Are parish councils still meeting

Question

Due to the queens mourning period are parish council still having meetings

Answer 1

Ours who should have met yesterday have postponed until the end of the month as a matter of decided respect. I assume that it is a decision of each individual council

Answer 2

Our parish council meeting was due to take place last Monday and was cancelled because, apparently, the three clear days notice that must be given does not include official days of mourning. The clerk referred us to LGA s7.4 and s243. On that basis I assume no PC meetings can take place until 3 days after the funeral.

Comments

The earliest day that meetings that have not already been called would be Saturday 24th September.  You call the meeting on the 20th, then 3 clear days, then the meeting date.  In reality, I would expect meetings to start from Monday 26th September.

That said, if the meeting summons was posted before the Queen's death, you might have had some of the 'clear days' already covered.

---

s7.4 & 243 huh…..

Have you looked at what those sections refer to?

---

No, I hadn't, I just passed it on. Looking at it I don't see what 7.4 has to do with it, but section 243 is definitely relevant re what constitutes a 'clear day'. There is a NALC article about it: https://www.nalc.gov.uk/news/entry/2221-nalc-statement-on-council-meetings-and-notice-periods-during-the-period-of-national-mourning

---

I have found that it very often pays to check the references that others sometimes ardently  provide in support of any given point. As you say, 7.4 appears to be completely irrelevant whilst 243 is relevant.
I guess in some instances 50% might be acceptable but where the job spec is to understand the regulations and to provide accurate and timely advice in relation to understanding of the regulation - well, you know…..

---

Heaven forbid that s7.4 was a miscommunication, typo or perhaps wasn't heard correctly by the recipient...

---

Yup, heaven forbid huh….

Entirely possible that it was just plain wrong too. Imagine if the person being paid NOT to be wrong, only received 1/2 their salary….

I’m sure they’d be just as sympathetic );0)

My point was, I have found that it is not at all uncommon to find those that confidently quote references to be, as you say ‘miscommunicating’ or applying a personal bias or sometimes just plain wrong.

There is an obligation upon the decision makers to check the advice they are being given since only by doing so can confidence be established and accuracy and professionalism recognised and rewarded (with the obvious inverse that a need for corrective action / additional training maybe required) Either way, a requirement of an effective working relationship.

---

and that clearly demonstrates the difference between us.  I opt to think the best in people.

---

(At least) 2 distinct differences:

- I prefer to base my judgements upon empirical factors

- You think 50% ‘right’ is acceptable, I think 50% ‘wrong’ is unacceptable.
There are sectors where 0% fail is the ONLY option. It certainly seems like local government is teetering on the edge of 10% success as bonus territory ):0)

---

I base my faith in our clerk in what I know of her after working with her for 2 years, not after one email: I know she is diligent and trustworthy. In this case there might be a typo but my faith is justified by the fact that the thrust of her advice is sound.

---

Of course, it’s entirely appropriate for you (dogshank) to make such a judgement call based upon your lived experience. My comments were meant more for Mrs A rather than yourself since you have the benefit of other supporting detail to form a judgement which both myself and Mrs A lack - in this instance.
I still maintain I’d be justifiably peeved if the mechanic fixing the brakes on my car only did the front and not the back (or vice versa) or if the taxi only took me ½ way to my destination and expected full fare or if I only got the bacon and not the egg in my sandwich.

Answer 3

We had our full council meeting on Thursday 8th September because the correct notice period had been met.  The councillors voted to continue the meeting and held a minutes silence at the start.

Our next meeting was due on the 19th September and that has been postponed until the 26th September.

It the meeting has been given the correct notice period - the 3 clear days - then the meeting can go ahead but councillors might decide to cancel out of respect.  There is no requirement to automatically cancel the meetings - it is more to gauge the mood of the parish / town.

Comments

While I hate using the terms a philosophy and management and employee should be adopted.   Councillors make decisions and are in fact managers of the PC processes. Clerks are employees whose role is to support and advise and help in deploying lawfully made decisions.     The problem seems to be the ability/knowledge of Cllrs to manage effectively.  Clerks seem to be filling that knowledge gap   to the extent that they are increasingly carrying out a quasi  management role.   The argument is how do you improve the quality of Councillors. Without that nothing will change.

---

Thomas Jefferson knew the answer to your question….

---

It depends on which quote you use.  I like,
 "Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you."

---

You don't need a perfect CV to stand for election so why on earth do you think training is not relevant?  I also do not consider myself to be using "unpaid voluntary time".  I am an elected representative.  Strange isn't it that the poor salaries of clerks is considered grounds for assuming they're inadequate for the job but the unpaid nature of the role of a councillor doesn't generate the same comment.
Of course councillors need training to help carry out the role they have been elected for.  You wouldn't employ an electrician to rewire your house without the appropriate training would you?

---

Corrections:

You don’t need any CV to stand for election
Training is expensive, likely to be delivered by idiots perpetuating the current (perceived) problem and unlikely to be attended by those with limited time and higher priorities

Is an “elected representative” a voluntary unpaid role or were you forced into it and paid for it

Low salaries for clerks results in poor quality

Voluntary unpaid status of Cllr tends to disincentivise those that have financial concerns - it one is not bothered about money it is not an issue to be voluntary and unpaid

Who is going to pay for Cllr training then? If the public elect an idiot I guess they probably should have to pay for them too.