Co-option of parish councillors

Question

IF a Parish Council has 2 vacancies to be filled by co-option, are advertised in the community newsletter, applications sent out with a 'return by' date, and 2 valid applications are received by a deadline is there any reason why those valid applications should be rejected and nominations reopened to permit a late, and incomplete, nomination to proceed?

Answer 1

Depends on whether you have a co-options policy and what it says. If you have set a deadline for applicants then that deadline should stand and preclude late applications. Should one of the on time applicants subsequently be found not to qualify or be unsuitable for co-option then effectively the late applicant can be informed of their "application" being held on file( with their approval of course) for a future vacancy when and if it occurs.

Answer 2

Councils now have to have a very good reason to reject Councillors standing for co-option, and if you have a deadline then that is it, apologies but it was submitted late.

Answer 3

If a council rejects a candidate, it should be willing to explain its decision. If it fails to do so willingly, it would have to answer a Freedom of Information request.  This normally allows the unsuccessful candidate to issue civil proceedings for libel.

The law requires vacancies to be filled by co-option at the earliest opportunity, so if you have candidates who are not disqualified by statute, you co-opt them.

Comments

As usual there’s a gap between “ the law “ and reality
From my experience Parish Councils can reject anyone they want and no one can do anything about it
I’d be interested to see any cases that prove the opposite
The only way round is to get the District Council to declare an election and I have seen that happen
In a case I know the Parish rejected one person on frivolous grounds the District declared elections and there are now 4 new activist Councillors that would never have been co-opted plus a 5th where 10 residents asked for an election

---

Interesing Jules as there's no legal basis for a district to declare an election on the grounds you state.  When a vacancy occurs, the elections office (of your principal authority) advertises that vacancy and if sufficient local electors request an election within the time specified, then that election is held regardless whether there is one or multiple candidates but for that one vacancy.    If no one requests an election with in the time specified, the parish council is able to co-opt but in reality, that (as others have said) is a bit of a flexible feast depending upon the individual council's co-option policy, if there is one. I know of no legal basis for a principal authority to declare an election just because the parish were a bit lax on a co-option for a single casual vacancy.

---

I have recently been through this process and as I understand it the PC has a "degree of choice".    Quite how that choice is achieved is unclear .   We have a formal policy which dictates automatic acceptance yet they still formally vote.   I suppose it depends which PC is involved .  My understanding would be if a PC rejects you then  they don't have to say why.  All as clear as mud.

---

What happens if the council votes and the vote is in favour of rejection thereby forming a contradiction with the policy?
As there is no legal requirement to co-opt a particular candidate the decision to co-opt is that of the council. To avoid having to answer any challenge as to why, the vote must be a closed vote (Written) rather than a show of hands. This then also avoids any candidate adopted knowing who might have voted against them being co-opted and leading possible future animosity by the co-optee.

---

Rule 5(5) of the Local Elections (Parishes and Communities) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 requires councils to co-opt "as soon as practicable" so if you have a legally qualified candidate, you should co-opt. If you have more candidates than vacancies, you have the right to choose.

The model standing orders state that voting shall be by show of hands, so unless you have modified the standing orders to include the necessary provisions for a written ballot, you should use a show of hands. A fundamental aspect of being an elected representative of the people is the willingness to stand up and be counted. It's no different whether you're a member of parliament or a parish councillor.

---

Thanks Dave for the points raised on co-option. I would suggest that there is an element of perceived extrapolation on this matter with " accepted" dogma being presented as legally binding. co-option is defined as: 'appoint to membership of a committee or other body by invitation of the existing members'.
The relevant point being " by invitation" The system of filling vacancies which I agree is laid down in statute ends with the co-option process which is within the powers of the PC to fill by whatever system they choose. Your point on show of hands in the standing orders can be changed to accommodate such a vote on co-option with protection for the council for any future bad feelings enabling a united council. (Just good practice).
My old council had reason to defend itself against an accusation of illegal action in rejecting a candidate in the vote and after seeking advice from both NALC ( via local office)  and the  SLCC legal section we were emphatically informed that the PC did not have to accept ANY applicant for co-option and that the accusation of acting illegally was erroneous. Must state that it took NALC 3 months to supply the answer that the SLCC provided within a week.
Like most perceived assumptions these days and, as with the panic over graveyards, it has never been tested in a court of law.

---

The Local Elections (Parishes and Communities) Rules 2006 clearly states that where there is a casual vacancy which is not required to be filled by an election, the parish or community council must, as soon as practicable . . . . co-opt a person to fill the vacancy. There is no ambiguity here and, if there is only one application for a vacancy, there is no option to reject that sole candidate. 'As soon as practicable' means as soon as they are able. Many councils' co-option policies state that they do not have to accept anyone and that the process can be repeated. I think this is in conflict with the Rules.  Thoughts?

---

My Parish Council has rejected candidates including one they thought was too political ie a member of a political party
With a lot of matters relating to PC’s it’s clearly wrong but who’s going to do anything about it and how ?

---

It would be interesting to see somebody challenge a failure to co-opt an eligible candidate on the basis that it runs contrary to the Nolan principles. Selflessness (in the public interest), Objectivity (without discrimination or bias), and Leadership (treating others with respect).

---

How would you challenge this?

---

This would be a code of conduct complaint to the Monitoring Officer at the District Council (or equivalent), but in the first instance, I'd write to the Chair of the Council informing him or her that the Council's actions may be contrary to the Nolan principles and setting out the basis for this assertion.

---

Dave the only flaw with your plan is that Nolan only covers individual Councillors and the PC is a corporate body so who would you report and what for
In theory but I doubt in practice it would be the Electorial Commission

---

I'd report each councillor who took part in the vote to reject the candidate, or preferably those who voted against it if that information is known.