The new president of the Evans City Borough Council has gotten off on the wrong foot in terms of leading the borough government.

For the borough's sake, rather than for the benefit of the unproductive factionalism that is strangling the local government, Bill Painter, who was elected president on Jan. 5, needs to take a critical look at his first month of council leadership — and pledge to do much better.

His goal must be to end the divisiveness that has erupted; his goal must be a smooth working relationship with all council members, not just with those with whom he can forge a voting majority.

Evans City deserves better than what was evident at Monday's council meeting; Evans City residents should demand better.

One basic requirement of every governing body, elected or otherwise, is that all members know what is going on.

In at least one instance during the past month, that was not the case. And, when there is one blatant instance of secrecy employed by some council members — in that case with Painter a part of it — there are valid grounds for concern whether there might have been others — or whether others might be contemplated.

Meanwhile, there is the legitimate question of whether the secrecy violated the state's Sunshine Law.

The secrecy incident involved the exclusion of Councilwomen Cheri Deener and Charlene Lippincott from a private meeting with Seneca Valley School District officials on Jan. 5, at some point prior to that day's council's meeting at which the council ousted Deener from the council presidency.

The issue at that private meeting was elimination of a school crossing guard position — a position that is a part of the borough police department.

Beyond the reality that the two councilwomen were excluded, adding to the distaste of what occurred is that both councilwomen are members of the three-member police committee, a fact that warranted their attendance.

Regardless of his feelings toward Deener and Lippincott, Painter, if he had been exhibiting the attributes of a leader, albeit hours before his election, never would he have agreed to participate in the meeting with school district officials without the assurance that all council members were aware of the meeting and had been urged to attend.

Borough residents are justified in demanding to know the motivation behind that secrecy and, since he's now president, what other secrecy Painter might advocate.

If Painter isn't committed to open government and fair play, he shouldn't be serving in the leadership role.

Unfortunately, the meeting with school officials isn't the only source of friction involving the council. The council was wrong in excluding borough police Chief Joe McCombs from the crossing guard meeting, as it was in not having McCombs in attendance when the 2009 police department budget was being drawn up.

All considered, the council is on a dangerous path that no community should relish — one in which infighting dominates over addressing important borough business.

The observation of a borough resident in attendance at Monday evening's council session deserves immediate, thoughtful consideration by all council memebers.

Resident John Ross called for council peace and civility. Then, addressing Painter specifically, he said, "I hope you can bring harmony to this board and a sense of professionalism."

Painter, instead of calling Monday's unrest a "petty" disagreement, should acknowledge what it really is: a disgraceful way of carrying out the public's important business.