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

This is an argument of fine points which doesn't particularly interest me, but it does illustrate (well to me) the "growing syndrome" that clerks are increasingly taking a far greater role in the running of PCs. Now I believe in doing that they are slowly but surely decreasing the importance of the role of Councillors whilst increasing their own importance. This month I am being told that an important motion cannot be heard for "time management" reasons.  I am sure there are many clerks out there who see their role as making sense out of a load on numpty Cllrs but there are many good Cllrs having to deal with clerks who see themselves in a policeman role.  A balance has to be found or else PCs will attract less and less Cllrs.  As has been mentioned in other threads the future I believe lies with greater support and education of Cllrs

---

Interesting that you mention ‘time management’ as the reason for rejection of a motion.
Who is saying that? Clerk or chair?

Time management (of a PC meeting) is the sole responsibility of the chair.
Often SOs will specify the process by which Cllrs may speak on a motion, whether a right of reply exists and even the length of time any Cllr may speak.
If that is specified in SOs - but not applied at a meeting by the chair - then that could be the ‘problem’ with time management.
It’s a complete nonsense, and an obvious and intentional misrepresentation of statutory intent, to have clerks dictating the content of agenda - other than to correct minor typographical errors or to require clarity to be provided within a poorly constructed motion.
The chair should approve the agenda prior to publication - there is no case to dispute or argue against this.
Those that think the clerk has sole authority to compile and issue the agenda should take note that MSOs provides the chair autonomy to amend the agenda as they see fit at the meeting.
Logic (yeah, I know, that most rare attribute) must prevail and logic demands that a clerk will liaise with the chair prior to issuing an agenda since to not do so will simply result in the agenda being re-ordered at the meeting.
Granted, this will not facilitate the inclusion of that which has been excluded by an over zealous or inappropriate clerk, but it certainly does dispel the myth that clerks control agenda.
The chair is the elected first among equals of Cllrs and the chair sets the strategic and policy direction of the council.

---

I'd also be interested to learn what the motion was and what "time management" issues were raised?  Was it because the motion was put forward after the agenda was issued for example? Or perhaps there was already a very full agenda and it was suggested that leaving it to the next meeting might give the subject a better airing or an opportunity for better preparation by councillors to properly consider the proposal.
As I have said many times, I personally very much value the input and management of council matters by our skilled and qualified clerk whose job it is to ensure councillors are suitably briefed and enabled to make the decisions we are required to make.  I accept not all councils are so fortunate but I am proud of what our small group of diverse individuals with differing backgrounds have achieved whilst I've been a councillor.

---

It's quite simple really.  All we want is definitive advice as to who is responsible for what part of the agenda.  If there is not definitive advice it leaves it open for the clerk to say, "do it my way".   Over the years this lack of guidance has encouraged NALC to gradually change the rules with removal of "subject to " in para 9 of standing orders as an example. NALC now say, "The preparation of the agenda is usually the responsibility of the clerk to the council".  Well, what does that mean?  This is just one example of a flash point.  The problem is if you challenge anything you get a "this is harassment" response.   The bottom line is that PC are becoming so bureaucratic that it puts people off joining

---

I totally agree your sentiment and I speak from considerable experience of the “how dare you question me” and “carry on and I’ll file a complaint” brigade.
As you say the NALC guidance says the clerk is responsible for the agenda preparation.
That means the secretarial work of formatting, printing, despatching. It doesn’t mean deciding the content.
You need Cllrs with the confidence to stand by the obvious principle that it is Cllrs that submit motions for the agenda and the clerk may cast an eye over them for typos and content and that’s that.

---

You also need councillors who are prepared to undertake training on the legalities of parish and town councils.  In my experience councillors are not always prepared to do this and therefore are not fully versed in what parish council are legally allowed to do. They instead rely on their clerks to advise them. Therefore it is reasonable for clerks to advise that an agenda item is not appropriate for the agenda because it is outside of the councils remit - for example, undertaking works that are the legal obligation of other authorities is not allowed even under GPC. More than just a secretarial role...

---

I am absolutely agree with you Mrs A and herein lies the problem. Once elected Councillors have no incentive or requirement to improve their knowledge and this allows/encourages greater clerk input.  What is needed is an organisation which supports "councillor development" .  I argue that NALC majors on "clerk development".    They both need one another but I argue that the area of greatest weakness are Councillors themselves and that needs sorting PDQ

---

Well, you’re both labouring under a misguided aspiration then and therefore - wrong.
Given the well publicised paucity of people willing to stand as Cllrs and the consistent lack of public engagement at elections, the very last thing that is likely to incentivise people into the Cllr role is the prospect of sitting through a series of terminally dull, skull splittingly teadious political correctness doubtless delivered by a NALC / CALC quango.
That path, even if it could be somehow mandated - and it can’t so you’d just as well stop wittering on about it - leads to a crash in the already low numbers of candidates which results in repeat uncontested elections.
MPs don’t have statutory mandated training, County councillors don’t, why would you conceivably think parish councillors should?

The is no requirement for Cllr training.
The is no requirement for the COST associated with Cllr training.
What is quite simply needed is for Cllrs to be able and willing to READ the absolute wealth of freely available open source information which could stand them in good stead.
Whether you call it Sod’s law or the effect of unintended consequences or simply a poorly considered plan - wittering on about mandated Cllr training is as pointless as an elephant.

---

Well, if that is the case tell me where it definitively says who is responsible for what regarding agenda construction?  Also read para 9 of standing orders.  No matter if its wrong they are still standing orders.  What is needed are Councillors who can take control of the environment in which they exist.

---

It doesn’t say that anywhere because the last thing anyone wants or needs is overly prescriptive legislation which provides specific answers to every possible question.
The situation you seem, across many posts, to be articulating appears to be a lack of management and direction from the PC of an employee.
The clerk is employed by the PC, the PC needs to define what it wants.

---

And management of the PC is exercised by Councillors!!

---

And Cllrs are elected by the public or returned uncontested where there are already insufficient quality candidates.
Whereas ‘training’ might help upskill existing Cllrs, it is costly to the tax payer,  Cllrs are unlikely to dedicate even more of their unpaid voluntary time to it and it would invariably be delivered by exactly the quangos that can be seen (certainly from many posts and common themes here) to be part of the problem rather than the solution.
All you’d end up with, as has recently been articulated in a separate thread, is a perpetuation and extension of the already inappropriate corporate agenda of NALC etc.
So do you still think training is the solution or are the realities starting to dawn?

---

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.