Zelienople Borough Council should discuss public business in public, not in executive session. The council was wrong Monday in molding its strategy on compliance with a state Department of Environmental Protection order in closed session.

This was not about a sensitive personnel issue or a review of the status of contract negotiations - the kinds of business for which the state's Sunshine Law does allow closed sessions. Instead, it was discussion of the condition of a borough water source and how that source is and has been maintained.

Discussion of such topics should take place in the open, not behind closed doors.

By not adhering to the spirit of the Sunshine Law, council members have evoked the appropriate questions, "What are they trying to hide?" and "What don't they want DEP to know?"

Those questions are based on good logic, considering that the water source at issue - an earthen dam adjacent to one of the borough's reservoirs - is losing about five gallons per minute.

That's about 300 gallons an hour, 7,200 gallons a day, and 2.6 million gallons a year - significant quantities that the tone of the council's public discussion on Monday seemed to ignore.

Likewise, the tone of the council's discussion seemed to attach no basis for concern to the DEP's contention that an inspection last June revealed "significant deterioration" in the dam, compared with what DEP found when it conducted a similar inspection in May 2001.

A comment about the borough's three reservoirs by borough manager Marla Marcinko - that "conditions have remained stable for the last 80 years" - is not reassuring when the council must meet in secret to decide how it will vote in open session in regard to what the state agency is demanding.

In addition to being under order to address the loss of water, the borough is being directed to rid the dam of excess overgrown vegetation and correct the steepness of an embankment.

As of Monday, the borough had 210 days to submit a preliminary compliance plan to the state. The borough's plan of action must be approved by the DEP before construction can get under way.

Concern was expressed Monday that if the council opted not to repair the dam, DEP could force compliance by way of a plan and timetable that would not be to the municipality's liking.

That's a good point.

There is nothing wrong with the borough trying to find the least-costly solution to the problems, as long as the problems gets fixed. DEP should cooperate with the community in that regard.

But the public should be kept informed about the progress - or lack of progress - toward that end by way of open discussion that isn't prefaced by an executive session.

Rightly or wrongly, Monday's closed session cast a troubling reflection on the borough's maintenance of an asset so important.

The council shouldn't repeat that secrecy error, even if open discussion sheds light on uncomplimentary details that the borough would have preferred be kept out of the spotlight.

- J.R.K.