Co-option process is ''not prescribed in law''

Question

My district authority states that there is no legal basis for a co-option process for a parish council casual vacancy and that, although NALC Legal Topic Note 8 has guidance on what to do, Charles Arnold Baker has a different legal opinion.  I don't have the latest Yellow Book; my copy was published before the 2006 Local Election Rules were issued. Can the Rules (which state that certain vacancies must be filled by co-option) create, in effect, an addition to the LGA 1972?

Answer 1

The process for co-option is not outlined in legislation and the only difference between the NALC advice and the CAB advice, from recollection, is that NALC states that if there are an equal (or lesser) number of candidates for the vacancies, then they must be co-opted.  The CAB advice is that any decision of the council is by majority vote and therefore any candidate for co-option must have a majority of votes to be elected and therefore there is a chance that they will not be elected.

I cannot see how the 2006 rules are any different to the LGA 1972 - it states the process for filling a casual vacancy whereby a invitation to request a byelection is called and if it is not taken up, then the council fill by co-option.  How the council does this, is up to them - by a formal process or asking a mate down the pub to join - either is acceptable in law.

Comments

It’s poorly considered wording from NALC.
There is, quite rightly, no obligation created on a Cllr to vote “for” a single candidate for cooption if they choose not to and if that choice results in less than a majority vote then the candidate is not co-opted.

---

Agree with Mrs Abster in that co-option is firmly in the domain of the PC. This I would suggest should be backed up with a policy in standing orders to outline to councillors/applicants exactly the procedure required, information from candidate etc.( could include application form to confirm eligibility) and voting procedures required in council (e.g. secret written vote for, against, or abstain to be recorded in the minutes) . This way everyone knows what goes on and eliminates "misunderstandings" and possible future "bad blood" or complaint. Surely this makes sense for a council?