Can anyone be the Chair

Question

We have a Chair and a Mayor.  They are usually the same person.   Our standing orders were changed some time ago to read that the Mayor/Chair must have been on the Council for a minimum of 18 months. I believe this was done as it was felt that experience was necessary before becoming Mayor.  But the wording is Mayor/Chair.  I'm now wondering if we can actually do that?  I know we don't have to have a Mayor but do have to have a Chair to function.  So what would happen if we didn't have anyone who had been on the council for the 18 months or more.  Unlikely scenario I know, but we are about to review our standing orders so would like to ensure they are correct.

Answer 1

Your SOs are flawed / poorly considered because it is entirely possible that you could have an election which unseated everyone.
If that happened you would then be disabled, by your own SOs from having a chair/mayor which you are required to have.
I can understand the possible thinking behind the previous decision - I wholly disagree with it, but I understand it.
It is a fallacy to assume that 18 months service on a T or P council is in any way a qualifying criteria for chair.
If you had the village idiot with 18 months service and a highly qualified, experienced and successful business leader or the like (pick your own example) your Standing Orders would REQUIRE you to elect the village idiot as Mayor.
It is self evidently idiotic and potentially unworkable but was “probably” initiated as a “blocker” to prevent a certain individual from standing.
Who says 18 months service will provide any decent experience anyway? It could just as easily be BAD habits that are picked up.
For my money - I’d be looking to remove that ridiculous requirement as no sensible and unworkable.

Comments

Thank you.  Some very good comments following which I will be trying to get this removed from our standing orders.