NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Question

Can I be crystal clear as to what rights (if any)  do Councillors have re attending Committee meetings if they are not a members of that committee.   Can they a) attend b) speak c) vote as of right ? Some advice says they can attend whereas other advice says yes but with member of the public status. Also is there any formal Chairman's discretion ?

Answer 1

If a Councillor is attending a Committee that they are not a member off, they are attending as a Member of the Public.  All committees are open to the public so can certainly attend, they can speak during the public session but cannot vote.

Comments

Exactly but if someone adds value you could waive Standing Orders to let them contribute but not vote

---

Absolutely- the same if a member of the public can add value to the discussion. Standing orders allows contributions at the discretion of the chair.

Answer 2

A) attend - yes

B) speak - yes if invited to do so by chair

C) vote - no

Where this type of question usually goes is, can a Cllr be required to vacate if the meeting goes into closed session.
On that subject opinion appears to be divided.
Whilst press and public may be excluded, a non committee member Cllr is neither press nor public, they are a non committee Cllr and I have seen noting which quantifies the legitimacy of the argument presented by some that a non committee Cllr may be excluded.
Others will differ - but the only case they will present is that a non committee Cllr is a member of public.
This is obviously a flawed position to adopt since a Cllr is a Cllr when acting as such….

Comments

RAC but surely the clr would be privvy to the information at closed session when the committee reports to the full council. A councillor has signed to uphold the code of conduct an abide by standing orders and has to be accepted to be following Nolan principles as a matter of course and the most important here being integrity which has to raise a councillor above the level of being treated as "a member of the public"

---

As ever, my position is informed from experience.
In this example, I have experienced a PC demonstrating a lack of respect, appreciation and application of the PROPER rules for excluding press and public so as to conduct business improperly in private session.
So as to the question - can a Cllr be excluded I maintain that they may not since they are neither press nor public.
They can sit through a closed session of a committee of which they are not a member because there simply isn’t a mechanism to exclude them. There just isn’t.
What they hear they cannot share - that is where CoC and Nolan principles come into effect.
It has also been a bone of contention that a closed session may not be recorded. Of course it can. If you can hear it, you can recall it. It you can recall it you can write it down. If you can write it down there is a record. It’s just the same as recording it. But you can’t share the recording with someone that isn’t entitled.
Just my view and I’ve had fun watching the hairy shirts go on as I’ve refused to cease recording a closed session

---

RAC agree with your opening- as with all, experience is the best teacher and this doesn't come from NALC training but a willingness to learn from history and others ( sometimes their mistakes) but an overriding desire to serve your community and do the best you can. Not, I would submit, any personal kudos or agenda seeking via the title "Councillor"

---

I disagree. A Cllr attending a committee meeting that they are not on the committee for is 100% attending as a member of the public and should leave the room during a closed session because they should not be able to influence the debate in any way. That doesn't have to be through speech - it could be through body language. A disapproving shake of the head, a look of disgust when a committee member speaks etc etc. They may also have a "hold" over another Councillor who is unable to vote freely in their presence. While all Cllrs are entitled to know the outcome of any vote in a closed session (as is any member of the public), they are not entitled to know the details of the discussion that were had prior to a vote being taken.

I think RAC you're failing to appreciate the difference between a recording being taken at the time - which is absolute proof of something having been said by a particular person - and someone recalling events and writing them down some time later. I'm sure any police officer would agree their jobs would be far easier if every witness produced an "in the moment" recording of what they witnessed rather than a written recollection of events. On a contentious issue, someone may not be willing to express a view knowing it could come back to haunt them as a matter of fact. If you were to otherwise claim someone said something without the audio recording evidence, they could quite obviously deny the claim.

---

You might pause a minute and think about what you’ve written there Barry.
We are not disagreeing over a definable point of fact. We are disagreeing over a point of opinion.
You have done EXACTLY what I predicted in the first post would be done - you are basing your entire stance upon the (IMHO flawed) assumption that a Cllr is NOT a Cllr (but is a member of public) if not a committee member.
That is an OPINION.
Your comparison of contemporaneous notes and an audio / video record is also flawed since it appears to lack the necessary appreciation of the relevance and admissibility of contemporaneous notes as evidence.
Could you perhaps explain the HOW of how your position would be delivered practically?

A person that does not wish to leave the room, because they are not obliged to do so, is NOT disrupting a meeting - they are simply observing it. In your circumstance CoC cannot be applied because they are “public” not a Cllr - see the flaws starting to appear?

The individual would be acting or holding them self out as acting as a Cllr - they just would.  So if they are a Cllr they are not a member of public.
You can’t be BOTH a Cllr (and subject to CoC) and NOT a Cllr (so a member of public) all at the same time. You see the basic problems of your position yet?

By all means, if you have a stronger, more compelling argument to support your OPINION - I’m open to being convinced otherwise but intimidating facial expressions is not going to cut it I’m afraid. That is a ridiculous statement which relies upon a flawed logic and seeks to treat the symptom rather than the cause since it requires the assertion that Cllrs routinely lack the moral fibre to do the job as its fundamental basis.

---

RAC, I accept that you think your opinion is right, but you admit your knowledge that formed your opinion has come from your experience. And I'm sure from your previous posts, that is limited to the past 13 months. Admittedly, that trumps my 12 months, but my experience comes mostly from reading up on things over the 24hrs I've spent in meetings.

The answer is just as clear in my mind as you seem to think it is in yours. A Councillor attending a Committee meeting as a Councillor is summonsed to do so at the behest of the Committee. If you are attending having not been summonsed, you are attending of your own free will, not because the delegated authority of the Council has requested you to carry out your duty. You are duty bound to only act as a Councillor at the discretion of the Council, so you cannot "act as a Councillor" at a meeting you're not summonsed to. You have no privilege there. And to act in such away is a breach of the standing orders (assuming you've adopted the model ones).

"A person that does not wish to leave the room, because they are not obliged to do so, is NOT disrupting a meeting - they are simply observing it." This is entirely wrong. If you are not leaving the meeting as directed, even if you are sitting there in total silence with your back to everyone else in the room, the meeting cannot continue, so you are disrupting the meeting.

"I’m open to being convinced otherwise but intimidating facial expressions is not going to cut it I’m afraid. That is a ridiculous statement which relies upon a flawed logic and seeks to treat the symptom rather than the cause since it requires the assertion that Cllrs routinely lack the moral fibre to do the job as its fundamental basis."  - I think you'll find this is the exact reason why councillors are required to leave the room when an interest of theirs is discussed. You are not permitted to have any influence over the vote whatsoever. Your presence jeopardises the council's position of coming to a free and fair resolution, even if you were to sit there in total silence. If you hang around while everyone else is kicked out, how do the other members of the public know you haven't influenced proceedings? Any other person could seek a judicial review if they felt your presence was to ensure the Council voted a particular way. Your very argument and attitude suggests that you feel you should be able to dictate some level of control over proceedings of which you are not a party of and I know many, many other parish councillors who feel the same. This is exactly why you, morally speaking, SHOULDN'T be in the room. People tend to act how they feel.

If you are suggesting that an individual with the title "Councillor" is always wearing that Councillor hat, how would you deal with a District/County Councillor who refused to leave? Or, perhaps, a medical councillor? What about a councillor of a neighbouring Parish or Town Council? If you are always wearing your Councillor hat, do you declare a gift every time someone does you a favour?

The fact of the matter is, you are not always wearing your councillor hat and you can only wear it when authorised to act by the Council. And for clarification, you are NOT the Council even in part. The Council is wholly independent. You act for the Council at the request of the Council. That's not opinion; that is categorically how it works.

Finally, I didn't compare contemporaneous notes and an audio record. I compared an audio record with notes made some time later from a recalling of previous events, because you tried to claim that there was no difference between their value. There shouldn't be any note taking or audio/video recording of a confidential session. The only thing that should be noted in the minutes is the result of any vote and, if requested, how individuals voted.

---

The opening passage of your latest post actually exposes the vulnerability and lack of credibility which runs through the position you are attempting to support.  We must both make every reasonable effort to avoid personalising the discussion since in that direction lays only discord.  You really shouldn't suggest, and present as a basis for your argument, the inherently flawed assumption that my experience is constrained to the date of subscription to this forum.  You do realise how presumptuous and fragile such an assumption would be right?  No?  Yes?  Don't know?

I'll ask again - SHOW ME the passage which you suggest would constitute a breach of model standing orders....  Just do that.
You have adopted, and seek to present, a position which believes that a Cllr is only a Cllr when summoned to a meeting.
I would suggest, if that really is your true belief, that you are probably deficient in 95% of what it SHOULD mean to be a Cllr at any level but there is no value in further debunking your stated opinion whilst we wait for any form of legitimate substance which might validate it.

"...You act for the Council at the request of the Council. That's not opinion; that is categorically how it works..."
Oh dear, no Sir, that is categorically NOT how it works.
You are now stating that Cllr's at a closed session meeting, whether member of that committee or not (setting aside that part for the moment) are forbidden to take notes....?  That is what you said right?  [....There shouldn't be any note taking or audio/video recording of a confidential session....]

So as well as dictating who can / cannot attend, you are now proposing that [who?] someone can prevent an attendee taking notes....

Your argument is descending into farce my old mucker.

---

RAC, you told me that you joined your council in Jan 2022, I reasonably took that as a statement of truth and since all your tales have come after that time, I've reasonably deduced that this is your only experience to date.
S.O. 25(a)(ii) "Unless duly authorised, no councillor shall issue orders, instructions or directions". You are ordering/instructing/directing a committee that you have a right to be present "as a councillor", but "as a councillor", you have no ability to order/instruct/direct because the council hasn't authorised you to do so. Your rights and privileges as a Councillor only extend as far as the law permits and as a subset, what the Council is lawfully able to permit via the Standing Orders and previous resolutions. The law side is is mostly wrapped up in the Standing Orders, but there are exceptions. If you can point to a piece of legislation that specifically grants you the privilege you believe you have or an item in your standing orders, then I may well reconsider my position.

However, NALC LTN 5e (Nov 2021), p 75 states:
"A member of the Council who is not appointed to a committee may attend
a committee meeting as a member of the public. They would have no right
to participate in the meeting unless a member of the public also has the
same right and as explained in Legal Topic Note 1 (Councils’ powers to
discharge their functions)."

You can dispute the worth of NALC as much as you like - I do too, but the LTNs do come from legal professionals who have considered all aspects of the law, test cases and other background knowledge/experience. It is explicitly clear a non-committee member of the Council has no right above and beyond that of a member of the public in the given circumstance, so I highly doubt you will find the privilege you think you have written anywhere in law. I'm not even sure on what basis you believe you have that right anyway.

Check out https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/8-9/67/section/1, particularly 3A(b). If the Council/Committee decide no notes/recordings are to be taken (which I think is a reasonable assumption to make if the press are excluded without needing to formally declare such a thing), guess what? No notes/recordings can be taken. Even when you have been advised no notes/recordings can be taken, you've told us you've acted in defiance! That's not my dictation, that's the law. The Committee is the "who" that should be preventing you recording a closed session, and it can enforce this by calling a halt to proceedings until the conditions are complied with. If you don't comply, you are acting against the delegated authority granted to the committee by the Council and as such, in breach of your code of conduct; if the meeting is suspended because you're not doing as you're told, you're preventing the council carrying out it's lawful business as well as potentially bringing it into disrepute.

It is very much the case that it is your position that is flawed. Being a Councillor doesn't give you any kind of "overlordship" of the Council. Equally, the enduring nature of the Council shows that you are NOT "the Council", even in part. If you and all your fellow councillors quit and if your clerk and RFO also quit, the Council still exists. The Council merely calls on you to help make decisions on it's business. That, in a nutshell, is the brief for the role. You specifically can't even carry out the tasks necessary to effect those decisions unless another decision has been taken to allow you to. Say the Council decided it needed to clean the windows of the Parish Office. You "as a councillor" decide to clean the windows off your own back to save the Council some money. You slip and fall off your ladder. You put in a claim on the council's insurance because you were doing it "as a councillor", you would get nothing. You would not have been acting under the authority of the Council and so you couldn't claim to be working for the Council.

So, I've put an argument for the standing orders on the table to show you how you are wrong. I've presented to you the considered legal advice of professionals which is published and issued to all councils. I've even put a piece of legislation out there and given examples of how this "I am the council (at least in part)" idea is wrong. How is this stacking up in comparison to your "on the job" experience which you have merely assumed to be carrying out correctly and to date, is solely what your argument is relying on?

---

Alright Barry, have a cup of tea mate....

I'll set about unpicking that essay after I've put the kettle on.

But just to be going on with, there is value in these debates since passive observers, as well as ourselves, might be taken down a path of considering things from different perspectives. That has to be useful in and of itself....

Hold on, I'll be back after a short interlude );0)

---

RAC, you told me that you joined your council in Jan 2022,

True

I reasonably took that as a statement of truth
Correct

and since all your tales have come after that time, I've reasonably deduced that this is your only experience to date.

Your reasonable deduction is flawed old chum - this is not my first rodeo );0)


S.O. 25(a)(ii) "Unless duly authorised, no councillor shall issue orders, instructions or directions". You are ordering/instructing/directing a committee that you have a right to be present "as a councillor", but "as a councillor", you have no ability to order/instruct/direct because the council hasn't authorised you to do so.
Nonsense!  There is no order, instruction or direction inherent in attendance at a meeting - complete guff!  And, there isn't a 25(a) (iii) in the current MSOs.

Your rights and privileges as a Councillor only extend as far as the law permits and as a subset, what the Council is lawfully able to permit via the Standing Orders and previous resolutions. The law side is is mostly wrapped up in the Standing Orders, but there are exceptions. If you can point to a piece of legislation that specifically grants you the privilege you believe you have or an item in your standing orders, then I may well reconsider my position.

Civilisation, generally, depends upon the existence of "rules" which PRECLUDE rather than authorise definable behaviour.  It is seldom possible to find relevant example of a rule which enables rather than disqualifies - I suppose the minimum speed permissible on a motorway could be an exception?



However, NALC LTN 5e (Nov 2021), p 75 states:
"A member of the Council who is not appointed to a committee may attend
a committee meeting as a member of the public. They would have no right
to participate in the meeting unless a member of the public also has the
same right and as explained in Legal Topic Note 1 (Councils’ powers to
discharge their functions)."

You can dispute the worth of NALC as much as you like
Thank you

- I do too, but the LTNs do come from legal professionals who have considered all aspects of the law, test cases and other background knowledge/experience. It is explicitly clear a non-committee member of the Council has no right above and beyond that of a member of the public in the given circumstance, so I highly doubt you will find the privilege you think you have written anywhere in law. I'm not even sure on what basis you believe you have that right anyway.

Check out https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/8-9/67/section/1, particularly 3A(b).

Your link doesn't work

 If the Council/Committee decide no notes/recordings are to be taken (which I think is a reasonable assumption to make if the press are excluded without needing to formally declare such a thing), guess what? No notes/recordings can be taken. Even when you have been advised no notes/recordings can be taken, you've told us you've acted in defiance! That's not my dictation, that's the law. The Committee is the "who" that should be preventing you recording a closed session, and it can enforce this by calling a halt to proceedings until the conditions are complied with. If you don't comply, you are acting against the delegated authority granted to the committee by the Council and as such, in breach of your code of conduct; if the meeting is suspended because you're not doing as you're told, you're preventing the council carrying out it's lawful business as well as potentially bringing it into disrepute.

Hold on - none of that applies to Joe Public and you submit that a Cllr is Joe Public - you can see the difficulty you are getting into here?



It is very much the case that it is your position that is flawed. Being a Councillor doesn't give you any kind of "overlordship" of the Council.
Not sure where that is coming from.....  The only reason I would seek to attend a closed session is where I know that inappropriate business is being conducted behind closed doors - yes and that is from the "actual" play book of experience.


Equally, the enduring nature of the Council shows that you are NOT "the Council", even in part. If you and all your fellow councillors quit and if your clerk and RFO also quit, the Council still exists. The Council merely calls on you to help make decisions on it's business. That, in a nutshell, is the brief for the role. You specifically can't even carry out the tasks necessary to effect those decisions unless another decision has been taken to allow you to. Say the Council decided it needed to clean the windows of the Parish Office. You "as a councillor" decide to clean the windows off your own back to save the Council some money. You slip and fall off your ladder. You put in a claim on the council's insurance because you were doing it "as a councillor", you would get nothing. You would not have been acting under the authority of the Council and so you couldn't claim to be working for the Council.

Mostly irrelevant guff
So, I've put an argument for the standing orders on the table to show you how you are wrong.
No you haven't - you have misinterpreted and misapplied SOs.

I've presented to you the considered legal advice of professionals which is published and issued to all councils.
No it isn't

I've even put a piece of legislation out there and given examples of how this "I am the council (at least in part)" idea is wrong.
I have no idea where this thinking is coming from?

How is this stacking up in comparison to your "on the job" experience which you have merely assumed to be carrying out correctly and to date, is solely what your argument is relying on?

Harsh mate, I'm wounded - {but not} maybe its time to just agree to disagree.  There is nothing that states there can be no recording, notes or record of a closed session.  There is nothing that states a Cllr can be compelled to leave a closed session.  You simply don't have a counter argument other than what you want it to be....

---

1) "Civilisation, generally, depends upon the existence of "rules" which PRECLUDE rather than authorise definable behaviour.  It is seldom possible to find relevant example of a rule which enables rather than disqualifies - I suppose the minimum speed permissible on a motorway could be an exception?" So how would you stop someone from attending a closed session of a meeting if they tried to say "I'm not a member of the public, I'm a school teacher!", or "I can stay; I am a parish councillor for the Happy Valley parish"? There's no rule to preclude school teachers or councillors from other councils.

2) The committee is telling you to leave. The committee does so under the authority of the Council. You are saying you don't have to leave because you are a councillor. You are therefore instructing/directing/ordering the committee that you be permitted to stay. You don't have the authority to do that because the quoted standing order does not permit you to instruct/direct/order without the Council's authority. Why is that hard to understand and why are you unable to produce any evidence that this isn't the case?

3) I'm talking about recording a closed session and anyone who has a right to be there. The link had a stray comma at the end, but for convenience and to avoid further debate: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/8-9/67/section/1
3A(b) gives authority to the public body holding the meeting to not permit recording in a closed session. You claim you can do this on the basis you've experienced rogue behaviour before now. What if any other person decided "foul play" was afoot in a closed session - are you suggesting they should be permitted to observe and take recordings of the proceedings? If you think foul play has occurred and the free, fair consideration of councillors has been compromised, you raise a complaint after the matter has occurred. It isn't for you to pre-empt this and act in a way to police things as they happen. Ironically, you previously stated my stance questioned whether Councillors have the moral fibre to do what is right, but you are making up your own rules because you actually don't think they do have the moral fibre to do what is right!

3) You have demonstrated throughout that you believe that you are right. You believe your perceived rights (which aren't substantiated or evidenced by your arguments) trump anything anyone else may say on the matter. Some quotes, just from this thread to highlight the point:
"Since EVERY Cllr is (collectively) considered to be the employer" - Wrong. The Council is the employer, and you are not the Council.
"They can sit through a closed session of a committee of which they are not a member because there simply isn’t a mechanism to exclude them. There just isn’t." There is, it's as I have demonstrated, but you are ignorant to it or otherwise not willing to accept it because it doesn't suit you. By not enforcing the rule, your council is either ignorant to it or everyone just wants to go home and can't be bothered to argue with you. You are jeopardising the council's decision making by being there though.
"It has also been a bone of contention that a closed session may not be recorded." It can't, if that committee has decided as such as per the legislation outlined in point 2 above. You have been told by a committee not to record and you have anyway with your "I know my rights" nonsense.
It's because of those comments and many more besides that I am very much under the impression you think you "are" the council to some degree.

Again, you've given absolutely no evidence to even attempt to support your claims and arguments, nor any evidence to dismiss mine. It's just "I know what I'm talking about" statements muddled with unsubstantiated dismissals against any point that counters your self-approved opinion.

---

Pot kettle!

I'll have to say it twice (a) because the forum requires a minimum characters for a post and (b) maybe it'll register the second time...

---

1) "Civilisation, generally, depends upon the existence of "rules" which PRECLUDE rather than authorise definable behaviour.  It is seldom possible to find relevant example of a rule which enables rather than disqualifies - I suppose the minimum speed permissible on a motorway could be an exception?" So how would you stop someone from attending a closed session of a meeting if they tried to say "I'm not a member of the public, I'm a school teacher!", or "I can stay; I am a parish councillor for the Happy Valley parish"? There's no rule to preclude school teachers or councillors from other councils.

Of course there is - they are members of the public!
2) The committee is telling you to leave. The committee does so under the authority of the Council. You are saying you don't have to leave because you are a councillor. You are therefore instructing/directing/ordering the committee that you be permitted to stay. You don't have the authority to do that because the quoted standing order does not permit you to instruct/direct/order without the Council's authority. Why is that hard to understand and why are you unable to produce any evidence that this isn't the case?

Simply because one cannot under any circumstances disprove a non-entity - something that doesn't exist cannot be disproved.  I'm starting to wonder if you are on a wind up.

3) I'm talking about recording a closed session and anyone who has a right to be there. The link had a stray comma at the end, but for convenience and to avoid further debate: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/8-9/67/section/1
3A(b) gives authority to the public body holding the meeting to not permit recording in a closed session. You claim you can do this on the basis you've experienced rogue behaviour before now. What if any other person decided "foul play" was afoot in a closed session - are you suggesting they should be permitted to observe and take recordings of the proceedings? If you think foul play has occurred and the free, fair consideration of councillors has been compromised, you raise a complaint after the matter has occurred. It isn't for you to pre-empt this and act in a way to police things as they happen. Ironically, you previously stated my stance questioned whether Councillors have the moral fibre to do what is right, but you are making up your own rules because you actually don't think they do have the moral fibre to do what is right!

I'd suggest you have completely misinterpreted the reference you quote - it refers to the preclusion of recording FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHARING OR BROADCAST.  Please try and absorb this very simple logic, it is practically IMPOSSIBLE to prevent note taking either at the time or immediately afterwards - if you can wrap your little grey cells around that concept then the rest of your point really will start to become clearer.

3) You have demonstrated throughout that you believe that you are right.
We have maintained a difference of opinion could be a better way of putting it...

You believe your perceived rights (which aren't substantiated or evidenced by your arguments) trump anything anyone else may say on the matter. Some quotes, just from this thread to highlight the point:
"Since EVERY Cllr is (collectively) considered to be the employer" - Wrong. The Council is the employer, and you are not the Council.

I'm afraid you are wrong there fella - the council is the employer, the council is comprised of every Cllr ergo - every Cllr is the employer.  Every INDIVIDUAL Cllr is personally liable for matters of employment responsibility to council staff.  This is most frequently illustrated when individual Cllrs are subjected to CoC complaints from a clerk - BECAUSE THEY ARE INDIVIDUALLY LIABLE AS AN EMPLOYER.  {I know, the capitals are a bit like shouting and, to be fair, the frustration is starting to show}


"They can sit through a closed session of a committee of which they are not a member because there simply isn’t a mechanism to exclude them. There just isn’t." There is, it's as I have demonstrated, but you are ignorant to it or otherwise not willing to accept it because it doesn't suit you.
No, I have illustrated how you are talking out of your hat.

By not enforcing the rule, your council is either ignorant to it or everyone just wants to go home and can't be bothered to argue with you. You are jeopardising the council's decision making by being there though.
"It has also been a bone of contention that a closed session may not be recorded." It can't, if that committee has decided as such as per the legislation outlined in point 2 above. You have been told by a committee not to record and you have anyway with your "I know my rights" nonsense.


Individual rights are nonsense huh....  Ok....


It's because of those comments and many more besides that I am very much under the impression you think you "are" the council to some degree.

I've already illustrated how your assumption and deduction are fundamentally flawed, I'm not going to keep repeating it for you.

There will be no further response to any such ad hominem nonsense - if you eventually find any relevant legislation which you haven't misinterpreted feel free to carry on but until then you're on your own pal.



Again, you've given absolutely no evidence to even attempt to support your claims and arguments, nor any evidence to dismiss mine. It's just "I know what I'm talking about" statements muddled with unsubstantiated dismissals against any point that counters your self-approved opinion.

Oh yeah, this bit....  Pot kettle?

---

Look, I get that you think you are in some sort of privileged position being a Councillor. I just want to know what right, power or law you think there is for a Councillor to attend a closed session of a committee if you aren't on that committee. You can't say "because I'm a Councillor"; it's as illogical as someone saying they can do the same because they are a school teacher, a cab driver or eat Weetabix for breakfast.

You are aware a committee may even have non-Councillor members on it, right? So it must be the case that it is equally incorrect to suggest anyone who's not a Councillor must follow the "member of the public" rules as much as it's incorrect to suggest anyone who is a Councillor shouldn't follow the "member of the public" rules.

Whatever you think you are or claim to be is clearly irrelevant. It just boils down to being either a member of the committee or not being a member of the committee. If you are a member of the committee, you sit on one side of the table. If you are not, you sit on the other side as a member of the public. Those people on the member of the public side follow the "member of the public" rules. If they're asked to leave, they leave.

If you can't comprehend that, there's nothing else to be said.

---

No you don't "get it" at all.
You have made an assumption - again - which is entirely without foundation.

You may NOT state my thoughts as a matter of fact!
You can state YOUR OWN thoughts.
You cannot claim to know anyone else's.

There is nothing else to be said so please say nothing else.

Answer 3

A committee is a body independent of the council that created it. The Proper Officer issues a summons to the members of the committee to attend and conduct the business as councillors. Those not conducting the business are not acting as councillors but may attend with the same rights as members of the public. To quote the NALC LTN:-
"Sometimes councillors wish to attend meetings of committees (or sub-committees) to which they have not been appointed. This is a perfectly legitimate practice as councillors have the same rights to attend committee (or sub-committee) meetings as members of the public. However, where councillors attend meetings of committees (or sub-committees) to which they have not been appointed, they will not enjoy all the rights they enjoy as councillors. They will not have a right to participate in the meeting unless the meeting includes a public participation session. In England, a councillor (or non-councillor) member of a committee is not, without a dispensation, permitted to speak during a public participation session if he holds a disclosable pecuniary interest or another interest stipulated by his council’s code of conduct in a matter that is being discussed during the public participation session of a meeting."

There are two easy ways to provide clarity on this issue. Firstly, the committee or sub-committee is established with terms of reference and delegated powers, which set out the framework within which it operates. The involvement of non-member councillors could be clarified within this document. Alternatively, if the aim is to clarify the position in relation to the exclusion of the press and public, as mentioned by others, the resolution to exclude could specify non-member councillors alongside the press and public.

Comments

And the flaws in that argument are that:

(a) NALC “opinion” is only really relevant to councils that subscribe to NALC and even then it is for that council to choose whether or not to adopt NALC’s opinion.  Just like model SOs - they are a basis from which every council may choose, or not, to adopt, wholly or in part, NALC’s opinion.
(b) the contradiction - a Cllr not associated with the committee is to be treated as a member of public UNLESS they have a disclosable interest in which case they are to be subjected to CoC and treated as a Cllr - so which is it? Are they a member of public or a Cllr? I know what my thoughts are.
(c) the role, function and responsibility of Cllr is not something that NALC (or anyone else for that matter) can bestow, curtail or remove OTHER THAN AS LAID DOWN IN STATUTE.
(d) committee TOR or a local amendment to statute is wholly insufficient to authorise locally imposed rules which have no higher authority in statute.
Let’s cut to the chase - whilst it might be the case that some contractural elements might feature as elements where press and public might need to be excluded, the main area where such circumstances might arise are HR committee staff performance discussions.
Since EVERY Cllr is (collectively) considered to be the employer, that status rather adds to the situation which justifies the case for a Cllr to attend a meeting even where press and public are excluded.

---

It is not the case that "every councillor is (collectively) considered to be the employer".  The Council i- e. the body corporate - is the employer.

---

"...Alternatively, if the aim is to clarify the position in relation to the exclusion of the press and public, as mentioned by others, the resolution to exclude could specify non-member councillors alongside the press and public..."

This is to assume though, that the subject council knows better, and is authorised to amend, what was the intent of both Houses of Parliament in passing the Bill into law than their Lordships and Honourable members did.  If they had meant members of the public, members of the press and any other so defined person - well, to be fair, that is what they would have said.

The wording in the legislation is quite plain and easily interpreted as the press and the public.  There is no opening to suggest that a subordinate council may alter, add, change or amend the primary wording.  Not to add "non-committee Cllrs" not to add uncle John Cobley and his dog and not to add, or remove, or in any other way alter, the wording which has been through the proper process of both houses and passed into law.  To do so would be a flagrant over-stepping of the authority which is NOT bestowed upon a parish (or any other) council.

There is of course another screaming void in the argument being presented by those that maintain only duly appointed committee members may remain after the exclusion of the press and the public.
Who's that person sitting in the corner?  Neither a Cllr, nor a committee member nor a member of the public but the clerk!

So a Cllr is a Cllr when acting or holding them self as acting, or where might reasonably be considered as acting in the role of a Cllr - and that would be at a council meeting - and that would make them NOT public and that would make them exempt from exclusion of the press and the public.