If an elected Member resigns and then is re-appointed shortly afterwards are they still classed as an elected member?

Question

A member resigned after a clash with another member , both and several others resigned but one is shall we say more acceptable and is being prompted to return.

The context for the question is LGA sections 12-16a where revisions show specific references to elected vs appointed members in the revised Act. I know that the amending act (local government and public involvement in health act 2007) did not enact all its provisions in one go. However the LGA does not mark any of the revisions as prospective thereby suggesting they are in force.

In principle we are about to have more appointed members than elected and with reference to 16(1) would not have enough elected members depending on how 16(1) is interpreted. I can think of two ways  given the overall tone of the amending act revisions I wonder whether this is what the intention is.

Most other online references I can find go back several years and are conflicted or basically opinions with no evidence base to support the statements (lack of a positive does not mean a negative in my book)

Regards

Answer 1

I may be mistaken, but my understanding is that a co-opted member is not an appointed member.

Answer 2

My concern is that Councillors resigned and legal process must follow.  If one Councillor intends to return then legal process must still be followed ie the District Authority would be notified, a notice would be issued to advertise the vacancy allowing for 10 electors to call an election if no election is called the co-opting process would be followed. There has to be transparency

Comments

No concerns the legal process has been followed,
 it was more about interpreting the LGA where it refers explicitly to elected and "appointed" members.
Unfortunately the revised text of the Act (as per the Local Government and Public involvement in Health Act 2007) has not actually enabled the revisions so in fact the revised version is not valid.
Thanks to Counterpoint for clarifying this elsewhere for me