COUNCILLORS RIGHT TO ATTEND COUNCIL MEETINGS

Question

My PC has decided to controversially to form a subcommittee that meets behind closed doors and allows only member Councillors to attend. When I pointed out the provisions of LTN5 para 26 which reads  “ A Councillor has the right to attend every Council  meeting but he can be excluded for disruptive behaviour”, the chairman has opined  that does not apply to his subcommittee but doesn’t elaborate. Now I know that the SOs says that the public can be excluded but is there anything more specific about a non member Councillor's right to attend any Council meeting if he/she so chooses. I suspect they are reading LTN5 as relating to full Council meetings

Answer 1

Was the sub-committee established by the council or one of its committees?

Answer 2

My understanding is that sub committees are still required the due process for meeting - in that agendas must be published, minutes taken, quorum etc etc.

If they are to meet behind closed doors, they would have to formally resolve to close it and not automatically assume that it is a private meeting.

With regards to a Councillors right to attend a correctly closed meeting, they don't have this right, I believe, as they are considered to be on par with members of the public and similarly they cannot vote or take part in the discussion.  As an example, I don't believe that councillors not on the personnel committee are in a position to attend a personnel meeting if it is formally and correctly closed to the public - LTN 5 para 80

So, what is this subcommittee for?

Comments

We have a Community Centre which had always been controversial as the PC appointed all trustees and has been the main funder.  Last year all the public trustees resigned because of antics of the Parish Councillor trustees.   The remaining trustees then said to the PC look "we are committed to becoming  a CIO but we cant do it all on our own so we would like the PC to form a sub committee to help us carry out a review and move forward" . This was done on the basis that part of the Charity's objects read "to maintain and manage the Community Centre  whether alone or in co-operation with any local authority, person or body. I don't know whether that is legal as the CC wont reply.  However, a sub committee of the Finance Committee was formed and put forward TOR which included excluding the public from their meetings. There was token objection from some Cllrs but a resolution was passed nominating 5 members.  The exclusion was justified on the basis that all discussions were confidential . Their remit is to meet and produce a monthly report to the Finance Committee.   The public trustees however know there are several agendas at play here and some include  prejudicial interests. They are anxious to ensure that all decisions are open and transparent and have suggested that non member Councillors be allowed to attend as observers and quoted LTN 5 .  The Chairman has said no it doesn't apply.  Mrs A when you talk about a  correctly closed meeting do you mean as per the Chairman excluding the public from a meeting due to the confidential nature of the business to be discussed which I believe is the only reason they can be excluded ?

---

The model standing orders allow the Council to determine whether or not the public and press may attend meetings of sub-committees. This doesn't apply to committees and it would require a motion at council and record in the minutes. So the committee establishes the sub-committee and agrees terms of reference and membership, but the council determines meeting place, notice period, quorum, press and public access, level of public participation if access allowed and also has the power to dissolve a sub-committee.

If the charity trustees are moving towards CIO conversion, they should work with the local ACRE branch who specialise in this and hold all of the necessary guidance and template documents. They should not attempt to write their own constitution or modify the model document.

---

Sorry not exactly up to speed on PC involvement in charities but surely if the trustees of the charity are parish councillors then the charity is divorced from the actual pc and they are the people who run the charity not the PC and other than funding or any terms of the charity incorporation ( i.e. only councillors can be trustees) the pc involvement is nil.

---

In this case, if my memory serves me right, the parish council owns the building and set up the charity to administer it on their behalf. The conversion to a CIO involves the dissolution of the current charity and the creation of the new one, following the dissolution procedure set out in the governing document of the existing charity, which would require input from the council.

You are absolutely correct regarding the separation of the charity and the council as two distinct entities and this is a minefield that I am advising them to avoid in the creation of the new charity by seeking expert advice. Councillors appointed to charities must remove their councillor hat and don a charity trustee hat when acting in that capacity, which is made more complicated in this particular charity as it has become over-dependent upon the council as core funder. There is a potential for the charity to seek additional funding at a time when the council might be seeking to reduce its commitment, leaving the dual-hatted councillors arguing for the charity against the financial interests of the council.

---

How do you read this Dave "Unless the council determines otherwise, a committee may appoint a sub-committee whose terms of reference and members shall be determined by the committee".  Does this mean in all circumstances only the Committee can establish its own sub committee unless Full Council says you cant .  In our case the Full Council itself  established the sub committee and surrounding conditions. Is it therefore valid? Your assessment of the situation is about right but there are a lot of hidden agendas at play here and a lot of public distrust and secret meetings do nothing to help the situation

---

Could you supply the terms of reference for the sub committee ?

---

The legislation provides more clarity (LGA 1972 Section 101(2):-
(2) Where by virtue of this section any functions of a local authority may be discharged by a committee of theirs, then, unless the local authority otherwise direct, the committee may arrange for the discharge of any of those functions by a sub-committee or an officer of the authority and where by virtue of this section any functions of a local authority may be discharged by a sub-committee of the authority, then, unless the local authority or the committee otherwise direct, the sub-committee may arrange for the discharge of any of those functions by an officer of the authority.

We've talked at length about the back story here and it is so important that they get the structure right this time to clarify roles and responsibilities and move on from all the past nonsense.

---

Correct me if I misread this but it seems to revolve around the word may.  It seems to me by including it on the full council agenda then that constitutes "directing otherwise". ?

---

Any function that can be delegated to a committee (almost everything, except the few exceptions that must be determined by council), can be further delegated by that committee to a sub-committee, unless the council has resolved to remove that power from the committee, usually in its terms of reference. The "otherwise direct" relates solely to the power to delegate a function down the chain of command to sub-committee and officer. Removing the power from the committee does not permit the council to exercise the power itself.

---

Dave have sent you an E Mail