By-election for vacant parish seats

[J.G.Harston]

My Town (parish) council has 19 seats, only 13 of them were filled at the elections in May. At the council meeting just gone the Clerk reported that if there was a vacancy on the council ten electors could call a by-election (I knew that bit), but it had to be within 35 days (extendable to 70 days) of the vacancy/unfilled seat occuring. After that, electors cannot call a by-election. Additionally, the council voted not to co-opt members to fill the vacant seats.

This strikes me as not quite right, though I haven't had much experience with unfilled parish council seats.

Electors only have 35 days to ask for a by-election? That just doesn't sound right. That means a seat can potentially go unfilled for almost the full four year term.

The council can chose not to co-opt? I thought the council couldn't chose not to co-opt, but further digging has clarified that if the council is non-quorate then it is forced to co-opt, or the district council will do it for them to make the council quorate.

So, can somebody clarify things. As it states, it appears that we'll have six vacancies on the council because it's more than 35 days since the vacancies occured, and as the council doesn't want to co-opt members to fill them, they'll be vacant for another 46 months with nothing the electorate can do about it.

[carlton43]

Quite right too. It hardly matters does it? No one stood for the vacancies. No one protested and called for a by election. The TC as it stands is quorate. End of story. For goodness sake if 13 people can't run a parish council in a couple of hours a month they are dullards. There is bugger all to do anyway!! Many public Companies are run by a similar number of people.

Move on nothing to see here Sir.

[greatkingrat]

I wonder what would happen if one of the 13 councillors dies / resigns and 10 people request a by-election. Would that election be for 1 seat, or for all 7 vacant seats?

[marksenior]

I am presuming that all 19 seats are just in 1 large ward . If there are 3/4 wards and 1 or more have a disproportionate number of councillors then the electors in underrepresented wards would have a strong case for complaint .

[peterl]

This is taken from North Kesteven District Council's guidance from this year's parish elections

Where there are not enough validly nominated candidates at the ordinary election of a parish council, those candidates who are validly nominated are elected (section 39, RPA 1983).

If the Parish Council is quorate, the elected councillors may co-opt councillors to fill the remaining seats.

If, however, after a period of 35 working days from the date that would have been the polling day if the election had been contested, the council has not filled all the vacancies by co-option, we may:

by order make direct appointments of people as parish councillors;
do anything necessary or expedient for the proper holding of the parish council and properly constituting the council;
direct that a new election is held to fill the remaining vacancies and fix the date of that election.

We must not exercise this power within 35 working days of the ordinary date of election and may allow a parish council a period longer than 35 working days to fill vacancies by co-option if it wishes.

We may additionally use these powers if:

The parish council is not quorate after the ordinary election and therefore may not proceed with co-option (or indeed carry out any other business);
any point after the ordinary election for the parish council the council has so many vacancies that it is unable to co-opt, such as where less than the quorum of councillors remain and an election is not held (for example, because a number of councillors have resigned but there have not been enough requests received for an election to be held to replace them).

Full page here

[J.G.Harston]

Jul 4, 2015 22:49:19 GMT greatkingrat said:

I wonder what would happen if one of the 13 councillors dies / resigns and 10 people request a by-election. Would that election be for 1 seat, or for all 7 vacant seats?

That actually happened. One of the newly-elected councillors did not take up his seat and and a by-election was called, but only for his seat in his ward and not the unfilled seat in his ward.

Jul 5, 2015 8:06:48 GMT marksenior said:

I am presuming that all 19 seats are just in 1 large ward . If there are 3/4 wards and 1 or more have a disproportionate number of councillors then the electors in underrepresented wards would have a strong case for complaint .

The town is arranged into six wards (link). At the May election all seats were uncontested and two wards had no candidates at all and consequently now have no councillors (link). The election resulted in:
Abbey: 5 seats, 4 candidates, 1 unfilled seat
Ruswarp: 2 seats, 0 candidates, 2 unfilled seats
Stakesby: 4 seats, 4 candididates
Town North: 2 seats, 0 candidates, 2 unfilled seats
Town South: 2 seats, 2 candidates
West Cliff: 4 seats, 3 candidates, 1 unfilled seat, 1 councillor declined to take office, 1 by-election called, 2 candidates, poll on 30th July, will continue to have 1 unfilled seat

Jul 5, 2015 12:37:50 GMT peterl said:

This is taken from North Kesteven District Council's guidance from this year's parish elections (...)

So, if I'm reading that correctly, if a council has vacant seats, and if a council is quorate, and if the 35 days has expired, and if the council has not co-opted to fill those seats, the only way for those seats to be filled is for somebody (a member of the public, a member of the council) to request that the parish or district council publish a notice that it has vacant seats, for the council to publish said notice, and for 10 electors to request a by-election. Otherwise, the seats remain vacant until the next cyclical election.

[peterl]

Your council is quorate and can co-opt. They are required to do so. If they do not within 35 working days of the election, the district council may take action to call fresh elections or appoint councillors themselves. The seats will not be allowed to remain vacant.

[carlton43]

Jul 5, 2015 8:06:48 GMT marksenior said:

I am presuming that all 19 seats are just in 1 large ward . If there are 3/4 wards and 1 or more have a disproportionate number of councillors then the electors in underrepresented wards would have a strong case for complaint .

No they wouldn't for they neither bothered to stand nor to protest the absence, nor to call for a by election; and lets be direct....didn't bloody notice because it doesn't matter a whit to them does it?  Nor to me. I never vote for the local outfit for various reasons.

[J.G.Harston]

Jul 5, 2015 13:39:12 GMT peterl said:

Your council is quorate and can co-opt. They are required to do so. If they do not within 35 working days of the election, the district council may take action to call fresh elections or appoint councillors themselves. The seats will not be allowed to remain vacant.

They can co-opt, or they are required to co-opt? That's one of the contradictory bits of Scotch Mist I've been trying to nail down, ideally before Tuesday's meeting where the council will decide whether to give approval to advertise vacancies for co-option. If they must co-opt, they can't make their own decision.

Edit: A thought: it would make sense if they were required to fill seats in wards where there was no representation, but they may chose to fill seats in wards where there is representation.

[peterl]

I have found in the Local Elections (Parish and Community) Rules 2006 an express requirement to co-opt, but that specifically refers to casual vacancies, which these are not. Certainly however, if the council does not co-opt, they are in danger of the district council making the decision for them. That rather implies "must" to me, and should be a sufficient threat to spur the parish council into action.

[carlton43]

Jul 5, 2015 13:55:57 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Jul 5, 2015 13:39:12 GMT peterl said:

Your council is quorate and can co-opt. They are required to do so. If they do not within 35 working days of the election, the district council may take action to call fresh elections or appoint councillors themselves. The seats will not be allowed to remain vacant.

They can co-opt, or they are required to co-opt? That's one of the contradictory bits of Scotch Mist I've been trying to nail down, ideally before Tuesday's meeting where the council will decide whether to give approval to advertise vacancies for co-option. If they must co-opt, they can't make their own decision.

Edit: A thought: it would make sense if they were required to fill seats in wards where there was no representation, but they may chose to fill seats in wards where there is representation.

I think you will find that Scotch Mist in particular, but all mists, cannot be nailed down! So as to be sure about the nature of the mist, pay close attention to whether it has a vague smell of frying and lager with a pink outer tinge? If so, it is a Scotch Mist.

[carlton43]

Jul 5, 2015 14:14:13 GMT peterl said:

I have found in the Local Elections (Parish and Community) Rules 2006 an express requirement to co-opt, but that specifically refers to casual vacancies, which these are not. Certainly however, if the council does not co-opt, they are in danger of the district council making the decision for them. That rather implies "must" to me, and should be a sufficient threat to spur the parish council into action.

I just love your  " they are in 'danger' of the district council making the decision.."!  If they don't co-opt it i probably because no one can be found to say yes, just as with getting candidates in the first place. The thought of the DC imposing a few competent imports would be either neither here nor there or perhaps welcome......'Danger'. I think not!!

[peterl]

The parish council would be unlikely to welcome the decision being imposed on them, hence "danger".

[carlton43]

Jul 5, 2015 14:44:28 GMT peterl said:

The parish council would be unlikely to welcome the decision being imposed on them, hence "danger".

This must be most frivolous and ennui inducing thread yet devised.

[gwynthegriff]

Jul 5, 2015 14:53:24 GMT carlton43 said:

Jul 5, 2015 14:44:28 GMT peterl said:

The parish council would be unlikely to welcome the decision being imposed on them, hence "danger".

This must be most frivolous and ennui inducing thread yet devised.

Not at all. It explains some remarks made by our County Councillor at our most recent meeting.

On the substantive issue if the PC is showing no inclination to fill the vacancies then it hands the 'baton' to the DC which may consider it should act.

[Deleted]

Jul 5, 2015 13:31:21 GMT J.G.Harston said:

1 councillor declined to take office,

I can't let this one go.
Why?

[J.G.Harston]

Jul 7, 2015 7:26:46 GMT @davedare said:

Jul 5, 2015 13:31:21 GMT J.G.Harston said:

1 councillor declined to take office,

I can't let this one go.
Why?

Because he was returned unopposed which was an affront to democracy, so he declined his seat in order to generate an election. (link) He's noticably absent from the list of candidates. (link)

Edit: reding the references in more detail and not going on the newspaper reports, he used the fact that he was not elected to the contested district council seat covering the parish council seat as indicating that the electorate did not want him in the uncontested parish council seat. Considering the two-member district council seat covers six parish council seats, even if the parish council seat was contested and he didn't win the district council seat, he would still have been three times more likely to win the parish seat than the district seat.

[carlton43]

Jul 6, 2015 19:32:07 GMT gwynthegriff said:

Jul 5, 2015 14:53:24 GMT carlton43 said:

This must be most frivolous and ennui inducing thread yet devised.

Not at all. It explains some remarks made by our County Councillor at our most recent meeting.

On the substantive issue if the PC is showing no inclination to fill the vacancies then it hands the 'baton' to the DC which may consider it should act.

I think that you have just proved my point.

You are all based in the assumption that it matters, and of courwse it doesn't. The public have little or no interest because there is so little done and so little effect on their lives. if a body is quorate then it can function.All else is political people agonising over nothing of any consequence at all. The public have the right to stand and to demand that by-elections are held to fill vacancies.......but they tend not to because they don't care because they are sure it doesn't matter. So why impose from on high 'to make up the numbers'? Why? Mind your own business. If the locals get interested and things start to actually 'matter', there will be candidates, voters and interest.

This thread is pants! It is a microcosm of all that is wrong with politics. You are concerned with system, structure and norms. The public are solely interested in tasks an what is being done, can be done, and what is important in their lives. There is no public interest because in essence the TC does bugger all of any importance to anyone most of the time.

[peterl]

Larger parish councils conduct most of their business through committees. If the council is short of several of their allocation of councillors, those committees will not have enough members. Even if the required membership of the committees was ultimately reduced you will have less people available to give input on proposals and help to build them up into workable proposals ready for review by the full council. Further, with many positions to be filled - committees chairmen and vice chairmen, representatives on outside bodies - the remaining councillors will have a significantly increased workload if several seats are left vacant long term. It is not just a matter of representation but the number of councillors a given council needs to function.

[carlton43]

Jul 7, 2015 9:58:09 GMT peterl said:

Larger parish councils conduct most of their business through committees. If the council is short of several of their allocation of councillors, those committees will not have enough members. Even if the required membership of the committees was ultimately reduced you will have less people available to give input on proposals and help to build them up into workable proposals ready for review by the full council. Further, with many positions to be filled - committees chairmen and vice chairmen, representatives on outside bodies - the remaining councillors will have a significantly increased workload if several seats are left vacant long term. It is not just a matter of representation but the number of councillors a given council needs to function.

"...the number of councillors a given council needs to function....!!!  Ho, Ho, bloody Ho!  We speak of TCs and Pcs here not British Petroleum. Let's face it, 3-competent people could run any of them.  BP will conduct a major agenda in probably one hour and at the most two hours if faced with a massive emergency. The average PC spends innumerable hours discussing the square root of sod all!