Public questions/comments

Question

As a member of the public when People ask a question (when the meting is opened up to the public) at a town council meeting We are unable/allowed to respond to the councillors answers to my question.

This has meant that the councillors can answer questions in a unsatisfactory way / incomplete or not answer the question asked.
I fully understand that there has to be a curb on the length of time each member of the public is allowed, however our meetings may have at most 5 members of the public with perhaps 3 questions asked in total.
If you are not happy with your questions response you have to wait 21 days (the next meeting) to follow up on the question.

Is this normal town council practice

Answer 1

It’s normal for disfunction Councils who forget who pays for everything and that their role is to serve the public not rule over them

I know a Council where the Chair refused to meet parishioners because they were always complaining, I pointed out wasn’t it the role of a Parish Council to address the concerns not ignore them

Comments

My understanding is that while the public may ask questions or make a statement  the Council is under no obligation to answer, although the Chairman may direct that a written or oral response be made

---

You are correct but don’t you think that to react like that shows contempt towards the residents?

---

The tendency of councils to ignore questions from those they sometimes pretend to represent goes against all principles of the code of conduct Nolan principles. NALC were the ones who through their county partners severely restricted public participation at meetings during set aside sections for that purpose. All that was needed was a good  chair to hold and control the meeting not a stop watch. Of course sending your question or point in writing in time for the agenda production (as well as asking at the specified time) it should then be listed and recorded in the documents received folder for inclusion thereby allowing time for a straight answer or a statement of when the answer will be upcoming.
Personal experience shows that some members of the public can become rather verbose when trying to ask a simple factual question for answering which prompts the chair to cut them short. Put it in writing where there is a record of it then chase up the answer. Thus avoiding " a member of the public asked a question" minute which never sees the light of day again and gets forgotten. ( sometimes the aim of the council)

---

I have presented I don’t know 20 times to my PC and never been asked a question by any Councillor.  So I have bitten the bullet and applied to be co-opted.  One Councillor has  since  written and told me  it was about time I took some responsibility and accountability (by  joining the PC) instead of constantly sniping from the outside . I replied by saying that I thought it was him who was  accountable not me. We shall see how it goes but I will absolutely look on residents as customers and not just payers of the precept

---

You’ll be lucky if they Co-opt you, I only got in by being elected as I knew there was no way they would allow me in voluntarily let us know how you get on

---

As I understood it if there are less candidates than there are vacancies and you meet the qualifying criteria then they cant refuse your application . They only vote if there are more  applicant's than vacancies . Am I wrong ?

---

I’m afraid so my Council had four vacancies and they still rejected candidates.

If you search this site you will see it’s a bone of contention

If they reject your application there is another way but hopefully they won’t be as cynical as some Councils

---

Well we have a published  co-option procedure and it doesn't say anything about voting unless there is a choice. what is the legal reference re voting . Need to bone up on this.

---

Is there any difference between a casual vacancy procedure and a shortfall from the last election ?
We have had 6 vacancies out of 22 for over two years so they are constantly advertising " be a Councillor"

---

I would suggest that acceptance of a candidate (or rejection) is a decision of the council and can only be decided by a vote of that council. Now whether that vote is by show of hands or a secret written vote is what should be defined. Of course a "secret" vote would remove future accusations of prejudice/bias, personal feelings which can be long lasting and destructive to a PC.

---

The paritioners should initially adress their concerns to their ward cllrs or the clerk, and they should report back, so in a sense, the chair could be within his/her rights not to meet them.  That does not excuse the Parish Council for ignoring them though.

---

So as I understand it there are no set procedures for co-opting Councillors. A Parish Council can however set a policy as to how it intends to act . You then get into a debate as to however sacrosanct  is that policy?   I think I have read somewhere that having set a policy electors have  a  "reasonable expectation" that it will  be followed...whatever that means

---

Don’t start me on “ policies “ some Councils treat them as written on tablets of stone but as we all know there’s nothing to prevent  a majority of Councillors at any meeting to ignore them