Question

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?

Answer 1

Some are slowly starting to accept your submision and approach at higher tiers. Its more and more common to see specific paper & specific motion to address none attendance at these councils. The clock "resetting" seems to have been drilled into people and widely accepted practise now. Its hard to see how they row back from that without a specific challenge.. and id suggest nobody is going to given cost.

Comments

Drilled into people by who?  NALC / SLCC?
If lower tier councils won't / can't police themselves maybe public scrutiny and challenge at AGAR Q3 could be an effective (cheap) mechanism for change.

---

I don't think anyone has actually established which is right though. Indeed the PC have no authority to disqualify anyone so the error (if there is one) rests with the principal authority. Its a mess to end up in situation where a Council not done anything for six months mind whichever way you look at it..

---

One has to take a step back and understand the reasoning behind this discipline .  All decisions are made by Cllrs .  The problem is that the support Cllrs get in improving their capabilities is non existent when compared to the support received by Clerks .  I therefore have no reservations in saying that in most PCs there is an element of "Cllr dead wood".   Apart from improving the quality of the decisions made there is the practical problem of getting Cllrs to attend meetings.  In this regard I firmly believe that all possible manipulation should be taken out of the equation .  I prefer the approach under which apologies/absences are noted and a strict 6 months rule is rigidly enforced  i.e. the onus is put on the Cllr to attend. No ifs or buts if you don't attend for 6 months you are out .

---

Agreed, it is not within the 'authority' of the PC to disqualify - the disqualification is by dint of Statute (whether the Statute or individual councils collective interpretation of it may differ) but neither does the 'authority' rest with the principle council.  They are simply informed by a local council when a disqualification occurs.
That brings us right back to the key issue of WHO identifies the potential for a Cllr to be disqualified and, for my part, that is the clerk as PO and with professional responsibility for ensuring the proper function of the council.  The clerk sends a notice to the ERO, everything else is 'automatic' for want of a better phrase.

Totally agree, if there are Cllrs that have not attended, nor in many cases even bothered to explain why, THEY really should be examining their own commitment and suitability for the role - as should the council collectively.   But that doesn't necessarily happen when councils are left to mark their own homework.

The problem can be 'masked' by a dysfunctional and failing council that doesn't want any further embarrassing example of systemic incompetence and bungling to be brought into public awareness.

Having raised the issue at the previous council meeting via public participation of 1 Cllr's long term failure to attend - but still noted on the summons and no disqualification action taken without the council being publicly pressed to do so - there has now been a disqualification forced upon the council and there is another potentially today if a second Cllr makes this the 6th consecutive month of non attendance.

That it should fall to a member of the public to force these actions upon a PC is a pitiful example of the ineffectiveness of self governance in an era where the current government appears to want to force further devolved powers down the chain.

FWIW, I don't consider the Statute to be flawed, it appears quite clear (and generous) to me - a Cllr can be absent for 6 months if there is a specific reason, approved by the PC for continued absence.  It would be illogical to assume that the Statutory exemption was intended to facilitate individual apathy and sustained lack of engagement.

Answer 2

Not having much luck uploading the image / data sent to the clerk which resulted in a disqualification but the link is here:

https://i.postimg.cc/yxsGnSVg/Screenshot-2024-12-18-at-10-37-39.png

Comments

XX was absent again, no apology.
If you’ve looked at the graphic you might agree that in a week or so XX is also disqualified. Dec PC meeting is 3rd rather than 4th Weds of the month due to Christmas but with no scheduled PC meetings before Jan it appears to be fait accompli unless they magic up some spurious XO meeting.
2 Cllrs disqualified in quick succession.