benefits residents. A disadvantage mentioned is that political parties not participating in the administration have too few opportunities to distinguish themselves. They do not recognize the administrator as being “one of us.” During the discussions, suggestions were made to address these disadvantages.

A new council-wide agreement is likely if there is broad consensus on substantive issues, good working relationships exist, and there is little need for politicians to seek the limelight.

All the political groups have been asked to identify the key policy issues for the upcoming council term. As an explorer, I see commonalities among the issues mentioned. Where there are differences in substance or prioritization within those issues, there are hardly any fundamental obstacles. (See below.)

Things are getting more complicated: several political groups have indicated that they do not wish to participate in a council-wide agreement if they are not part of the administration. The need to establish their identity plays a key role in this. A coalition agreement provides greater clarity regarding roles and decisions. However, it is also possible to work together effectively without a council agreement. 

Conclusion 2

There appears to be no support for an agreement that goes beyond a coalition agreement during the upcoming council term. Note: During the discussions, suggestions were made to address the identified drawbacks. Recommendation: Before beginning substantive discussions on a coalition agreement, investigate whether—and under what Requirements—a council-wide agreement is feasible.

Re: C. Substantive themes

All political groups were asked to identify themes and topics that they believe should be prioritized during the upcoming council term, as well as to outline their ambitions for that term. In other words: what do the political groups aim to achieve, and what needs to be improved or changed? Additionally: are there any obstacles regarding specific themes or topics? In other words: are there any non-negotiable positions?

In general, it can be concluded that there are many similarities between the themes included in the various programs: housing, green spaces, Health, quality of life, and mobility are central themes. Sometimes there are differences in tone, ambitions, or prioritization. The discussions also reveal a great deal of agreement on the most important themes. The following are mentioned:

  • (Acceleration of) Housing Construction: The Difference Lies More in the Target Groups
  • Mobility (safety, safe bicycle routes, parking)
  • Sustainability (greening of public spaces, forest maintenance)
  • Preservation of sports and cultural facilities, with a particular focus on the swimming pool
  • AZC: proceed with implementation (no new decision-making); we are not a municipality that refuses to accept refugees
  • Breeakker: Political parties highlight differences with VVD Voor U, particularly regarding whether control should lie with the municipality or with market actors
  • A community dedicated to service, transparent governance
  • Social policy (poverty policy, prevention, participation)

All parties emphasize the importance of sound municipal finances. Several suggestions have been made to ensure that the current sound financial policy can be maintained, even if revenue falls short of expectations.
There are calls to implement existing decisions with vigor before taking on major new initiatives.

Conclusion 3

There is a broad substantive basis for cooperation, with few controversial positions.

In summary

Conclusion 1

Based on the wishes and suggestions put forward by the political parties, maintaining the current parties as the governing body of the municipality of Son en Breugel appears to have the broadest support and is therefore the preferred option. My recommendation is that representatives from Dorpsvisie, CDA, and GrL/PvdA form the municipal executive, with further consideration given to whether one of the representatives Alderman serve as a “joint” Alderman representing multiple political groups (specifically D66).

Conclusion 2 

There appears to be no support for an agreement that goes beyond a coalition agreement during the upcoming council term. Note: During the discussions, suggestions were made to address the perceived drawbacks. Recommendation: Before beginning substantive discussions on a coalition agreement, investigate whether—and under what Requirements—a council-wide agreement is feasible.

Conclusion 3

There is a broad substantive basis for cooperation, with few controversial positions.

Overall conclusion 

The election platforms and substantive positions do not pose a significant obstacle to cooperation within the council. This fact would provide a solid foundation for a council-wide agreement. The distinction—and thus the key—lies in the choices that must be made regarding the composition of the administration and, consequently, the type of agreement, particularly in matters such as trust and leadership style. In this regard, I would advise that, before proceeding to discussions on a substantive agreement,

  • To discuss whether the preferred option regarding the composition of the board (Dorpsvisie, CDA, PvdA) can gain broader political support (including D66)
  • To then examine exactly what the concerns are regarding a broader agreement and whether they could be resolved. 

Gaby van den Biggelaar, scout
April 3, 2026