The Buffalo Township supervisors weren't wrong in conducting public interviews of candidates for a supervisor vacancy. A candidate - or, in this case, an applicant - for public office who will have to answer to the township's residents should be willing to express his or her views in public from the outset. That two of the four candidates who applied for the Buffalo vacancy withdrew their applications because of the public-interview requirement was unfortunate.

Supervisor Dan Przybylek defended the open-interview process used for the seat in question, pointing to the need for assertive leadership.

"Any candidate for the board of supervisors should have a passion to serve," he said.

Supervisor Marianne Hill didn't have a problem with the process, even though, she said, she didn't know about the public quizzing of the candidates until the night of the meeting.

"When you run for office, newspapers call you with questions and they want answers that night," she said. "They don't call a week ahead."

Candidates are entitled to their personal opinions about public interviews, but more municipalities ought to use them along with the traditional submitting of resumes.

If there is anything to be criticized about the process Buffalo Township used this time, it is the fact that the being-interviewed-in-public requirement wasn't made clear to prospective candidates from the get-go.

The board should keep that in mind for anytime a vacancy occurs in the future.