W. Carvel VanPutten has become the third Corporation of Hamilton councillor to resign in four months — claiming discrimination and describing a "private club" which is "falling down".

Alderman David Dunkley, meanwhile, has been told he is not eligible to serve, a decision he is appealing. The latest ructions at City Hall leave just two aldermen and two common councillors serving in Mayor Sutherland Madeiros' team.

Businessman Mr. VanPutten stepped down on Monday after he was invited to a meeting at City Hall. He told The Royal Gazette that members voted three to two against him being allowed to continue to serve due to his failure to attend meetings so he resigned.

The 61-year-old, who has served on the municipality for five years, told this newspaper: "I think there is discrimination that still goes on in our society and I think I'm sort of on the back line."

Mr. Madeiros last night replied he was deeply disappointed Mr. VanPutten felt discriminated against, adding that he would have liked him to remain a councillor but that his frequent absence had put undue pressure on other members.

Mr. VanPutten said that the 213-year-old Corporation appeared to be unravelling, after a string of internal rows and negative headlines this year.

"It's like a private club," he said. "I think it's falling down. Sometimes certain walls collapse when they get old."

Mr. VanPutten, a member of the Bermuda Industrial Union, was asked to leave a meeting earlier this year concerning whether the Corporation should recognise the BIU as representing its workers.

The common councillor, who owns a jewellery shop on Court Street and is a doorman at the Hamilton Princess, was affronted by the request as he did not think there was a conflict of interest. He has not attended a meeting since.

He said: "I didn't have a conflict of interest. I was there to represent the Corporation and the voters. I'm a member of the BIU and a member of the PLP.

"No one else has ever been told to get out of the meeting. We have Chamber of Commerce members in meetings."

Mr. VanPutten, founder of the North Hamilton Business Association, said he went to Monday's meeting after one of the aldermen asked him to attend to discuss a "certain person".

"When I got there, it wasn't a certain person, it was me," he said, adding that he had "mixed emotions" about leaving.

Mr. Madeiros said in a statement last night: "I am deeply disappointed that Carvel claims that he has been discriminated against.

"I would have liked him to remain as a member of the Corporation; however, as part of a member's responsibility, a councillor or alderman is obliged to attend meetings and assist in the running of the city. A member's frequent absence puts undue pressure and time constraints on the other members."

Mr. VanPutten's resignation comes a fortnight after Graeme Outerbridge resigned following a complaint about his eligibility to serve and four months after George Grundmuller stepped down for business reasons.

A by-election will have to be held for all three seats and possibly for Mr. Dunkley's alderman position, if his appeal is rejected.

He and Mr. Outerbridge were the subjects of a complaint made by alderman Bill Black earlier this year, who claimed they were not bona fide occupiers of the City of Hamilton.

An investigation was launched and lawyers consulted but Mr. Outerbridge resigned before the outcome was made public. On Monday evening, after repeated requests from this newspaper for her decision on the two men's eligibility to serve, Corporation Secretary Kelly Miller issued a brief statement through public relations firm Troncossi.

It said the investigation into Mr. Dunkley had been concluded, that he had been advised of Ms Miller's findings and was appealing. Last night, another Troncossi statement said Mr. Outerbridge had resigned before a final decision was given to him in writing, meaning an investigation into his eligibility became moot.

But other questions put to the Corporation and the Mayor remain unanswered, including how long it will take for a final determination to be made on Mr. Dunkley and whether he can act as alderman in the meantime.

The publicly funded Corporation, which is supposed to consist of a Mayor, three aldermen and five common councillors, has also not answered queries about whether Mr. Outerbridge was eligible to serve or whether he should have been allowed to stand as an election candidate in the first place.

The statement did say the Corporation will be able to continue making decisions despite its depleted numbers, with Mr. Madeiros adding: "It is incumbent upon all members to be properly registered. If there is any doubt regarding a member's registration, it needs to be rectified."

A source said: "This matter has been the focus of attention for the past six months and more. The two men were holding public office during that time even though serious questions were raised about their eligibility to hold office.

"It is time for the Corporation to make its findings public. This is a public issue and the truth can no longer be hidden."

The source said councillors cease to hold office if they fail to attend meetings for three months, according to the Municipalities Act 1923.

"It is most unfortunate that he (Mr. VanPutten) finally decided to attend a meeting at someone else's request, only to be told that he was no longer qualified to hold office," they said, adding that Mr. VanPutten should have been informed weeks ago that he faced losing his seat by not attending.

"I'm quite sure that Carvel would not have been aware of the rules, hence his situation."

Mr. Dunkley could not be contacted for comment.