DISCUSSIONS on the long-term future and viability of West Somerset Council have been taking place behind closed doors in an attempt to keep the matter secret.

The issue - cryptically referred to by district councillors as "the elephant in the room" - was first raised at last month's scrutiny committee meeting and looked at again in a private members-only "briefing" on Monday.

The briefing was open to all councillors and was officially described as an opportunity to talk frankly about how members could investigate the viability of the council, without the press or public being present.

In the end, after just over an hour of private talks, councillors concluded the scrutiny committee was the best place to discuss the issue - although it is likely more secret seminars will be held on the topic first.

The debate was sparked by Alcombe West member Cllr Simon Stokes at last month's scrutiny committee meeting.

And when the Free Press did not attend the meeting, councillors took the opportunity to talk freely about the "elephant" thinking their comments would remain private.

But all district council meetings are now recorded and the Free Press subsequently asked for a recording of the proceedings.

At the meeting, Cllr Stokes said the authority was effectively being run by consultants and the committee had a duty to ensure they were providing value for money.

He said he had become frustrated by the authority's lack of resources and the ongoing reliance on consultants and the intervention of a peer review group.

Cllr Stokes said: "I believe we should be discussing the elephant in the room - is this council viable?

"Would the people of West Somerset be better off or worse off if West Somerset Council existed or not?

"If we never met, if cabinet didn't meet, would there be any noticeable difference to the people of West Somerset?

"As a West Somerset councillor I'm not having any effect because we're so short of resources."

Cllr Paul Tipney claimed "ordinary councillors" had little impact on the workings of the authority and questioned if it was worth having a council if members were not running it.

But Cllr Steven Pugsley asked if the scrutiny committee was the correct place to be raising the issue and said the matter should be kept from the press and public due to "staff sensitivity".

"Is this committee the relevant body to carry the elephant gun? Simon's absolutely right, this needs to be talked about, but it needs to be talked about across the authority.

"It is a huge issue and how it is handled has to be discussed extremely carefully.

"I don't think it should be discussed in open committee. We should get members to sit down without the press and public present and start a full and frank debate," Cllr Pugsley said.

He was supported by Cllr Stokes and Cllr Tipney, but members were warned by executive director Adrian Dyer that the committee would be laying itself open to accusations of having "secret meetings".

Deputy monitoring officer Wendy Bass also advised there had to be a legal reason for excluding the press and public from a formal council meeting.

Members laughed as Cllr Pugsley claimed keeping the press out was the main reason for holding the meeting in private but, after advice from Mr Dyer, councillors opted to have a briefing after this Monday's scrutiny meeting had finished.

Committee chairman Tim Taylor then emailed all councillors to invite them to the briefing - which he described as a "closed meeting of the committee".

He wrote: "This closed meeting will not discuss the 'viability' of the council per se, but the processes which should be put in place to consider such 'viability'.

"The committee will go into closed session to discuss processes which the council should put in place to consider 'the provision and sustainability' of the council."

Meanwhile, following the Free Press' request for a recording of the previous scrutiny committee, the authority's corporate director Bruce Lang issued his own edict to members, warning them to watch their words.

His email said: "We have just provided a reporter with a recording of one of our meetings - which they are perfectly entitled to have given they are recordings of discussions held at a meeting open to the press and public.

"This was a meeting of a committee when no press or public actually attended on the day.

"Adrian and I have just mused that we have often heard said [by members and officers] on such occasions that 'as the press and public are not here' and then say something they would not have said had they been there . . .!

"So we all need to be aware."