Changing the number of councillors required to call an EGM

Question

This isn't a question, I already knew the legislation but it's something that will undoubtedly come up for others.
A motion was submitted at the last meeting of my parish council to move to bi-monthly full council meetings and change the number of councillors required to call an EGM "from 3 to 6".

The LGA 1972 says that an EGM can be called by any 2 councillors so I interjected and said this. The clerk (unqualified) said that it could be changed by Standing Orders. I disagreed, the clerk said they would check and the motion was passed.

The draft minutes make no reference to the 6 councillors part of the motion which is not surprising as minutes are often deliberately inaccurate. It has been raised, the clerk says it was withdrawn and the controlling group of course rallied behind them. I asked the clerk of they'd taken the advice and they confirmed they had and only 2 councillors are required to call an EGM.

If you're wondering what the motivation is for changing it to 6, have a guess how many councillors don't belong to the political group that controls the council. And for moving to bi-monthly meetings? Only independents who consistently support the controlling group are allowed on committees and the flow of information outside the controlling group is tightly controlled.

Politically-controlled parish councils are a pox on local democracy.

Answer 1

I don’t doubt your experience but I (as a clerk) have witnessed the reverse - where a political has brought consistency and order to a rag bag of independent councillors.

Comments

It's not the only political council I've been on. The previous one was far more open and welcoming to councillors who weren't in their group. The leadership of this one is incredibly toxic and it's down to politics. It really isn't helpful.

Answer 2

This is what democracy looks like. If a political group can work together effectively and consistently achieve more than 50% of the vote, then they will naturally control the body. As long as they operate within the boundaries of legislation, there is nothing inherently wrong with that—it’s exactly how governance works at every other level, from district councils to national government.

There’s also no good reason why parish and town councils should not be contested and run by political groups. In fact, in many cases, it leads to better-performing councils because groups are working collectively toward clear policy aims and have a shared sense of accountability.

Of course, transparency and adherence to the rules are vital in any political system. For example, as you’ve pointed out, the LGA 1972 states that two councillors are required to call an EGM, and standing orders cannot override that. It’s good to see this was clarified. But it’s important to separate genuine procedural concerns from the broader debate about political groups on councils. They’re a normal and often positive feature of local democracy.

Answer 3

Are you using the model standing orders?
It doesn't matter if you are not since you can still readily access them and use the example that they set to counter the argument for 6 councillors.

The MSOs have emboldened text which has been included as elements which cannot be amended locally since they are drawn from primary legislation.

There is your argument (whether your council uses the MSOs or not) it is clearly the unambiguous position of NALC (for all their faults they are a pseudo authoritative source) that the MSOs THEY produce clearly shows reference to primary legislation which they say cannot be amended.

Whoever wants to, or supports a, change from the current (incorrect) 3 to 6 should present the legislative basis for this proposal and you can counter - for all the good that will do if there is a determined majority.

Put your argument during the debate, use the references and ask for a named vote.  That's about as much as you can do...

If it fails, and there is subsequent cause for an extra ordinary meeting, and you have another Cllr, request / convene one and see what happens...

Comments

I raised it in the meeting and quoted the legislation. The leadership of the council (political and officers) are, to all intents and purposes, a single entity and incredibly hostile to "the opposition" (as we few are called). The law has been broken fairly routinely for some time with impunity as there is no effective way to hold a parish council to account unless you have deep pockets and the appetite for a court case. Without exception, everything I say that doesn't support a predetermined outcome is checked with the local ALC or local authority's legal team. The clerk is today seeking legal advice on whether a councillor with a hearing impairment can record a meeting in private session for their personal use after I checked them erroneously claiming it is a breach of the Human Rights Act. Yesterday the clerk had an out of office on their email saying they were too busy to respond to emails but apparently this is a productive use of their time!

Myself and another councillor intend to call an EGM in the intervening month between the future bi-monthly full council meetings to ensure all councillors are informed and able to participate in council business. There are over 15,000 people living in this parish, the council's precept is nearly 600k, it manages two community centres and the number of staff increases every year. A bi-monthly meeting isn't enough.

---

Anyone present in a closed session can audio / video record proceedings for what ever purpose they desire - they just shouldn’t share that audio / video record.
Unless…..  it actually doesn’t qualify under the rules for exclusion of press and public or there is an overriding public interest.
I’ve had fun with this myself!

A council that abuses the very limited lawful authority to exclude press and public is very likely to oppose anyone recording a closed session - but they will only succeed if people acquiesce to their demands not to record.
Just record the next one - it cannot be prevented

---

The clerk claims to have had advice from NALC and the local ALC saying recordings can't be made in closed session. It's nonsense. If you can write down notes verbatim in the meeting then clearly you can record it as well.