SIR — I note that Cllrs Venner and Berry recently declared that they were "ashamed to be town council members" (Your Letters March 12).

And they seem very upset too that a resolution was passed in a council meeting that unfortunately neither attended.

Obviously I sympathise with them if the issue in question was important to those they represent, but presumably they had notice of the meeting?

Attending meetings is surely one of the duties of being a councillor, albeit one which may not always be convenient.

The two councillors can't really complain that, in their absence, the resolution was passed by the majority of the councillors who did bother to attend.

As for the resolution in question not being on the agenda, in my committee experience it's not unusual for important matters for discussion to arise after agendas are issued.

I'm sure that the council's standing orders, of which all councillors presumably receive a copy, allow for such an eventuality.

Thankfully, we live in a democracy where freedom of speech is a cherished right, but I wonder whether as councillors, the very public criticism they have made of the mayor and the town council might risk Cllrs Venner and Berry potentially falling foul of the very act with which they make free, namely Article 8 of the Human Rights Act?

At the very least, as currently serving councillors, they may run the risk of being accused of "bringing the town council into disrepute".

Finally, regarding the potentially "expensive legal action" which may be brought by Cllr Seale and Dr Malin, and to which Cllrs Venner and Berry refer in their letter, I wonder if it might be advisable for no further public mention to be made of the matter, in case it prejuduces the legal process.

Besides which, like me, many people believe that the issue was independently and fairly resolved after the recent judgement by West Somerset District Council's standards committee.

P Davies,

Queens Road,