On Dec. 12, the Center Township board of supervisors voted to appeal the voters’ decision that the board go back to three supervisors from the current five. The same board voted to raise the property tax for 2012 to cover expenses.

Now our money is being spent to, in essence, sue ourselves.

Yes, it is the supervisors’ constitutional right to challenge the voters’ Election Day decision; I am sure they will state that numerous times in the weeks ahead. However, they should use their own money for the appeal, not our tax money. What about the rights of the tax-burdened residents?

I refused to sign the petition to go to a three-person board. However, after the actions of this board, I will be taking a stand to remind everyone which supervisors voted to spend taxpayer money to sue ourselves.

This past year has been really upsetting to me. I have been a proud resident of the township for more than 40 years. However, during this year, the supervisors chose to drag us through the mud in letters to the editor, news articles and radio interviews.

That is not what I entrusted them to do when I voted.

I want to make it clear that I never have met Beverly Schenck, a frequent critic of the supervisors. And, I am tired of people referring to anyone who disagrees with the supervisors her “cronies.”

Center Township residents have brains. We are capable of understanding what is going on.

The supervisors have commented on how much Schenck has cost the township by way of her legal challenges to township decisions. However, it is the supervisors who have cost township residents plenty by fighting her requests.

So now I am challenging the supervisors to publicize what it will be costing us residents to sue ourselves. Maybe Schenck and other township residents should sue this board for the decision to spend township money to challenge the election decision.

I am hoping township voters will not re-elect any of the supervisors who have voted to challenge the Nov. 6 election result.

I am asking Center residents who are unhappy with this example of frivolous spending by the supervisors to talk with friends, family members, neighbors and others about this current situation, and about the supervisors who voted to pursue the appeal. They are Ronald Flatt, Edward Latuska and Kenneth Frenchak.