People who make themselves available for elected and appointed public positions should not remain in those positions if, for whatever reason, they are unavailable for regular attendance at meetings.

While the necessity of missing a meeting on an infrequent basis often cannot be avoided, especially as a result of illness or unanticipated work responsibilities, regular absences oftentimes hinder a governmental or related body from getting its work done in a timely fashion.

If a person cannot offer his or her service on a regular basis, he or she should resign, paving the way for someone with more available time to carry out the duties of a position of responsibility.

With all of that in mind, it was therefore not out of line for the Saxonburg Borough Council to remove two members of the Saxonburg Area Authority for lack of meeting attendance.

Those ousted from their authority positions were Dick Oleyar and Frank Ballina, whose authority terms were scheduled to expire in December 2008 and December 2009, respectively.

But while the council wasn't wrong in its action, it could have exercised more courtesy, at least in Ballina's case.

Ballina said the council never had discussed the attendance issue prior to the removal vote, which occurred Dec. 19. He criticized the council for conducting the vote without warning him of the impending action — and for not immediately notifying him afterward.

He rightly labeled that as unprofessional.

The fact that some friction might have been associated with Ballina's authority service was not an acceptable excuse for failing to extend to him a notification courtesy.

"Council and the authority are looking for a 'yes' man," Ballina said. "Frank Ballina isn't a 'yes' man."

Ballina said his absences were due to needs associated with his start-up company, Belleville International, in Butler.

Meanwhile, Oleyar, who lives in Florida during the winter months, had told the council previously that someone else could be named to carry out his authority duties.

Rules governing the authority's operation state that authority members can be dismissed after missing three or more consecutive meetings. That is a fair rule.

But that rule should not be exercised in a way that smacks of motivations beyond the scope of attendance.

Even if attendance was the sole reason for Ballina's removal, people residing within the authority's service area are justified in wondering whether that really was the sole basis for the action.

If such an unfortunate action ever is required in the future, the council should consider all aspects of the pending action, as well as potential public perceptions, before actually going ahead with it.