CiLCA not worth the paper it is printed on?

Question

Our local parish council has clerk that has the CiLCA qualification but has on several occasions given councillors incorrect information and put the council in a position where if their advice had been followed the council would have ended up acting ultra vires. Basic procedural errors also regularly occur.

Questions;

is what does holding the CiLCA qualification actually realistically mean for the council as an employer?

Can somebody not holding that qualification do the job efficiently?
If the qualification is administered by the SLCC and delivered by local branches of NALC  (please do correct me if I am wrong) isn’t this a bit too cosy? Especially if most clerking jobs are advertised via SLCC and ask for a CiLCA or for the successful candidate to be working towards the qualification?

Is there a requirement to update the qualification? Pass updated modules etc?

Answer 1

CILCA is like any qualification simply assesses competency at the point the person submits the modules attends the exams. Any coursework/portfolio based (which CILCA predominantly is) carries a degree of risk of third-party assistance (particularly in the digital era). It has too often been seen as a golden ticket to waive around whereas in reality it’s just another milestone in CPD. You never can stop learning in this role and must stay grounded. I have seen instances where fabulous clerks make a series of errors (compounding first mistake) and when delving into it a lot more to it as well (personal issues, staffing issues, councillor behavior creating perfect storm).  

Answer 2

As a current councillor but also a CiLCA qualified clerk I did object to undertaking the qualification when it was first introduced but once I'd completed the portfolio, and it's not an easy one to pass by any stretch, I was glad I'd done so.  No council is identical to another, we all have different circumstances, priorities and requirements and no course of study can cover absolutely every eventuality but it provides a good grounding in basic local government law and procedures and, importantly, guides clerks towards where to find relevant guidance for situations they may be required to handle on behalf of their councils.  Significantly, it is the required qualification for obtaining General Power of Competence (alongside the electoral qualification and relevant declaration).  So, in answer to the question can an unqualified clerk do the job, then yes of course they can, provided they have the experience and expertise but the council will have to operate without GPoC.
It is not correct to say that it is solely the remit of the SLCC or NALC to govern.  The qualification is a nationally recognised one which is administered by the University of Gloucester (at least mine was!) and is subject to the checks and requirements of that institution.  Whilst no system is entirely foolproof, education and training delivery bodies are very aware of opportunities for using AI, plagiarism and techniques that might be used by a candidate to submit something other than their own work. There are mechanisms in place to identify and deal with suspected cases.

There is currently no requirement for CPD (continuing professional development) for retention of the original qualification and there is always an argument that there should be.  Members of the SLCC are encouraged to undertake regular CPD and training is offered by a number of different bodies (SLCC, NALC, principal authorities, internal auditors etc.) aimed specifically at Clerks although not all councils encourage or pay for their staff, or councillors for that matter, to complete training.    That is a matter for councils to consider and budget for.
I cannot answer why your parish clerk has given incorrect advice, if that is the case, but there are always a range of reasons why that can happen in any role and is something that should be reviewed by the staffing committee.

Answer 3

Any body can follow a course syllabus and eventually attain a 'pass.'

The problem with the clerk role (qualification and suitability) is that the low pay grades and low hours (although flexible and attractive to some) simply doesn't attract the right calibre of applicant for the role.

There are those that can make a reasonable salary from combining several town and parish councils but history shows that to often be a precursor to well known 'problems.'

Not at all uncommon for the more 'ambitious' to seek the transition from single council clerk, to multiple council clerk, to a role in local ALC or SLCC.  Since it is an SLCC sponsored qualification delivered by ALC and SLCC the route to nepotism, stovepipes, closed thinking and perpetuation of bad practice is not difficult.  Marley and Weaver being current examples of this situation. 

Comments

Not surprisingly I'm going to disagree with the bit about ambition driving clerks to take on multiple councils.  What actually drives clerks to do that is that few work purely for the fun of the job but need to earn a living.  Many smaller parishes only offer a few hours a week (I saw one recently for just two hours per week) which, combined with a pay of literally just over minimum wage means that many have to find something else to create a reasonable wage to live on.  The actual ambition for many clerks is to find a larger council where the hourly rate and contract hours are better.    It is a difficult decision for councils to make as no one wants to up their precept just to pay staff a reasonable wage but there needs to be recognition that the world of local government has become more complex and the job had changed considerably since I first started over 25 years ago.

---

I so agree with you. Our Clerk works for two councils - one iwth a precept fo more than £80,000, the other (ours - a small village of 650-odd residents) with a precept of £14,000, of which the Clerk's salary/expenses/taining etc amounts to more tahn £10,000. It makes no sense for a small council to employ someone who can demand such a high salary for 7 hours work a week- how would a commercial company afford to pay an employee such a large percentage of heir income? Our Clerk has passed CILCA and because of that believes they are 'owed' their huge salary. I think that the whole system of funding of small parish councils needs to be reviewed, investigated and properly regulated at a time when every town and villlage in the counry is facing cutbacks and austerity issues in every tier of local government.

---

Interesting discussion. I became a clerk after other careers and from outside local government and there does seem an opinion among many that the clerk is often just a glorified admin role - it can be, however it's anything but for many councils where you are expected to 'wear many hats' and have wide knowledge. I'm part time but lucky in that my council pays me considerably above what the size of council would normally dictate, as they appreciate the complexity of the role for our parish and the varied skills I bring.

Having done CiLCA a few years ago there was a vast difference in skill levels among candidates - a few from the smaller councils were just people who needed a bit of extra money, some were from large towns with very diverse demands on the roles.

I do however agree that the SLCC route, now including degrees etc, is somewhat driven by those organisations' needs to fund themselves and self-justify their existence - passing CiLCA added very little to my ability to do the job if I'm honest and was most useful for the GPC. That however isn't much different to many sector qualifications  - IT for example, where I passed a number of Microsoft exams years ago,  which added little to my skillset and real life situations.

---

In reply to DBsW - we're probably closer to agreement on this topic than many );0)

Totally agree your (our shared) observation that low hours and low spinal points really doesn't make for a rush of applicants and I also agree that combining several may produce economies of scale / efficiencies (but this is likely more to the benefit of the employee than the collective councils.)

We've been locking horns long enough to know that my viewpoint on issues such as this is formed from painful personal experience of a succession of very poorly performing clerks and more broadly, from the likes of SLCC discussion forum and other national discussions - so of course I recognise that I may present the rather gloomier side of the situation.

I don't think there is a fag paper between our shared opinion that the role is so much more complex than in decades before and that the spinal points make it impossible to attract suitably experienced candidates.
I see the 'problem' as being the spinal points...

Some other great inputs below...

Frogface - totally agree.  A £14k precept and a £10k staff bill is the very epitome of a self licking lollipop!  That community should probably seek to dissolve their PC since what can it possibly achieve?  On a side note - if my prediction of the Labour government removing or adjusting (up) the 4% + 2% LA cap on council tax without referendum, I think the whole subject of council tax bills - their composition - will become very much more front & centre of public opinion and interest.  Maybe when people kick off something will change (poll tax riots for example)
Clerk975 - totally understand your perspective which should be applied to both clerks AND councillors.  It is not the 'in-job' qualifications / experience which is critical but rather it is the previous career and experience which enables performance which well out strips the salary for clerks (and Cllrs albeit without salary.)

DtC - that just about epitomises the 'weakness' of SLCC training.  more than 30 years public sector experience far outstrips the benefit derived from a fairly noddy CiLCA certificate.

So NALC & SLCC are part of the process of setting the spinal points and NALC & SLCC are part of the vulnerability of the CPD pathway...

I leave that floating....

Answer 4

I don't know where I sit on this one. On the one hand, I'm surrounded by untrained clerks who are little more than minute secretaries in councils that have no regard whatsoever for the legal framework. That's clearly not acceptable. But in small councils, there is no incentive for clerks to undertake training and clerkship really isn't taken seriously as a career option. The national salaries framework places clerks in small councils on a par with shelf stackers in supermarkets. It's chicken and egg. We need to establish an appropriate status for the role but we can only do that by having suitable people undertaking it.

I fell into clerkship accidentally in retirement as a pocket money job. I have no formal qualifications and have undertaken no formal training either. I do however have the benefit of 31 years of local government experience to fall back upon. I found that I was quite good at it and my services were in demand, so now have three councils and regularly turn down further job offers. With no CiLCA, my councils can't claim GPoC, but that makes no difference to a council with a precept below £15k. We don't do the big stuff.

Over the years I've seen a number of inexperienced clerks launch themselves into the ALC training programme with a view to obtaining a CiLCA, but the training seems to encourage them to be more confrontational, aggressive even, in their dealings with councillors. Cordial relationships have soured to the point that they can no longer continue. I can only comment on my local association, but I've heard similar stories from elsewhere. This hardline approach is unhelpful. As a clerk, I'm always ready to admit that I don't know the answer to a question or to enter into a discussion about the validity of my statements.

Compulsory training for clerks and councillors would go a long way towards addressing all of these concerns, but the introduction of such a measure would bring the entire sector to its knees. It's hard enough to fill vacancies now, without telling a 90 year-old who's been on the council for 50 years that he or she must go back to school if they wish to continue. Without the seismic shift, nothing will change.

Comments

The biggest problem is, in my opinion, that SLCC and NALC have a monopoly on training and aadvice and qualifications that are not actually providng fully independent support and resources to either the Clerks or the Councillors - let alone the tax payers the town and parsih councils are tasked to serve according to the Nolan Principles. It seems to me that there is such disparity between the largest Town council and the smallest parish council - thousands of pounds worth of precepted difference - that it is impossible for NALC and SLCC to serve  and respresentsuch a disparate group making up the first tier of gorvernment in an equal, balanced, unbiased way. The playiing field is just not level. I think that the days of individual paarish councils with precepts under £25,000 are over and should be abolished. It makes no sense for taxpayers to fork out substantial monies year in year out to pay for expensive clerking services which leaves the council with so paltry a sum to put towards community services or needs that they might just as well not bother. The only person who wins in our community is the Clerk who gets paid a large sum of public money to basically prop up a council that is yearly dipping into its reserves to exist and justify its very existence. Our parish council could quite easily and sensibly combine with two or three neighbouring PCs, employ one clerk, and do more for each parish a year than they can now, hamstrung as they are by staffing costs. However, when this is suggested at public meetings, the councllors -won't hear of it as a reasonable compromise - they are far too keen to continue in their roles because - possibly - they consider themselves above their electors, full of self-importance and arrogant prestige, not necessarity considering how best to make their precpted money work to best effect, comine their finances and experiences in order to fully maximise the output a larger hub of 2 or more small councils could provide. The present system is to my mind anti-deluvian and not fit for purpose in this day and age.  I can only hope that this government gives all tiers of local government a good shake and gets rid of the dead wood and outdated processes for once and fofr all.

---

It's easy to blame the NALC/SLCC, but in my area, the bigger issue with support and training is that the vast majority of councillors have never attended any form of training and can't be compelled to do so. We make decisions on planning applications, albeit only as a consultee, with no knowledge whatsoever of planning law and policy, based solely on personal preference and bias.

Merging smaller councils might help and would undoubtedly reduce the post-election scramble to bring friends and family forward for unfilled vacancies. The idea that councils under £25k are hamstrung by staffing costs is not something I can support. My councils spend between 25 and 35% of budgeted income on me, but part of my role is to secure additional funding for projects, so the full impact is less.

---

Usually I'd guess that 25-50% of precept is a usual amount for staff costs - Frogface, if your council's clerk costs are really 10k out of 14k overall then that's ridiculous. The clerk must be paid well over £20 an hour (even if they are doing some training and have some expenses which again for a small council won't be much) and  for that size that really isn't justifiable. Someone needs to seriously question that with the council and ask them how and why they are paying so much - and even how 7 hours a week is justified as they can't be doing much with so little money left!

---

The clerk used to be a councillor elsewhere in the county and considers themself above and beyond reproof for the cost of their salary, expenses, training and travel costs. The Clerk regularly participates in debates  during meetings without being asked and quite happily makes decisions outside of meetings because they believe they have ultimate power to do so, and many of the councillors are unaware of their responsibilities and too lazy to bother to find out or question the clerk,who as far as they are concerned is there to do the work for them. There is no independence between the clerk and council - they all go off to the pub togetther after meetings, have cosy get-totethers in each other's homes and freely socialise outside of meeting so that the community has come to believe that the clerk is some sort of glorified uber-councillor and therefore worth every penny they are paid out of public funds. The clerk is not a resident of our parish, so is not an elector or taxpayer so obviously feels no accountability for the monies held by the council to be spent for the benefit of our whole community. As the percentage available to be spent on community projects after the staff costs have been subtracted is so small, the community spend is minimal.
While I admire everyting that Dave the Clerk does for his council (s_ and wish her was our PC's clerk, it is important to understand that most small rural councils in my county are suffering in the same way as ours, with a frustrated electorate who are increasingly dissatisfied by the workings of their councils and lacking in trust about how public funds are being administered and accounted for.

---

Spot on Frogface