Annual Parish Meeting - councillor behaviour

Question

At our APM held earlier this month, the parish council chairman made councillors and the clerk sit at the front of the hall in a line of chairs set out in such a way that they were separated by about 10 feet from where attending residents were seated. The chairman started the meeting by asking councillors and staff to introduce themselves and explain their roles on the council. When it was their turn one councillor turned the audience, grinned and announced: "I'm XXXX and I'm an alcoholic". 

While the councillor presumably thought they had delivered an amusing quip, appropriate to their position during the course of a public (not parish council) meeting, they hadn't, as the councillor is employed by a local school to drive students to and from school and on excursions, and is also the member in charge of the parish council's Speed Watch scheme.. 

The council chairman and other seated councillors and the clerk all seemed to consider their fellow councillor's response witty in the extreme - none took the opportunity to upbraid the councillor or ask for/offer an apology for the remark - even though what had been announced by the councillor was in my opinion totally inappropriate and offensive. For all that councillor, other members and the clerk was aware, there might have been recovered/recovering/active alcoholics, or people affected by alcoholism among family members/friends sitting in the audience for whom the councillor's disgraceful statement (echoing the traditional introductory words at AA meetings) could have been considered deeply offensive, and caused distress and embarrassment. 

I consider it flies in the face of the Nolan Principles and shows a marked lack of integrity or understanding of their role of an elected councillor who has made a fool of himself and thereby bring the council into disrepute in the eyes of the community..

 Am I over-reacting? Should the councillor's behaviour be raised as a complaint to the MO?

Answer 1

It's an interesting one that as really as nobody other than the Chair are attending as Cllrs but parishoners the same as everyone else in attendance for the purpose of transacting the Annual Parish Meeting (not to be confused with Annual Council Meeting). So be definition are they acting that night in a a capacity as a Cllr technically not. I stopped all the daft seating arrangements at ours when I became Chair insisted the chairs were put out informally ending the intimidating almost commical seating layout you describe which is feels all to familiar. For what its worth agree with you about comment alas standards has all but evaporated (heck the bar is now so low nothing will happen)

Answer 2

I'd certainly argue that the "joke" was in very poor taste and partially agree with Progress that the individual was attending as a member of the public at a public (not council) meeting.  However, the incident occurred when the individual was being asked, as a councillor, to introduce themselves as a councillor so whilst you may feel it appropriate to report this to the MO, in reality there is little that will or can be done.  Rather more significant I'd suggest is your comments about the other roles that the individual holds, and anyone in attendance could raise this with those respective organisations.  In terms of their councillor role, the real sanction, if that's the right word, is via the ballot box.

Answer 3

Whilst the poorly considered, ill timed and inappropriate nature of the Cllr comment appears to be the issue under examination in the quest for advice, I would suggest the Cllr comments are merely the SYMPTOM rather than the root cause of the more fundamental problem being portrayed  

To effectively address a problem, it is necessary to recognise the relationship between root cause and symptom. 

Symptoms are often what draw our attention to a problem (the Cllr comment is the symptom) but resolving them alone does not lead to lasting solutions.  Instead, symptoms simply serve as indicators, guiding us toward the deeper, underlying issues—the root causes.

The root cause of the problem as described is two fold. 

(1) a chair who appears to lack an adequate understanding of the context of the APM and who seeks to exert excessive and inappropriate influence over other Cllrs (“…made Cllrs and the clerk sit at the front of the hall in a line of chairs…”) and, 

(2) Cllrs that lack the knowledge and/or confidence to TELL the chair that they will attend the APM (if they choose to) and sit (if they want to) and speak (if they wish to) entirely at their own discretion rather than at the chair’s direction  

I would consider the greater, and potentially more sustained and damaging, issue to be that of chair behaviour. Fix that and the other might not of happened at all….