Proxy voting by councillors: consultation analysis

Findings

Question 1: Do you agree that an explicit provision should be introduced to allow a councillor to arrange for their vote to be cast by proxy?

The majority of respondents agreed that there should be an explicit provision for councillors to arrange to have their vote cast by a proxy.

• Sixty respondents agreed, and 27 disagreed. Two respondents did not provide an answer.
• Among individuals, 38 respondents agreed, and 22 disagreed.
• Among organisations, 12 respondents agreed, one disagreed, and two did not provide an answer.

Question 2: Do you agree with the optional criteria which could be applied by a local authority to allow for proxy voting?

The majority of respondents agreed with the proposed optional criteria which could be applied by a local authority to allow for proxy voting.

• Sixty respondents agreed, and 27 disagreed. Two respondents did not provide an answer.
• Among individuals, 38 respondents agreed, and 22 disagreed.
• Among organisations, 11 respondents agreed, two disagreed, and two did not provide an answer.

Question 3: Are there any further comments that you wish to make on the proposal to allow for proxy voting?

There were 56 responses to question three. The most prevalent themes rasied by respondents were the impact of proxy voting on council meetings or other duties; broadening inclusion and diversity among councillors; and the implemention and governance of the provision.

Impact on council meetings and other duties

The most common theme in question three related to proxy voting’s impact on council meetings and other duties. Several respondents felt that proxy voting might exempt councillors from debates, or mean they would not see tabled amendments, which councillors have a duty to consider in their decisions. They felt that councillors who are not present at these meetings would not be informed enough to make a decision.

Some respondents suggested that it would be inappropriate to permit proxy voting for the following responsibilities undertaken by councillors:

• quasi-judicial functions;
• votes following debates;
• votes following newly introduced amendments;
• employment appeals; and
• planning and licensing decisions.

Most of these responses were from organisations. A few respondents supported the use of proxy voting in full council meetings, while disagreeing with its use in these other meetings listed above.

One council noted that proxy voting does not suit the way they function because, “the agenda item… is introduced, members ask questions and then enter into debate before a vote (if any). Motions and amendments are proposed at the meeting. This means that a proxy position could not be established prior to a meeting and a member could not determine their position without hearing the discussion at the meeting.”

Some respondents stated that councillors have a duty to participate in council meetings and other duties. A few of these respondents felt that if councillors were not able to fulfill these responsibilities, then they should no longer be councillors.

A few responses explained that councillors need to engage in council meetings in order to represent their constituents in the council. They felt that voting by proxy would not meet this duty. One individual noted that, “Similar to the introduction of multi-member wards, this change would further weaken the direct link between elected members and the communities they represent.”

Broadening inclusion and diversity

The second most prevalent theme raised by respondents was that allowing proxy voting would enable people from a wider range of backgrounds and identities to participate in local government and to consider becoming councillors in Scotland. A few respondents felt that this would benefit constituent representation in local councils. Respondents suggested that the inclusion and diversity benefits of proxy voting could include:

• Accommodation of other personal responsibilities . Some responses noted that councillors may have other important personal or professional responsibilities, such as military service; caring responsibilities; other employment; and parental leave and childcare. These respondents felt that proxy voting would allow councillors to better meet both these responsibilities and their responsibilities as councillors. One individual noted that, “As a young local councillor, proxy voting would help with barriers such as childcare and other issues that may arise.”
• Increasing the diversity of the councillor population. Some responses noted that some demographic groups face barriers to participating in local government. Respondents felt that proxy voting would reduce barriers to participation councillors face on the basis of age, disability, pregnancy and maternity, race, and sex.

One organisation noted that, “Women are underrepresented in local government as just 35% of Scotland’s councillors. Progress towards equality at local level has been glacial, and at the current rate it is likely to take until at least 2037 for women to be equally represented in councils. Proxy voting is likely to improve accessibility and would reflect a move towards more flexible, modern working practices for councils.”

Implementation and governance of the provision

The third most prevalent theme related to how the provision to allow proxy voting would be implemented and governed. Several respondents provided suggestions on how the provision should be implemented by councils. These suggestions included:

• S pecific guidelines for attendance and quorum. Some respondents expressed mixed views on the issue of proxy voting contributing to meeting attendance and quorums. A few responses expressed that proxy voting could help achieve a quorum on difficult votes, while others felt that proxy votes should not contribute to meeting attendance and quorums.
• The need for local authorities’ discretion. A few organisations highlighted that differences in local areas and local councils’ ways of working meant that councils should decide how proxy voting ought to work for themselves.
• C lear legislation and guidance from the Scottish Government and other national bodies. A few responses from organisations expressed that councils needed flexibility to make proxy voting work for them, but that they needed common national legislation and guidance. A few responses suggested that this guidance should come from the Scottish Government or COSLA.
• A pproaches to suspended or excluded members. A few responses suggested that members who would otherwise be unable to attend (for example, due to a conflict of interest or suspension), should not be able to vote by proxy.

Sufficiency of existing accommodations

The fourth most common theme related to the existing accommodations available to councillors. Some respondents felt that accommodations for councillors already exist (i.e. remote meetings and “pairing”)^[1], making proxy voting unnecessary. One individual explained that, “There are already adequate provisions for substitute Members to attend Committees and there is the option to attend any meeting remotely.”

Impact on political party processes

The fifth most common theme related to the potential impact of proxy voting on political party processes. Some respondents felt that proxy voting would impact negatively on political party processes. For example, a few respondents felt that parties could exert more authority over councillors’ proxy votes. One individual noted that, “Proxy voting would mean a member indicating their vote before the debate and also assumes they would automatically vote with their political group.”

A few respondents noted that independent councillors and those from smaller parties would struggle to find proxies and have their views represented. One response from a council noted that, “Groups generally acknowledged that the proposal may be more of an issue for independent groups.”

Potential for misuse of proxy voting

The sixth most common theme related to the potential for proxy voting provisions to be misused. Some respondents felt that there is potential for misuse of the new provisions. A few respondents expressed concern that proxy voting would be used to avoid council duties. One individual noted that, “Like most proposals, it starts with good intentions, but ends up with abuse. Who is going to monitor the legitimacy of ‘optional criteria?’”

Other less common themes

The following themes were expressed by five or fewer respondents.

Caring responsibilities as an optional criterion: Some respondents said that caring responsibilities should be included as an additional criterion. This point was raised by both individuals and organisations.

Responses on specific optional criteria: A few respondents expressed views on which optional criteria they supported. These views were mixed. A few responses agreed with criteria i to v but, felt that criteria vi (“any other reason subject to agreement of the full Council”) was too broad. However, a few respondents felt that either there should be no criteria at all, or that criteria vi should be broadened to be more flexible to councillors’ needs.

Need for transparency: A few respondents thought that proxy votes should be declared publicly, and that there should be a public register of proxy voting usage.

General opposition to proxy voting: A few respondents expressed general opposition to proxy voting.

Burden of work: Two respondents were concerned with councillors’ burden of work increasing. They noted that proxy voting provisions might be used to encourage councillors to work despite maternity or other statutory leave.

1 The consultation paper describes pairing as: “Pairing occurs where two individuals from opposing parties both agree not to vote on a decision. In local government, this would allow a councillor to be absent without affecting the result of the vote as the absences balance each other out.”