When a person considers running for public office, especially at the municipal level, it is rarely with the thought of enriching oneself. In the borough of Slatington, for example, a member of council makes about $1,900 a year; the council president gets an additional $600 for the extra duties and conducting the meeting. Obviously, the motivation must be something else.

Residents hope it is because candidates want to try to help improve their community, and, in a way, give back for the opportunities given to the candidate. I like the phrase "paying one's community rent."Regrettably, the motivation is not always positive. Sometimes it is a quest for power, or to get revenge or to try to reverse an ordinance enacted that affected the candidate and his or her family in an adverse way.We would also hope that candidates are committed to the concept of open government and public participation. Of course, there are state laws which mandate openness in government (The Sunshine Law), with some significant exceptions, but, for the most part, residents expect their elected leaders to be transparent, welcoming to ideas and suggestions and, above all, they want to be part of the governance process.After all, in a democracy, elected officials are representatives of the people and are placed in those positions to work in collaboration with the residents to improve and better the community.There have been several meetings this year where members of Slatington Borough Council and some members of the public have clashed over these principles. Accusations, intemperate language and other lapses of good judgment on the parts of officials and residents have turned these council meetings into the antithesis of what good government should be.While there are numerous contentious issues in the borough, gadfly Mel Gildner, who has been videotaping council meetings, has accused council member Joseph Wechsler of being appointed illegally to his council seat last fall. Gildner says Wechsler was not a registered voter at the time of his appointment, a requirement of the Borough Code.Lehigh County Registrar Timothy A. Benyo confirms that Wechsler was removed from the voting rolls in 2012 because he hadn't voted since the 2000 general election. According to Benyo, Wechsler registered to vote last December, several months after he had been appointed to council.At a recent council meeting, council member Jon Rinker was quoted as saying this in response to a critic who asked why residents could not speak at committee meetings: "How do we get any work done if we're going to have the whole community in our workshop meetings telling us what to do? It's bad enough this meeting (the regular borough council meeting) goes on with this kind of nonsense."If I were a resident of Slatington, I wouldn't feel that my comments or opinions would be encouraged or welcomed.Residents are given five minutes to comment at regular council meetings, but the policy is unevenly enforced, critics contend. The public cannot comment at committee meetings based on research done by solicitor Ed Healy, who concludes that council is not obliged to hear comments at these meetings.Several Sunshine Law experts I spoke to say Healy's interpretation is incorrect. Residents can not only attend committee meetings, but they should be given an opportunity to speak.Of course, implicit in this concept is the idea that residents should be civil in their comments.Ideally, here is the way government of, by and for the people should operate: Citizens collaboratively monitor their government; citizens detect issues and give their feedback to their elected officials, who encourage this exchange; issues are resolved.If officials and residents from Slatington take this playbook and run with it, there will be more effective government and a happier constituency.BRUCE FRASSINELLI |

tneditor@tnonline.com