MINEHEAD Mayor Terry Venner failed to declare a prejudicial interest when town councillors discussed changes to the wages of the authority's grounds maintenance staff - even though the team supervisor had been best man at his wedding.

A cash incentive was agreed to be paid to the employees - all friends of Cllr Venner's - when they were asked to change from weekly to monthly pay.

But Cllr Venner took part in the debate on the issue and did not leave the town council meeting at which it was discussed last September.

At a West Somerset Standards Committee hearing panel on Tuesday, Cllr Venner was found to have breached the national Code of Conduct by failing to declare a prejudicial interest and not leaving the September meeting.

However, panel chairman Ivan Gunn said he and fellow panel members John Sawyer and Dave Westcott accepted that the breaches were "a genuine and honest mistake".

They ordered Cllr Venner to undergo one-to-one training with West Somerset's monitoring officer Bruce Lang.

Cllr Venner was reported to the Standards Committee by former mayor Cllr Ron Bridle, who claimed that councillors were highly likely to have felt constrained and unable to discuss the matter fully because of Cllr Venner's presence.

The panel heard from investigator Roy Pinney that it had been alleged Cllr Venner had failed to declare even a personal interest in the issue - a claim substantiated by the draft minutes of the meeting at which it was discussed.

But in his report, Mr Pinney said the minutes had subsequently been amended at a following meeting in October, five days after Cllr Bridle had lodged his complaint.

Additional wording had been added, stating that several councillors had asked Cllr Venner to consider declaring an interest because he was known to have invited weekly paid council employees to his wedding.

"Eventually he declared a personal interest but declined to leave the council chamber," said the additional statement.

Mr Pinney concluded that the friendship between grounds maintenance supervisor Len Knowlson and Cllr Venner could be regarded as close and relevant under the terms of the Code of Conduct.

The pair had known each other for between ten and 20 years and Mr Knowlson had been best man at Cllr Venner's wedding in 2007.

He said he was not suggesting there was actual prejudice on Cllr Venner's part, but a reasonable member of the public would inevitably have a perception of the likelihood of prejudice which could have affected his judgement.

However, Mr Pinney concluded that Cllr Venner's relationship with the four other grounds maintenance staff did not represent "close associations" and that he would not have needed to declare prejudicial interests in relation to them.

Mr Pinney said his assessment of Cllr Venner's failure to declare a prejudicial interest in respect of Mr Knowlson was not the result of negligence of or disregard for the requirements of the code.

"My analysis is that it was Cllr Venner's genuine understanding that his interest (in the issue) was merely personal and that his relationships with the five affected staff were no more or less significant than his relationships with a large number of other persons within the town."

Mr Pinney said the breach of the code could be regarded as an honest mistake but a mistake nonetheless.

In his evidence to the investigation, Cllr Bridle said Cllr Venner had refused to leave the meeting and repeatedly refused to declare an interest.

He was initially challenged by former councillor Simon Stokes but other councillors also asked him to declare his interest and warned him that he would be reported to the Standards Board.

Cllr Venner allegedly responded "Fine, report me" before adding "Fine, they are all my friends."

Although Cllr Venner did not vote on the issue, he questioned what the benefits would be of the staff changing from weekly to monthly pay for the residents of Alcombe and Minehead.

Cllr Bridle said Cllr Venner was an experienced councillor, having first been elected in 1999.

He had served as mayor twice previously and twice as deputy mayor.

In an interview with Mr Pinney, council clerk Sue Sanders said that in general she did not see it as her role to prompt councillors on the need to declare interests.

She said there had been problems between herself and Cllr Venner, with Cllr Venner refusing to talk to her, and these difficulties probably dated back to the time when Cllr Venner's wife had been made redundant by the council.

The changes to the wages of the grounds maintenance staff had originally been discussed by the council's finance and general purposes committee, although it was left to the September meeting of the full council to decide the level of cash incentive paid to employees as they moved from weekly to monthly pay.

Cllr Venner told the hearing panel that he was not a member of the committee and had seen none of the documents relating to the issue.

He said the agenda item merely alluded to changes to staff pay and he did not know until the debate got underway that it related only to the grounds maintenance team.

He denied being asked to leave the meeting but said: "I took the view at the meeting that it was a personal interest only."

Cllr Venner said he had got married four years ago and for the past three and a half years he had only ever declared a personal interest, despite sitting through budget meetings and similar discussions where staff wages may have been discussed.

He maintained he had never been challenged on his declarations previously.

The only time he had declared a prejudicial interest since his engagement and subsequent marriage was in relation to his wife, who had worked for the council.

Cllr Venner said friendships changed and since his marriage his relationship with Mr Knowlson had not been so close.

Cllr Venner said he accepted the ruling of the hearing panel.

"It was an honest mistake, but I accept it was a mistake," he said.