When an elected official takes a stand on an issue, he or she should be willing to publicly defend that stance, if asked to do so, and accept comments and questions from constituents dealing with that position.

An elected official also should be willing to answer questions posed by the news media, whose role it is to keep the public informed. While answering the media's questions isn't mandatory, refusal to do so limits the flow of valuable information and varying perspectives to the people.

At re-election time, incumbents seek out the media so they can boast about their purported accomplishments. They should be equally open to reasonable media inquiries at times when campaigning is not in progress.

Such a general understanding applies to elected officials in all segments of government, even the Pennsylvania General Assembly. That understanding should not be cast aside amid controversial issues.

Apparently, state Sen. Mary Jo White, R-21st, has an opinion differing from that generally accepted premise, especially as it applies to the release of toxic mercury by the state's coal-fired power plants. She did not return three telephone calls by the Butler Eagle to her offices in regard to questions about her mercury stance.

Mercury is a neurotoxin that builds up in the food chain after it is released into the air when coal is burned. Fish are the primary way that humans are exposed to mercury, and those most vulnerable include pregnant women and young children.

White, who is chairperson of the Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, joined with two other lawmakers last month in opposing state Department of Environmental Protection adoption of regulations requiring a 90 percent reduction in mercury released by such power plants - a rule similar to one already in place in New Jersey. A July 27 letter to Kathleen A. McGinty, chairperson of the state Environmental Quality Board, signed by White; William F. Adolph Jr., chairman of the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee; and Raphael J. Musto, Democratic chairman of White's Senate committee, said, "While we agree that mercury is a serious pollutant that needs to be addressed, there is an overriding concern of pursuing individual state action on a pollutant that is a national and even global problem."

The letter, which contends that the proper place for debate on the issue is within the General Assembly and not through the regulatory process, says, "Whatever mercury control strategy is adopted, it will have broad energy and economic implications for Pennsylvania."

Among those on the other side of the issue are Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture) and the Pennsylvania State Nurses Association, Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, Sierra Club Pennsylvania Chapter, and Pennsylvania Council of Churches.

PennFuture, which launched the campaign to regulate mercury from the power plants in question, is among those asking McGinty to disregard the lawmakers' letter.

"It would be unconscionable for DEP to stop working on regulations to control mercury pollution, given the public health problems that this toxic substance causes, and it is astonishing that any politician would ask DEP to do so," said Jan Jarrett, PennFuture vice president.

"We are facing a major public health problem, with one in six women having enough mercury in their bodies to place their fetus or nursing infant at risk for brain damage," said Michele P. Campbell, executive administrator of the state nurses group.

"With fish advisories for mercury across the entire state warning Pennsylvanians to eat no more than one meal (one-half pound) per week of sport fish caught in the state's waterways, the fishing industry is at risk of losing tourism dollars," said Melody Zullinger, state Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs executive director.

Meanwhile, the three lawmakers' letter says U.S. utilities contribute only about 2 percent of global mercury emissions, "raising serious questions over whether even U.S. residents - let alone Pennsylvanians - would be the recipients of the benefits of a more-stringent state-specific mercury emission standard.

Jarrett counters that "studies show that Pennsylvania's coal-fired power plants produce 83 percent of the mercury released into our state's air, and Pennsylvania has the nation's third-highest level of mercury pollution in the country."

The issue isn't going to go away soon, not only in Pennsylvania but from a national perspective. In May, DEP joined in litigation with 10 other states against the federal Environmental Protection Agency over its final mercury-reduction rule, and that litigation remains unresolved. The point behind the litigation is that the federal rule is not strong enough and will not protect the public health.

The three commonwealth lawmakers assert that it is Pennsylvania's policy not to adopt air quality standards that are more stringent than applicable federal standards except in limited circumstances. However, groups opposing the lawmakers' position point out that four of the top-eight mercury-emitting power plants in the United States are in Pennsylvania.

On Tuesday, DEP is scheduled to go to the Environmental Quality Board and recommend that the agency move forward regarding new mercury standards for this state. It's troubling that on an issue so important and, obviously, controversial, White, in her important position, refuses to provide further insight on the issue to a newspaper that serves a large part of her senatorial district.

Her attitude is reminiscent of how the state's lawmakers hide behind the veil of overnight sessions in approving controversial pay increases and new or higher taxes.