Action of interest

Question

Half way through a meeting the chair asked the vice chair to take the meeting (pre-arranged apparently)

Is this a decison that is correct and allowed. or is it good policy to allow the v/chair experience?

Answer 1

My understanding is that the Chairman (the only official post within the Parish Council) chairs the meeting.  If they are still present, then the Vice Chair (a title of convenience in the event of the absence of the Chair) can't take over.  They could be asked to lead a particular debate if they have more knowledge about it but that is about all.

Question, who would sign the minutes as an accurate record at the next meeting if the Chairmanship was shared?  Plus, were the other councillors asked for their agreement when the take over took place?

Answer 2

Yes, that is correct; if present the Chairman must chair the meeting. The question implies, but doesn't explicitly say, that the Chair remained at the meeting. The answer lies in the circumstances, was their something mischievous afoot or was it purely innocent. There are times when this would be perfectly reasonable: perhaps the Chair had previously advised of his need to leave the meeting early, or perhaps he had declared an interest in the subsequent item(s).

The minutes would be signed, when approved, by the whoever was in the chair when the resolution to approve them was passed. Not necessarily by anyone who chaired the meeting to which the minutes relate.

Comments

Thank you both for your answers. To swancott: yes the chair stayed but no one knew why. This chap is extremely devious and arranges a"body" of supporters around him and continually gets voted back in. He thinks he is the chair of a multinational company and hasn't a clue about parish councils but manages to avoid any serious errors somehow.
He did stay in the meeting but no reason was given; however I met with the v/chair by chance and he said the chair had approached him prior to the emeeting!!! So yet another "protocol" broken but not a legal issue? Am I correct.
But are the Standards not being compromised by such a 'porous' set of 'rules & regulations? Thank you. Miffed

---

It is difficult to say definitively that the Chair's action in standing aside was illegal. It is prescribed in the 1972 Local Government Act that the Chair, if present, should preside. That isn't necessarily a direct quote from the act but is the gist. The Act (I think schedule 12) further prescribes that in the absence of the chair, the vice chair should preside.

 I cannot imagine what circumstances gave rise to the need for the chair to relinquish the chair but remain at the meeting. Neither can I see what advantage doing so might be gained, if indeed that was the intention. As I indicated in my earlier reply; there are times when a chair needs to step aside. As an example, our Parish Council meeting next week includes an item in which I have a disclosable pecuniary interest. When we arrive at that item, I will leave the meeting room while it is determined. In fact, the vice-chair will likely be declaring the same interest and likewise leaving the room. The 1972 Act prescribes for the remaining members to elect a chair for the item.