Legality of Parish Council without Proper Officer

Question

Hi. Can a parish council operate legally when they refuse to let the Proper Officer work?  My parish council has refused to let our Clerk work, have employed a ‘locum’ Clerk who told me today that’s she’s not our Responsible Officer!

Thanks in advance

Answer 1

The role of Clerk and of Responsible Financial Officer are often done by the same person but not always and the roles are different and in connection with the earlier posts, yes the council does need a Clerk and Proper Officer (pretty much always the same person) as this is a legally recognised role.
However, I have to ask why a 'locum' has been appointed?  This is usually done when the Clerk has resigned (for example) or is o long term sick and the locum generally has the same powers and responsibilities as a properly employed member of staff, albeit on a temporary basis until a replacement can be found or the clerk returns from long term sick leave.    A clerk is employed by the council and the council must comply with employment law so has he/she resigned?  Some organisations prefer employees to leave immediately when they resign and will pay "garden leave" for their notice period with the individual not being required to work.  It's seen by some as a security issue although I have to say rarely have I experienced this in the parish council sector.

Comments

Is the Clerk suspended pending an investigation relating to a disciplinary or breach of contract of employment matter? The locum should have some form of contract of employment stating on what basis they have been recruited. There is a disparity in the question. Does  Responsible mean Responsible Financial officer or Proper Officer?

---

The current Councillors (we only have 3 left out of 7) appear to have made an pigs breakfast of this.  It seems they spent thousands trying to discredit the Clerk, resulting in an appeal which the Councillors lost.  Still not content, a total of over £30,000 spent, and the ‘Locum’ told me she doesn’t have a contract, and that our original Clerk is still our Clerk and still Section 151 Officer, despite the Councillors not allowing her to work.

---

Thanks. None of those.  Councillors appear to be on a personal vendetta

---

By the sound of it, this council is going to need deep pockets.

---

The current Councillors have just advised of an increase of 5.89% increase in precept.
What I’m trying to discover is what residents can do.

---

They can attend the annual meeting of the parish ( Not to be confused with the Annual Meeting of the parish council) and submit a series of questions. They could also propose a motion of no confidence in the council at said meeting and raise concerns about this saga with the external auditor.

---

Who made the appeal and to whom was it made? Was an employment tribunal involved and was the £30,000 fees for a lawyer to represent the council at it? You aren't giving us every piece of the jigsaw!

---

Is the council still quorate with just three councillors?

---

Hi. It’s difficult to explain, as much has been done behind closed doors, and the Council are claiming as its ‘staffing matters’ they are confidential (data confidential)
We do know they accused the Clerk of gross misconduct, vindicated at appeal (Clerk appealed and won) but they since spent more money.
They are determined to sack her, but the ‘locum’ told me by email that the original one is still the Clerk and and Section 151 Officer even though the Councillors won’t let her work!
The Locum was she doesn’t have a contract of employment!
There was nearly a half page article in our Local Paper about the spending in December. They had apparently spent £13,230 on HR advice; another £1500 on a private investigation, and £7366 on staff costs. (£22;096) and more since!
Our annual precept was £20,859
How can someone still be the Responsible Officer if the Councillors still think she’s guilty of something?

Answer 2

I hope that your non-working clerk is still being paid in accordance with their contract of employment. Does your principal council require the signature of the RFO on the precept declaration form?

This is clearly a waste of taxpayers money and the community needs to be told what's happening and be encouraged to voice their concerns.

Comments

The original Clerk wasn’t paid for months, but is now, the Locum is being paid despite not having a ‘contract’ or even terms of reference!
The question about the precept declaration form isn’t something I know, but as the RFO isn’t allowed to work, I’m guessing she hasn’t, but I’ll check with local Council Democratic Services

---

My district council will only accept the signature of the RFO on the precept form, for legal reasons.