Disqual by non-attendance s85

Question

Not a question about the when or the why - those have all been covered off in previous discussion threads and are quite clear to understand from the primary legislation.
This is a question about the HOW!

I’m pretty sure I’ve read an article or a thread previously which said that if a clerk has been specifically delegated an authority by a PC then they may inform a Cllr that they are disqualified by virtue of s85 but if no such delegation exists then the chair should inform the Cllr.
Has anyone actually travelled this road and have any useful pointers or actual references?

I have the unenviable prospect of having this conversation with someone this week.

Answer 1

From a Clerk's perspective.

Disqualification by virtue of persistent absence is 'sudden death' and no conversations, save the one I am about to explain, need to take place.  It is a simple matter of fact that the person concerned is no longer a councillor.

The only conversation I had was with the Electoral Registration Officer at the principal council, and that was to inform him/her that a casual vacancy had occurred which needed to be advertised.

I'm not sure that helps but offer it in case it does.

Comments

All input gratefully received.
Who, in your example, told the Cllr they were disqual or did they already know?  Or was it just kind of by a process of Chinese whispers or osmosis or jungle drums?
We have the Chinese whispers / jungle drums situation where the news has already 1/2 broken - it’s a matter of open source record what with the minutes, but I feel it should have a bit more formality.

---

In my case, contact with the councillor was before, not after, the disqualification along the lines Dear Councillor Bloggs, unless you attend a meeting before X date you wil automatically be disqualified as a councillor due to your persistent absence".

Answer 2

Being a councillor is a privilege and, as with all privileges, carries responsibility. Councils conduct their business at meetings, to which councillors are summoned (not invited). If you're not at the meeting, you're not participating in the business of the council, for which you were elected or coopted. In order to perform their function effectively, members should make themselves aware of the framework within which they operate, for which a new councillor training course is a good starting point. This should include the significance of S85.

In my days as Chairman of my parish council, I started reminding members of their responsibilities long before S85 came into play. Anybody who missed two meetings without good reason was challenged to demonstrate their commitment to the role. This is not a prescribed route, but it's one way to focus the mind.

Having said all of this, in my opinion, the buck stops with the Clerk, as the legal and financial officer of the council, as this is a legal matter, so if the Chair hasn't stepped up to the plate, it is incumbent upon the Clerk to avoid the embarrassment for the individual of announcing this at a public meeting.

Comments

All understood and appreciated Dave.
There has been previous debate about who is responsible (the clerk, the individual and now the chair) for avoiding the situation arising.
I see merit in all of the previously expressed POVs but recognise that, ultimately, only 1 person is actually ‘responsible’ for attendance but that several can influence it.
When I assumed the chair in Jun one action was to implement the guidance in LTN 5E and 8 in relation to ‘apologies.’  Frankly, I’m of the opinion that an apology is merely a courtesy and it has no significant impact since Cllrs are either present or absent.
Prior to Jun, apologies that were submitted were simply expressed as - has given his / her apology - and then recorded in the minutes as an apology. No record of reason, individual vote and appropriate record in the minutes - to put it another way - meaningless and non-compliant. But that is just 1 of many, often more significant, issues of non-compliance.
In this instance, it was obvious to all Cllrs, the clerk and the public (via the minutes) that non-attendance was gusting 6 months.
I have a limited amount of time that I’m willing to give over to PC business and have consistently exceeded it on far more urgent, important, long standing and legal necessities since becoming chair to worry about reminding other people what they should be doing.