Councillors who fail to attend meetings may have their allowances withheld as the fallout continues from the election of two councillors who attended just a handful of meetings before they resigned.
The Green opposition leader Steve Davis estimated that Bharti Gajjar and Chandni Mistry had together received allowances totalling about £23,000 since last May.
The possibility of withholding allowances in future was raised after Brighton and Hove City Council’s interim chief executive Will Tuckley who said that there was currently no way of doing so.
Councillors lose their seat if they fail to turn up to a formal meeting for six months but councils have limited power to deal with other concerns in relation to their conduct.
Mr Tuckley said that the council was looking into the possibility of withholding allowances if councillors failed to attend meetings for a shorter period than six months.
Ms Gajjar and Miss Mistry were elected as Labour councillors for Kemptown and Queen’s Park wards respectively last May.
They were expelled from Labour in December after an internal Labour Party investigation into election irregularities.
The pair, who attended a meeting of the full council in October, then spent less than an hour in the chamber for another full council meeting on Thursday 1 February. They left less than an hour into the five-hour meeting before the main business started.
They resigned as councillors on Tuesday 5 March, citing their studies as medical students as the reason.
On Wednesday (13 March) Sussex Police said that an investigation had found “insufficient evidence” to charge either of the former councillors with electoral malpractice.
Councillor Davis wrote to Mr Tuckley before the two councillors resigned: “We estimate that collectively these two councillors have now pocketed an allowance of around £23,000 total since they were elected.
“At a time of severe budget cuts to the council, we cannot stand by while two individuals who clearly show no regard for council business or democratic representation take home money that could otherwise be used to save services residents desperately need.
“This amount for example is roughly the same as the cost of the 79 bus to Ditchling Beacon that is subject to cuts and a community petition calling for it to be retained.”
Speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, Councillor Davis said: “Frustration is my feeling in a nutshell.
“I am confident of the £23,000 figure and, in a time of public service crisis, this is an insult to the most vulnerable in our city who are losing services hand over fist.
“Long term, we have to review custom and practice around what we do if a councillor only ‘pops by’ and doesn’t stay for the business.”
Mr Tuckley wrote in reply that, legally, councillors need only attend one meeting every six months and there was “no mechanism” to withhold allowances.
Mr Tuckley said that there was no system for “recalling” councillors and that the law set out the rules around disqualification for failing to attend meetings – and the council did not have the power to override the law.
He said: “The council does not have a means to force a member to attend meetings beyond the statutory minimum or answer constituent’s inquiries. We do not have a system for ‘recalling’ councillors.
“People can, of course, submit a complaint to the council for breach of the code of conduct for members under the standards procedures. But the power of councils to impose sanctions was removed by the Localism Act 2011.
“They can only censure a member and make recommendations to the member, their group leader and their political group.
“You may recall that the possibility of withholding allowances was raised at (a meeting of) group leaders.
“We are looking at the feasibility of amending our scheme to provide for withholding members’ allowances if a member fails to attend a meeting for a set period without triggering … disqualification.
“However, given that all basic allowances have to be the same for all councillors, we are not sure whether it would be legally safe to do so. But we are looking at it.”
“At a time of severe budget cuts to the council, we cannot stand by while two individuals who clearly show no regard for council business or democratic representation take home money that could otherwise be used to save services residents desperately need.”
And that’s a fallacy and Cllr Davis knows it.
If these two hadn’t been elected then two other councillors (even Greens!) would have been and would have been paid the allowance and so the money couldn’t have been used for something else.
BUT at least the byelection process is underway – the notice of the vacancies was published last Monday.
https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/voting-and-elections/upcoming-elections-and-referendums
Good to read this .. i am surprised that it (the notice, march 11th, triggered by 2 residents, unnamed) has not been mentioned more widely…
Cllr Davis have very selective memory does he remember A COUNCILLOR said it’s “not for other people to judge” after his wife billed the taxpayer nearly £1,500 to pay for childcare during online council meetings during the Covid-19 pandemic?
Get the ball rolling, if they want money then produce some effort, allowances should only be paid on basis of attendance which is where it may or may not be “earned”,
The comments from Davis reveal some very dodgy arithmetic and an attempt to bamboozle us all. But one has grown used to this sort of dim-witted logic from the Green Party
Gajjar and Mistry are a disgrace but their allowances would have gone to someone else if they had not stood or been elected.
But I suppose just another example of the Green Party thinking you can spend the same money twice.
Questions should be asked of the Labour Party’s processes in selecting councillors. Increasingly decisions are made by a small caucas, including Regional Officers, without reference to the membership. It is a process lacking in both transparency and democracy. Not surprising there is little, if any, accountability.
They need to be made to return all their allowances as they were not legitimate Councillors and did not serve their electorate or even answer their emails. Fraud reverses everything when they were allowed to skip proper candidate screening to get in.
Fraud does not reverse everything. And the police said there was no electoral malpractice so no fraud.
In anycase it settled law that decisions taken by the council with them as members of it stand as decisions and aren’t reversed unilaterally.
Whether you like it or not they were declared elected and so were entitled to the allowances.
As the article states there is no legal requirement for a councillor to do case work or attend a meeting other than once every six months to remain in office.
By your logic this means a Councillor could be a performing seal as long as they are dropped off at a meeting once every six months and that would not be fraud. How insulting to the few hard-working and genuine Councillors we have, never mind we electorate.
Not my logic but the law of the land.
I securitized the allowance system carefully whilst the councillors were under complaint with the democratic services, and I definitely agree, it is too easy to abuse the system through doing the absolute minimum.
No matter what your colour politically, this cannot be allowed to happen again, so I welcome anything that allows penalties against councillors who don’t fulfil their obligations.
So those two have got off scot free then..
Why have these 2 women not paid back the money which they have defrauded the council off or been charged with fraud if you or I had hatched this plan we would be in front of the magistrates by now make an example of these 2 women as it was clearly a premeditated plan an they should pay the consequences.
Pay it back ! They’re not entitled to it as they have not worked for it