SIR — On Wednesday July 21 I attended the monthly Minehead Town Council meeting in eager anticipation of the council's announcement that it was finally going to follow Watchet's lead and bid for the government's 'Power of Well Being' status. 

Readers of the Free Press a few months back may remember that councils which meet the criteria of this scheme have access to additional funding and other benefits.

One of those criteria is the "Statement of intent as to community engagement" - in this case the bold opening statement proclaiming that "Minehead Town Council is an open and transparent council which values the opinions of the community which it serves."  

In view of what was to follow at the meeting, I noticed a solemn promise to publish minutes for all council and committee meetings and, again, an emphasis on being "open and transparent" by providing "a high quality professional service to all".

But before we came to this item on the agenda, a seemingly innocuous rubber stamping of the minutes of the two past meetings erupted into a drama of unexpected excitement. 

Councillors were asked to confirm an extraordinary resolution of a meeting on May 6 "that Minute No 942 should be deleted other than the resolutions and that the clerk be instructed to destroy previous copies".

Granted, Minehead Town Council minutes are not quite on a par with Hansard (though no doubt many MPs would wish that their more foolish comments could be expunged from the record). 

But surely we all believed that while minutes can be amended later if deemed inaccurate, the originals must stay as a record. 

Most importantly, those of publicly funded institutions cannot be eliminated as if they had never existed while the legal resolutions based on them continue to apply.

A statement in dense legal jargon was read out by the clerk which at least one councillor was honest enough to say he could not understand.

Cllr Venner (who, it appeared, had not been present at the meeting  in question) asked why the minutes were to be deleted and on what advice. 

Cllr Taylor complained that members could only understand half of what was going on as no minutes of other committees now came to full council. 

In the ensuing confusion, this item was then held over to the next meeting pending expert advice.  My confidence in the "high quality professional service" took a knock.

But the main drama was to come when we moved to the Well Being agenda item. 

The ferocity of some councillors took me, the only member of the public present besides county councillor Brenda Maitland-Walker, completely by surprise.

Cllr Venner thanked members of the public who had encouraged the council to follow Watchet's lead and welcomed the new initiative. 

He politely asked for reassurance, before a vote was taken, on whether Minehead met all the criteria, as so little information had been provided. 

This unleashed an extraordinary sequence of events which resulted in Cllr Stokes delivering a knockout blow by calling for a motion of censure on Cllr Venner, which was seconded immediately by the two previous speakers. 

Quite what are members of the public to make of all this?

I had raised a simple question with Cllr Venner, two letters from me to the council having previously failed to elicit any response, and simply raising this matter at a council meeting has now resulted in a wholly unjustified motion of censure on someone who has an outstanding record of service to the community!

Rosemary Lawson,

Minehead.