Questions have been raised about the transparency of Melksham Town Council’s decision to appoint two new councillors behind closed doors.
Following the recent local elections, three seats remained vacant on the town council. Seven candidates applied and each gave a short pitch at a recent meeting, explaining why they were suitable for the roles.
However, in the full town council meeting on Monday 2nd June, instead of publicly deliberating and voting on the candidates – the standard process used by many local councils – councillors moved into a confidential session, away from the public and press, to make their decision.
Chair of the meeting, mayor Cllr Saffi Rabey, said the council had “sought professional advice” on whether the session could be held confidentially. But one local councillor has described the move as “a complete affront to openness and transparency.”
Melksham Town and Wiltshire councillor Phil Alford said, “The co-option debacle was appalling and I am embarrassed by the shameless cynicism of it. We currently employ two clerks at the town council and neither was consulted on how to conduct the co-option process.
“Instead, we were informed that advice was sought from another council but then completely ignored. There was no transparency, no public discussion and no show of hands. The whole thing fell way short of what is required under the Local Government Act and, as such, appears to be unlawful. It also managed to be a complete affront to the concept of openness and transparency.”
Councillors decided that in order to be co-opted, candidates must receive more than six votes.
The chosen candidates were Maverick Drewett, who received 10 votes, and Emma Calland, who received nine. As no other candidate received more than six votes, the third seat remains unfilled.
Cllr Alford added, “The remaining five were rejected with one empty seat left. Why? There was nothing wrong with any of the candidates, except perhaps that they were not Liberal Democrats and weren’t invited to put themselves forward by the mayor. The council should issue a public apology and at least invite the third-place candidate to join. There is no way this council will gain any legitimacy or reflect the make-up of the residents if fake processes are created to exclude people.”
Other councillors, however, supported the confidential process.
Cllr Jon Hubbard said he believed candidates should be treated similarly to staff and that discussing them publicly was “not appropriate.” He said, “As with any staffing matter, I think we should be talking about them in the same way we would staff. That is not something I expect to happen in a public meeting, especially one that is being broadcast online. I don’t think it would be fair or reasonable to do that with people in the room. You are either going to have an honest conversation or a theatrical conversation – it’s going to be one or the other.”
Cllr Adrienne Westbrook also said it would be ‘terribly rude’ to talk about candidates in front of them. “I think it is inappropriate,” she said.
Defending the process and the decision to hold a confidential session, Mayor Saffi Rabey said, “Melksham Town Council sought guidance on the appropriate procedure for managing a co-option process involving multiple candidates. Advice was obtained from the National Association of Local Councils, the locum clerk, and an informal discussion with Melksham Without Parish Council.”
However, during the meeting, the locum clerk said the council could “discuss what they needed to here,” in public.
Cllr Rabey continued, “This decision was made to ensure a respectful and fair discussion, and to avoid placing candidates in an uncomfortable or potentially compromising position.
“Councillors also agreed that a majority vote was necessary to ensure clarity and fairness in the selection process. The locum clerk advised that the voting process should be conducted in a straightforward and transparent manner to facilitate ease of vote collection, particularly given the number of candidates. This was not intended to make the vote secret, but rather to ensure efficiency and clarity. The majority of councillors supported this approach.”
Guidance from the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) on the co-option of councillors states, “If a vote is taken it must be by a show of hands or as prescribed by standing orders (paragraph 13(1) of Schedule 12 to the 1972 Act). A ‘secret’ ballot is permissible if standing orders permit it, but the council would need to ensure that any such procedures can withstand scrutiny and challenge. It is difficult to envisage the circumstances which warrant a secret ballot, which would invariably attract scrutiny as to its purpose and validity.”
Melksham Town Council has confirmed that it has no policy in relation to the co-option of councillors.
Pictured: Melksham Town Hall
