Should co-option process be completed as confidential?

Question

The method for co-option on my PC has been achieved in two totally different ways; the first occasion, prior to May's election, there were 2 vacancies in one ward. The co-option was discussed in the April council meeting, no advertising of the vacancies in the Parish magazine. At the May Council meeting, 2 previous councillors, who had not been reelected, had letters of application ready and were voted back onto the council when the public were in attendance.
For this second co-option, a seat has been vacant after a councillor resign and he now wishes to be co-opted having realised that he was rash in resigning. However, on this occasion the co-option process has been lengthen because " the vacancy has to be advertised in the Parish Magazine, time for people to consider...." i.e. we don`'t want the resigned councillor to return.
Is it democratic for a co-option decision to be taken without being discussed/voted on at a public meeting? Is it correct to have 2 different methods of co-option? And of course we do not have a Policy for a Co-option process.

I would be extremely grateful for advise as the meeting is in the coming week.

Many thanks in advance.

Answer 1

Unfortunately, the rules seem to say very little about exactly how a council should go about co-option.

What is clear is that the council must give public notice when a vacancy arises, so that a poll can be claimed. Or, in the case of regular elections where too few candidates are nominated, the public will know because the election results are always published. This is perhaps inadequate, but is the only reliable trigger for citizens to know that there is a vacancy.

Of course, it is good practice to publicise the intention to fill vacancies by co-option as widely as possible so as to get the best field of candidates. And it is good practice to have standard procedures, and to cover points such as stating that candidate submissions will be made public. But none of this is enforced by legislation, to the best of my knowledge.

Co-option is a very second rate way of appointing councillors. Sadly it is too costly to hold a poll for every vacancy.

Answer 2

Why are you not holding a by election? By elections are by far more democratic than a co option and as I've said before there is less likely hood of the councillors been accused of cronyism. Kath x

Comments

There was a period during which an election could be called only one person applied, the person who was later deemed as  'unsuitable'.
 Because only one person applied during the initial stage where 10 parishioners may call an election, should he have been accepted then - being the only prospective candidate?