Can a Parish Council refuse to co-opt a single candidate for single casual vacancy if they consider him unsuitable?

Question

My Parish Council will soon be seeking to fill a casual vacancy by co-option. It is possible that there may be only one candidate which we fear may be a former parish councillor who resigned from the council several months ago.

Most of the current parish councillors are aware that when he was previously a councillor, his disgraceful behaviour at meetings; his lack of understanding and contempt for rules and regulations; his bully boy tactics against other councillors to get his own way; his heavy personal involvment in several issues which brought disgrace and bad publicity for the council; his total denial of ever having behaved badly or done anything wrong; and his continual blaming of other councillors for his own mistakes, created severe problems for the council. Most councillors heaved a sigh of relief when he resigned!  

Some of this is recorded in the council minutes but much more is shown up in several disgraceful, abusive, aggressive and inaccurate letters and e-mails that he sent to current councillors.  There are also several current councillors who have been the victim of his verbal abuse.

Is it possible that his past behaviour and the problems that he previously created for the council would provide sufficient evidence - verbal and documentary - to enable the Parish Council to refuse to co-opt him on a majority vote because it considered him unsuitable ?

Answer 1

There seems to be a rule that would provide scope for a council in this position to refuse to appoint the troublesome individual.

It appears that a successful candidate must have received an absolute majority vote of those present and voting in the council meeting that takes the decision on cooption.  It thus seems to follow that if a majority of the councillors vote against the sole candidate, then the vacancy fails to be filled.

The cooption should be made as soon as practicable - but this has to rely on the availability of suitable candidates.  I can see no indication that this requirement overrides the necessity for an absolute majority.  So if the council votes against the individual, it can continue to seek suitable andidates.

There is probably no actual limit on the meaning of "as soon as practicable" although the legal officers of the district council might start to exert pressure on the council if the vacancy is left unfilled for too long.

Comments

I m assuming that this co-option process has come about because of the failure to call an election (by-election) by a ballot of the residents. The process must be repeated: the Clerk must be involved and so too the Principal Authority Returning Officer. . Elections (the best method which needs 10 residents to call one). But it costs money.  It is decision time in more ways than one.