I have covered more than 2,500 municipal meetings during my 60-year journalistic career. This includes borough councils, city councils and township supervisors meetings and their subsidiary organizations.

During this extensive experience, I thought I had heard it all, but I was wrong.

This week, some members of Lansford Borough Council voted to exclude Mayor Michele Bartek from executive sessions.

First off, let me say that as a journalist I hate executive sessions. Too many municipalities and school boards use them routinely as a way to project a unanimous face to their constituents. They thrash out their disagreements behind closed doors, then in pubic it’s all lollipops and roses. That is not the intent of executive sessions. They should be used sparingly.

The Sunshine Law lists seven reasons for executive sessions - personnel matters, holding information, strategy and negotiations sessions for a collective bargaining agreement, considering the lease or purchase of property, consulting with an attorney about existing or pending litigation, discussing business which if discussed in public would lead to the disclosure of confidential information protected by law, discussing selected academic matters and discussing certain safety issues which if disclosed could be a threat to the public.

At some point, however, these matters do become public, and the elected officials are expected to cast an informed and intelligent public vote, so the executive session provides context and background.

There are 42 boroughs in Carbon and Schuylkill counties, all of them under a “weak” mayor-council form of government. Same goes for Walnutport in Northampton County and Slatington in Lehigh County.

Unlike in most cities, where the mayor has a lot more power and duties, the mayors in these smaller communities are in charge of public safety, most notably the police department, assuming there is one. They also break ties when council votes are split evenly, and they can veto council-passed legislation that they disapprove of, although council can override the veto with a two-thirds vote.

Lansford Council President Bruce Markovich told the Times News’ Chris Reber that since the mayor is not a member of council and has no vote there is no reason for her to be in an executive session.

I have never heard of a more idiotic justification for a wrongheaded action. That he was able to get three other members of council to go along with him is truly remarkable - and frightening.

Two council members, Martin Ditsky and Vice President Bob Silver, were against the measure, while Councilwoman Marie Ondrus was not at the meeting where this went down.

Markovich was quoted as saying that since the topic discussed at the executive session did not involve any area for which the mayor has jurisdiction there was no reason for her to be present.

The topic involved the soon-to-be vacant secretary-treasurer’s position brought about by the resignation of Jill Seigendall.

I suggest that Markovich be required to take a crash refresher course on the Borough Code, the enabling legislation passed by the General Assembly that gives boroughs their operating authority and marching orders.

Here is what the Borough Code says: “The mayor may attend any or all regular and special meetings of council and take part in the discussions of the council on matters pertaining to borough affairs, subject to any restrictions applicable to members of council contained in the rules of order or bylaws of the council.”

The borough’s mayors have veto power over any legislation passed by council, including personnel matters. To exclude the mayors from these background discussions on prospective candidates forces them to make decisions in a vacuum, or perhaps Markovich expects Lansford’s mayor to be a rubber stamp.

Markovich wants Bartek barred from all executive sessions in the future, too, so the borough’s solicitor, Robert Yurchak, has been asked to come up with the language to make this happen.

Obviously, these shenanigans signal something else more sinister going on here. Unfortunately, in smaller communities, especially as fewer candidates are willing to endure the stresses of serving the public, other candidates with axes to grind, petty scores to settle and other unsavory motives fill the void.

I am not questioning the motives of the warring factions in Lansford, but here is what I am saying: Almost to a person, when someone is asked why he or she is running for public office, the answer is to serve the community, to give back to my community, to improve my community.

I am asking the members of council and the mayor to do some soul-searching about what has motivated this mean-spirited action. The residents of your community have elected you to collaborate for their betterment and for the improvement of their borough. This exclusionary decision is quite the opposite of that noble and reasonable goal.

By Bruce Frassinelli | tneditor@tnonline.com

The foregoing opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editorial Board or Times News LLC.