Co-option of Councillors

Question

Can I seek clarification that the co-option of any councillors should have a process (such as an application form) which should be sent soley to the clerk of a Council - not to a Chairman.

If a Chairman has directed interested persons to contact them directly, does that mean the process become compromised and therefore the 'application' and any prospective co-option, invalid, certainly if the above was not clear it was part of a co-option process.

As always, a new area to me.

Answer 1

The law surrounding co-option are vague and left to the council to decide.  They could ask their mate down the pub to take the seat and that would be legally acceptable as long as they were eligible to apply.  We have a thorough policy that outlines the process and voting procedures and there is a chance that if you apply, and you were the only applicant, that the council could decide not to appoint you as there is a requirement to obtain 50% of the vote.

Answer 2

Our process is that candidates write to the clerk after seeing an advert (website, facebook, local shops and notice board).

The clerk convenes a staffing committee, where the candidate(s) are given an introduction to the Parish Council, what we currently do, what we can do, what we can't do, they give an introduction about themselves and afterwards, they vote to make a recommendation to the full council. (We dont tend to get a public audience so it is informal, "who are you, what experiencds do you have, are you sure you know what we do, and what you are signing up for" type event.

At the full council meeting the candidate is invited to give a short intro about themselves. (All candidates are forwarded to full council with or without a recommendation).

This allows the public to "speak now or forever hold your peace" in case a member of the public wants to say something in support of the candidate (or otherwise).

We then vote on the candidate(s) as required by law, in that they must have a majority of vote 50%+1, and not just a plurality.

Comments

There is, of course, no legislative framework for the co-option process, so each Council can make its own rules and processes. In an ideal world, this would be considered before the event and documented in a procedures file, but there is nothing to prevent a Council using a different process every time, or making it up as they go along, although the principle of equal opportunities should be observed.

It's not a problem I've ever faced.  I dream of having more than one candidate, but the reality is usually less than one.  I've managed to drag eight rabbits into the headlights so far this year and am about to embark upon number nine!

---

As Dave the Clerk has stated no hard and fast rules but under the obligations of councils to be open and transparent the days of co-option by a nod and a wink should be long gone. My old council had a procedure for advertising, passing out description of what is expected of a councillor and asking the applicant to forward an A3 summary of themselves, experience and what they could bring to the community if co-opted. This was then passed on to all councillors for voting on at the next full meeting at which the applicant was requested to attend to clear up any questions from councillors. A written vote was then taken and the applicant was either co-opted or not. This was fine until a single applicant who was rejected by the council vote accused the council of acting illegally as he was the only applicant he should have been co-opted. The legality was checked at higher levels and the council was NOT acting illegally but did add to their procedure documents that there is no obligation to co-opt any candidate.A little point that if introduced could save some time and effort. As Dave says that lack of applicants is the main problem these days which tends to lead to co-opting in desperation not on quality or enthusiasm. It's a countrywide problem.

---

The irony of rejecting a co-option candidate is that he/she can put themselves up for election next time and will likely be elected!

---

That I can confirm. After  sitting at every meeting for a year as a member of the public, putting myself forward on the a resignation of an elected councillor with 2 others, a process as outline by "somebodyelse"  took place. I was not co-opted.
At the next full election in May 2019 I came third with the higher vote than any of those sitting councillors who sat in judgment. IMO there should be NO such thing as an HR or "Staffing Committee" If co-option is to take place each candidate should be given time at full council with the public present to advocate themselves. If only 1 candidate is willing to fill the vacant post then they should be co-opted at the very next  Full Meeting regardless. "Somebodyelse" method is open to abuse and is wholly against the tenants of good governance and the democratic process

---

We use the staffing committee to be able to spend longer talking to them / with them so they know what they expecting.
Sometimes the first time we see a candidate is when the turn up for co-option and have never been to a meeting so we want to make sure they know what is expected of councillors.
We have had one person step back after the meeting not realising that they would have to attend 2 meetings a month and they couldn't guarantee childcare.
We used to hold cooption in private, which is frowned upon, so this process gave us 30-45 minutes minites to talk to candidates rather than 10 we used to have in private.
Every candidate who wants to be elected still has the chance to be elected, but a committee have at least had a better chance to get to know them.
By allowing public comment through cooption, we increase the democratic involvement in the decision making.

---

Sorry disagree totally " Recommendation" to full council is open to abuse. IMO there should be No pre co-option get together chat, informal gathering, explanation etc. As I said 1 wishing to be a councillor with only one vacancy,co- opt. Several for the vacancy Full council Vote without any predetermined action.

---

Absolutely agree. A council should have an extremely good and transparent reason why someone (who meets the legal criteria) is not co-opted on. Councillors should not be playing Judge and Jury with a public petition.

---

Public petition?
Our examples in the year before we changed policy:
One person dropping in an 2 line email and that was it (only candidate)
One co-opted, signed and then left the meeting and had to wait 6 months to remove them.
One had previously been removed from a neighbouring parish for failure to attend, but as we weren't given the name until the meeting we didn't know.
One attended 3 meetings then dropped out because they couldn't do Thursdays.

Many of these could have been prevented by speaking the candidate first.

Our cooption councillors averaged one year before we changed, now we average 3 years.

We are choosing them without the consent of the public, I make no apologies for the council being a bit careful.

---

It's not for you or the council 'to be careful' regarding someone to take a public and official position. If the Councillor stays only for one meeting then so be it. Whilst it is frustrating, not helpful and inconvenient that's democracy I'm afraid.
If the council has one vacancy and only one member of the public applies and they meet the legal requirements you (The Council) have no right to stop them - why? Because if it was at an election and they were the only candidate they'd get on anyway.

Far too often Parish and Town Council's act beyond their means without getting the basics right. It costs the public purse nothing to co-opt a councillor so people need to chill out on the power trip. I had our co-option policy changed. When we had our previous policy I demanded the ways Councillors voted was minuted and the reason(s) for why the person was not chosen. After all transparency is the name of the game!

---

The decision on co-option is firmly in the domain of the Parish Council and the decision must be made by the councillors in a democratic way.To do this councillors should be in receipt of as much information as possible and to be able to meet and clear up any questions they may have of the candidate. It would be part of the initial application vetting for the clerk to ascertain that the candidate meets the required legal qualifications to serve. Chloe there is no legal requirement for the PC to automatically accept any candidate. Your comparison to an election is with respect, fallacious in that any vacancy has already gone through the chance to allow a vacancy to be filled by election before the PC is given the power to co-opt.

---

Mentorman - the comparison I made is not fallacious and I regret you miss the point I was making.

Whilst a council HAS the power to co-opt that should be understood to simply mean being able to bring someone on to the council outside of an election. That I’m afraid is where that power should end.

It is not for a council to play jury on who’s face does or doesn’t fit if a prospective councillor passes all the legal requirements.

To have any form of application is discriminative  and it’s only a matter of time before a test case comes to fruition.

I 100% understand, support and respect the need for decent Councillors who will bring great skills and be proactive for their community. There’s co-opted Councillors on our council who don’t cut the grain BUT it is for the electorate to decide the worth NOT fellow Councillors!

---

If at the 4 yearly "elections "there are insufficient candidates are the standing Councillors deemed to be elected or are they co-opted ?

---

Any candidate who submits a valid nomination paper is elected unopposed.

---

So if an election is held for a casual vacancy and there is only one applicant he/she gets elected unopposed but if the vacancy is filled by co-option the application can be opposed by Councillors ?  My PC's Co-option policy makes it quite clear that if there are less applicants than vacancies then voting will not take place but how binding is a policy ? Meanwhile the agenda reads  (my application is being considered on Monday)  "To consider the applications received. The person co-opted must receive an absolute majority vote of the councillors present and voting. The Parish Council's debate and vote  on the co-option must be conducted in the public section of its meeting. It follows that the  candidates, as members of the public, will be entitled to be present during the proceedings". Interesting . One assumes any possible challenge is to be initially routed through the Monitoring Officer?

---

Whatever process there is to get there (writing a letter of application, interview, being dragged of the street), to be co-opted, there must be a formal vote and you must achieve 50% plus 1 (e.g. a majority, not just a plurality). Candidates must be voted upon individually, so a ballot paper distributed to Councillors of all candidates for them to do a rank vote etc is not permitted.

If councillors vote not to co-opt this cannot be challenged by the monitoring officer.

---

Thanks Somebody else.  Firstly, so how does the above sit with following extract from their co-option policy  "InterestedcandidatesshouldsubmittheirapplicationtotheClerkbyaspecifieddate.Ifthereisonlyoneapplicantforonevacancyoreachvacancy,theapplicantisautomaticallyco-optedtotheParishCouncilandpoints8to13(relating to voting)
belowdonotapply.ThelettersreceivedarecirculatedtoCouncillorsaheadofthemeetingatwhichaParishCouncilloristobeco-opted.
Secondly where is the legal requirement to go through a voting process defined?

---

The legal requirement is the LGA1972, Schedule 12, paragraph 39. All decisions of the council shall be by a majority vote.

---

So what prevails when there is a policy which states there is no need for a vote ?

---

The law (Local Government Act 1972) must always override policy, otherwise you are acting illegally.

---

Of course the council should ensure that in passing policies that they conform to legal requirements ( if any are in force) before adopting them.
There is no requirement on a PC to automatically co-opt a legally qualified applicant. If you look at the democratic process of election then the people decide who becomes a councillor or not ( during election) . I would argue that that duty passes to the councillors in the co-option scenario. It is eminently wise to include members of the public in the assessment of a candidate to further that democratic input. The argument that the PC members would run a "boys club" ids in fact casting aspersions on the integrity of councillors who follow by their code of conduct as a requirement.
We had a similar scenario when an applicant stated that his rejection by council  ( because he was the only candidate) was illegal. The council took advice on the matter and it was deemed by those consulted (including local NALC) that the decision on co-option was entirely the councils prerogative.

---

Thank you all for summarising your arguments so succinctly. There are of course others with an entirely different point of view.   While the agenda for my application on Monday indicates that a vote will take place I note that at two previous meetings this year two sole applicants have been co-opted with out a vote and the Agenda so worded.   Monday evening will tell. If I am rejected am I entitled to respond or is that at the discretion of the Chairman?

---

You are of course entitled to respond to their decision but it is unlikely that you will receive any reason especially if the vote is done by written ballot rather than show of hands(advisable to avoid future animosity to a particular councillor(s)). The chair can only respond and comment according to the result of the vote. Any response should be addressed to the clerk who should then present it to the council for their response. Respond in a positive way as if you are rejected there is always the future election.

---

Right D day has arrived. My PCs co-option policy says unequivocally if they are less candidates than vacancies then the applicants will be "automatically co-opted".  After that they then resolve (by voting)  to co-opt the candidates.  Does that get around the provisions of LGA 1972 schedule 12 para 39 in that all Council decisions should be made by voting?   Or is the policy unlawful?

---

It would appear that when a policy conflicts with legislation then the policy is wrong. If you vote then you are not having a free and democratic vote as every councillor is required to vote in a particular way and therefore not free and open. The basic question is whether the acceptance of a candidate is the decision  of the council and I have argued that this is delegated by the fact that they are instructed to do so by a higher authority and as such must be a decision by a vote.

---

This is fascinating . Could you please advise Mentorman as to what you see as the "source of the higher authority instruction" viz to co-opt. Come on Chloe W say something

---

The process of notification to county level LA of vacancy where they then commence the required procedure to invite candidates for election which if unfulfilled allows them to grant the power of co-option to the Parish Council. I argue that the process of co-option is a democratic decision passed to the council and must ultimately depend on a democratic vote of acceptance. This if you like should be regarded as a delegation of election duties by the representatives of the community-the Council

---

Thanks Mentorman. In practice the process is that a "permanent notice" exists on many websites asking the question "do you want to become a  Parish councillor".  The requirement then is to merely fill in a form which is then duly considered . Fine arguments .  Incidentally if one is formally co-opted at the beginning of a meeting do you then join the rest of the meeting as a Councillor ?

---

No councillor can take their place at council until they have completed and signed the required acceptance of office (provided by the Clerk) . It is unlikely that an acceptance and forms signed at the same meeting would allow that to occur as the decision would need to be pre-supposed for the clerk to complete the paperwork BEFORE the vote. Normally it would be carried out at the next council meeting (or EO meeting if urgent) AFTER the vote, if accepted

---

One final question  I have read LTN15-08 and it talks of two things i.e. your eligibility criteria and your “person specification”. LTN 15-08 gives some guidance as to the preferred qualities.

As part of my application my “person specification” sought comments under three heading . a) Reason for wishing to be councillor
b)Previous community/council work and
c)Any other skills that will be of benefit to the council
My understanding is that my submission is then passed on to Councillors to consider.    Would it be correct  say that this submission should be the only  evidence that can be considered when opining as to my suitability. ? Would say the fact that I have  a complaint currently lodged with the External Auditor be relevant or inadmissible ?

---

In the two councils I have been involved in, both have asked the co-optee to sign the papers immediately after the full council have voted, whereupon they have been allowed to join the meeting as a councillor.

---

Admirable and helpful information on yourself which would go a long way to assisting councillors with their decision making. As far as any complaint made is concerned it SHOULD have no bearing on the co-option especially if it is on-going and no decision has been made by the auditors. If found in your favour then I would assume that a professional council would welcome the matter being rectified by your complaint

---

A very generous take on the possible attitude of some Councillors I have to say  !! Thanks for all you comments