High drama is unfolding in the little borough of Chicora. It’s a tale of political intrigue that interweaves threads of justice and freedom and the love of fresh duck eggs.

But mostly the debate is about plain, unscrambled truth.

And the truth is this: truth has been worn down by wave upon wave of relativist thinking. We have become conditioned as a society to regard truth as a relative thing, like beauty. It’s a matter of personal preference. Truth, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder, not really something you can define or measure or simply “know” as truthful.

No longer is there such a thing as universal or absolute truth upon which we all can agree.

Consequently, we stick to the facts. We frame our case in fact. Court cases are built on facts. Fact is not the same as truth. You shouldn’t be able to debate facts, although it’s a proven fact that climate science and baseball’s sabermetrics have already begun to poke holes in this brand-new rubric.

Examine the facts in the Chicora case:

On Aug. 13, Chicora resident Susan Callender attempted to video record a council meeting. Vice President James Turner asked Callender what she was doing and said she could not record him without his permission. Callender disagreed. She said she had the legal right to record a public meeting and had no intention to stop. Turner responded by making a motion to adjourn, received a second and majority vote. Meeting over.

Wait, there are a few more facts in this political omelet.

Callender raises ducks on a vacant lot behind her property. A borough ordinance prohibits “any pig, chicken, horse, pony, mule, sheep, goat, cow, donkey, alpaca, llama, or nondomestic animal at any place within the Borough of Chicora.” The ordinance does not mention fowl or, specifically, ducks.

Callender and her husband were cited Feb. 27, Feb. 28 and March 1 for violating the animal nuisance ordinance. They faced fines of $3,000 each. They went to county court and were found not-guilty.

These documented facts lead to some fact-based conclusions:

- The borough overstepped the authority of its own ordinance when it cited the Callenders for keeping ducks on their property.

- Council members did not violate any laws when they adjourned the meeting. Solicitor Andrew Menchyk, who was not in attendance, explained later that Callender’s video camera startled council and prompted the adjournment.

- Callender did not violate any laws when she recorded the council meeting. Such actions are perfectly allowable under the state Sunshine Act. However, council can impose reasonable restrictions to prevent interruptions — but this must be done as policy, not as a random, case-by-case act.

Call us old-fashioned, but we’ll pose a few observations that we hope turn out to be truthful by somebody’s measure:

First, who can blame the Callenders for playing watchdog, video recording council after they slapped with fines and citations for raising ducks?

Second, who can blame council members for being wary after a judge ruled the Callenders were not guilty?

Finally, who wants to wager the solicitor will be in attendance — or at least on speed-dial stand-by — for the next council meeting, when Callender says she’ll be back with a video camera and an even better microphone?

They’re all good eggs in Chicora. If ducks in the back yard are the most debated issue, then the little borough is blessed indeed.

However, if ducks could vote, Chicora might have a new member of council someday soon.