What's the situation when there are too many Councillors?

Question

Hello,

What is the situation regarding validity of meetings, etc. when more Cllrs are co-opted than the number of vacancies? Unable to find a similar question, so I assume it's a very rare occurrence!

Situation now resolved, due to a resignation, but it

lasted for several months.

Thank you

Answer 1

The responsibility for determining the number of councillors falls to the electoral officer of the district council, so a local council cannot alter its number of members. If more councillors are co-opted than the number of vacancies, the last person to be co-opted could not become a councillor. This doesn't invalidate the meetings held, but could result in many minor breaches of the legislation. This should not have been allowed to happen, there is really no excuse.

The resignation has addressed the numerical issue, but the person who was not validly appointed does not automatically become a councillor and the vacancy should be handled in the normal way, i.e. notice of vacancy, invitation to petition for an election etc.

Comments

Spot on!

The person(s) co-opted above the allocation of available seats (at the time of co-option) is not properly appointed as a post holder.
The situation in relation to excessive number of Cllrs may be resolved by resignation but the issue of improper co-option still exists (until resolved.)

---

Thank you.
Yes, I know it should never have happened and had I still been a member I can assure you it wouldn't have.

Shocked that it did, but at least I'm relieved that the meetings and, presumably the decisions taken at them, weren't invalid. Will pass this information on to those concerned.

---

I'm not going to ask whether there were any decisions on which the non-councillor's vote swayed the outcome!

---

An afterthought. If there was a meeting at which the attendance of the non-councillor was required in order to achieve a quorum, the business of that meeting would be invalid. I hope this scenario didn't arise.

---

Thankfully, that doesn't appear to have been the case!