When there is a change regarding an important official of a municipality, residents have a right to know as soon as possible, not weeks or months later.

Unfortunately, in violation of the principle of open government, Slippery Rock Borough Council chose to keep secret for more than a month the administrative leave imposed on police chief Terry Brown on Oct. 23.

On a 5-2 vote Tuesday evening, the council chose to fire Brown.

It was through a tip that the Butler Eagle learned on Nov. 30 that the police chief was in hot water with the council. Between Oct. 23 and Nov. 30, a number of council meetings were held, at which there was no mention of the chief’s situation.

At one point during the more than five weeks that the chief’s leave remained under wraps, a Butler Eagle reporter attempted to speak with the chief by telephone. He was told that the chief was “on vacation.”

There is no acceptable excuse for the secrecy over the leave, even though Brown chose not to have his situation aired at a public meeting.

That was his right. However, the council had an obligation to inform the community that Lt. Brian Hoak was now in charge of the police department because Brown was on leave.

It wouldn’t have been necessary to disclose to borough residents every detail of why Brown was not on active-duty status, but residents had the right to know at least that Brown was not working.

This secrecy having occurred, borough residents are justified in wondering what else is going on in Slippery Rock Borough government that the council also might be hiding.

Regarding Brown, what the Eagle has learned is that the leave and his subsequent firing stemmed from a firearms training incident on a firing range. Brown is a certified gun instructor.

During Tuesday’s meeting, the council said it would not air its opinion on Brown’s situation. But the community has grounds for being suspicious about whether the council might have overreacted — or reacted too hastily — to the firing range incident, since Brown’s firing did not occur by way of a unanimous vote. The 5-2 vote reveals that not all council members agreed on the seriousness of the incident.

The fact that Brown, a well-known and respected member of the county’s municipal police ranks, received support at Tuesday’s meeting from a number of police officers from throughout the county was no reason for the council not to do what it felt needed to be done.

Nevertheless, the council, while respecting Brown’s wishes, had the obligation to find a way to assure residents that its action was correct. That could have been done by providing some hint about the kind of situation with which the council was forced to deal.

Was someone’s life or well-being placed in danger?

Instead, the council opted to take the easy way out of a troubling and, presumably, embarrassing situation for the borough. Unfortunately, the council has ended up looking bad in the eyes of residents as a result of this example of behind-closed-doors governance.

The troubling fog of secrecy need not continue. The borough has a solicitor who is capable of helping the council draw up an explanation that protects Brown’s wishes but is consistent with open government.

The question now is whether the council will pursue that correct action or stick with government-by-secrecy.