Mention the word "libraries" in any council and the word "closures" is likely to follow fairly swiftly.
And it has been a condundrum Kent County Council's Conservative administration has been wrestling with for some time. The communities budget, like every other part of the council's spending, is having to take a hit and the issue has been how best to make the necessary cuts.
But it seems there has been something of a rare revolt among the 73-strong Conservative group over some rather contentious proposals that would have seen the closure - or at least the ending of council funding for - a rather substantial number of libraries.
Precise figures are hard to come by but at least one source has mentioned over 40. However, the leadership is in retreat after a Conserative group meeting held this week saw backbenchers express their horror at the scale of the possible cuts and demanded a re-think.
Sources say that many county councillors were aghast at the proposals, not least because some of those identified for closure were in Kent's Conservative heartlands. Others pointed out that they had made various election commitments that local libraries in their areas would be safeguarded.
And of course, many recognised exactly what a PR challenge it would be to justify the cuts to a service that has enormous sentimental attachment. As one put it: "You can do more or less what you like to any other service and not many will care, but not to libraries."
Others warned of the dire electoral consequences pointing out that given the time needed for consultation and the decision-making process, libraries could well be closing their doors perilously close to the next KCC election.
KCC had tried to sweeten the pill by suggesting that libraries could be taken over by parish or town councils, or by volunteer groups - an example of The Big Society. But that seems to have failed to persuade the group that they could get away with it - particularly given the constraints all parts of the public sector are facing.
So the upshot is that for the time being at least, widespread library closures are off the agenda (although I understand there may be a handful that could be shutting their doors) and the Conservative leadership has been persuaded that it needs to come up with another masterplan.
It seems that KCC may have inadevertently acted unlawfully over payments made to its election returning officer for running county council elections.
In a rather complex report on the issue, KCC's legal eagle Geoff Wild has told councillors that while the fees paid to both the county returning officer in the past (former chief executive Peter Gilroy) were made in good faith, the council's arrangements that permitted the chief executive and his colleagues in districts to effectively decide for themselves what fees they should get were "inappropriate and not permitted in law at least as far as the county council is concerned."
The issue has been partly resolved by including the job of running KCC elections into the duties of the new managing director of the council Katherine Kerswell.
Opposition Lib Dem Tim Prater is not happy, saying that if the payments made in the past - according to him, about £60,000 over three elections to the ex-chief executive - were unlawful then KCC ought to be going about getting the money back.
However, his attempts to do so at yesterday's Electoral and Boundary Review Committee meeting failed to find favour among Conservatives on the committee and his proposal fell.
One thing that did suprise some councillors on the committee were the recommended fees for district council returning officers who ran KCC elections in their areas. Between them, returning officers stand to get £47,376 in fees next time, with individual payments ranging from £3,201 (Dartford) to £5,190 (Maidstone).
Cllr Keith Ferrin (Con) suggested these were in the same league as the wages paid to premiership football players and they should be more modest. I'm not sure which football stars he had in mind.