Disqualification through failure to attend - s85
An old chestnut which is likely to raise a “difference of opinion” or a “variation of interpretation.”
So here goes…
We know, from examination of the source document and extensive previous discussion threads, that some differences of interpretation exist in this regard.
We know that a Cllr can be absent from a council meeting (or other council representative duty) in excess of 6 months and escape disqualification if there is “…some reason approved by the authority before the expiration of that period…” (6 months)
We also know, from previous discussion threads, that some contributors believe, where apologies are provided by the Cllr in relation to a specific council meeting, and accepted by resolution of the council, the 6 month period ‘re-sets.’
I don’t subscribe to this position.
I take the view that apologies are a ‘courtesy’ when received and that an ‘apology’ for absence applies to the meeting which is going to be missed. We also know that some councils don’t record ‘apologies’ received but simply record those present and absent in order to avoid a potential misapplication of s85.
Where a Cllr submits repeated apologies (whatever the reason) for successive meetings (amounting to or exceeding 6 months) we might assume it is a different reason each time.
My submission is that, according to s85, there must be a specific resolution of the council to approve a named Cllr, for a specified reason, before the expiry of 6 months in order to avoid disqualification by Statute and that repeated monthly submissions of ‘apology’ by a Cllr is not sufficient to satisfy the exemption to s85.
What are your views?
