I am assuming that this section also includes comments on the Scheme itself and not only the Constitution.
Para 9.6 states that the quorum at meetings will be 50%. Whilst CCs in SAC must have 50%, para 10 from the Scottish Govt Model Scheme indicates that 33% is recommended. CCs in Glasgow City and East Ayrshire are 33% (NAC appears to be similar, as do other councils). To make matters worse, – in South Ayrshire Council meetings, our elected members only require 25% for a quorum. Very much double standards.
It needs more scrutiny. I have never understood why in Membership (b) page 41 the list of quorum examples does not include every number from 9 to 18. Was someone trying to save time? Total membership of 9 requires a quorum (minimum) membership of 5 to exist in the first place. Total membership of 10 requires a quorum of 5 to exist in the first place. Membership of 11 requires a quorum (minimum) membership of 6 to exist.....etc. etc.. up to 18. Fully comprehensive. Then it talks about meetings and quorums in meetings which is different. In order to exist in the first place, lets say a CC can have a total membership of 13. That means that it needs a minimum of 7 members in order to exist. Lets say that in a meeting 4 people turn up then the meeting can go ahead because more than half of the membership is in attendance, or am I wrong...? This whole thing can be very confusing as the handbook does not distinguish clearly between quorums for existence and quorums for meetings.
I am assuming that this section also includes comments on the Scheme itself and not only the Constitution.
Para 9.6 states that the quorum at meetings will be 50%. Whilst CCs in SAC must have 50%, para 10 from the Scottish Govt Model Scheme indicates that 33% is recommended. CCs in Glasgow City and East Ayrshire are 33% (NAC appears to be similar, as do other councils). To make matters worse, – in South Ayrshire Council meetings, our elected members only require 25% for a quorum. Very much double standards.
Wordy and overly complex
The division of quorates is not clear and should be made clearer
It needs more scrutiny. I have never understood why in Membership (b) page 41 the list of quorum examples does not include every number from 9 to 18. Was someone trying to save time? Total membership of 9 requires a quorum (minimum) membership of 5 to exist in the first place. Total membership of 10 requires a quorum of 5 to exist in the first place. Membership of 11 requires a quorum (minimum) membership of 6 to exist.....etc. etc.. up to 18. Fully comprehensive. Then it talks about meetings and quorums in meetings which is different. In order to exist in the first place, lets say a CC can have a total membership of 13. That means that it needs a minimum of 7 members in order to exist. Lets say that in a meeting 4 people turn up then the meeting can go ahead because more than half of the membership is in attendance, or am I wrong...? This whole thing can be very confusing as the handbook does not distinguish clearly between quorums for existence and quorums for meetings.
But ir should be revised and summarised.