EDITOR – The author of the letter in the Market Rasen Mail last week criticising the nature of the recent co-option of two Market Rasen town councillors misses some important points when declaring the process ‘totally undemocratic’.
My preferred option would also have been to have an election.
I say this having twice submitted a request for an election when I was a town councillor (when vacancies occurred) – each time getting 10 signatures required, as I believed this to be an important element of local democracy.
However, on both occasions, when the election was duly called, no candidates came forward.
I therefore understand why no-one connected with the town council tried to go out and force an election on this occasion.
It is really up to those living in the town to exercise their democratic right to have an election to elect new town councillors when vacancies arise.
The anonymous complainant could have got the necessary form from WLDC and once submitted – with the signatures of 10 electors – an election would have been called.
I would suggest that moaning about the lack of democracy after the co-option has taken place smacks of sour grapes – perhaps the co-option process did not produce the result the mystery correspondent was hoping for.
I also note that the Gainsborough Standard has a recent letter – from a Gainsborough resident – setting out exactly the opposite opinion, ie that calling an election for two vacant positions on Gainsborough Town Council was a waste of money and that the co-option process should have been used.
Anyone brave enough to volunteer to serve their community as an unpaid councillor should be applauded, not told to resign.
The one good thing to come from last week’s letter is that electors are now more aware of this key democratic right.
King Street, Market Rasen