Center Township taxpayers would be doling out much less for governmental legal expenses if the township supervisors always would uphold the public's right to know.

All units of government should commit themselves to a culture of openness, or "transparency." Unfortunately, Center officials, at least on one front, have balked at such a policy, as a right-to-know case appealed to the state Supreme Court and an apparently related lawsuit filed last week in Butler County Court prove.

By seeking to protect legal-services information that should be available to the public, the supervisors have sent a troubling message to their constituents regarding their method of management of township operations and their stewardship over taxpayers' funds.

The supervisors should be seeking to protect every township dollar and, while there is no evidence that they have been routinely wasting money or making bad financial decisions, fighting for a "right to secrecy" in the courts at a cost of thousands of dollars — rather than merely opting for openness — falls short of that protective obligation.

In addition to demanding openness in terms of their own actions, the supervisors also should stipulate that those doing business with the township practice openness in regard to their township dealings.

If those who provide services don't like the openness edict, the supervisors should seek other service providers who will cooperate.

The case that could be headed to the Supreme Court, if the court decides to hear it, stems from a public records lawsuit filed by former Supervisor Beverly Schenck. Schenck is seeking unedited copies of solicitor invoices paid by the township.

The new lawsuit filed in Butler County Court stems from a letter written by township solicitor Michael Gallagher to a Pittsburgh lawyer who is representing the township in the Schenck public records case.

Units of government that opt for transparency incur fewer questions about their performance and are the focus of fewer suspicions about what might have prompted certain actions.

That doesn't mean their constituents agree with everything they do. But governmental transparency promotes informed, rational discussion regarding issues, rather than lawsuits and unwarranted suspicions.

There are generally accepted categories of information in the hands of government to which the public should not have access. Among them are employee personnel files, Social Security numbers, information dealing with ongoing contract negotiations, and documents concerning an ongoing investigation.

But Center's supervisors should stop condoning a practice whereby communication between the township's solicitor and the supervisors is kept off-limits to the public, especially if that communication has nothing to do with legitimately protected information.

Center Township residents have a right to know what their tax dollars are buying in terms of legal services, despite the Commonwealth Court's opinion in the Schenck case on Feb. 28 — that any and all descriptions of legal services in a solicitor's invoice to a public agency are not accessible to the public.

Under the state Right to Know Law, documents dealing with an agency's receipt or disbursement of funds are public records. Legal bills fall under that category.

The Center Township issue never would have had to go to court and, thus, the township could have saved a lot of money that it is spending to defend its position, if the supervisors simply had opted against secretiveness.

With Center residents' best tax-paying interests in mind, the supervisors should abandon their current stance.