An article published in the Mirror’s Jan. 12 edition began with two paragraphs that are deserving of elaboration. First, the paragraphs in question:

— “In December, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision ruled that with a majority vote, government entities could add anything to a meeting agenda without first offering public notice.”

— “It’s a loophole created by what legislators say was a poorly written exception within the state’s 2021 Sunshine Act, a law intended to promote transparency in government.”

Lawmakers, whether they be state or federal legislators, deserve criticism for voting on legislation that they haven’t read carefully and completely, that they don’t understand fully, or if they allow the faulty perception of other lawmakers guide their decision on which way to vote.

Actually, it also can be said that they should not allow themselves to be pawns of leadership, but anyone who follows politics knows that “pawn-making” goes on all the time in state legislatures and in Congress. That’s the reason why the results of so many important votes are “party line” decisions.

It’s safe to say that some lawmakers in both of the major parties harbor different opinions than the way they ultimately vote on whatever is on the agenda, but keeping in the good graces of their leadership or the executive branches, if they are of the same political party, remains the guiding priority by which they abide.

Forget what they might have said on the campaign trail to the contrary of that reality. The actual realities of legislative service, party loyalty and obedience to leadership dictate otherwise, or there will be a negative price to pay, despite one’s good intentions and well-meaning promises and goals that resulted in their election.

Regardless of all that, going back to the Sunshine Law issue that deserves to be a source of red faces in the halls of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, it is troubling that apparently no lawmaker displayed, by way of careful consideration and attention, expertise in realizing that something was seriously wrong with that “poorly written exception” — that there probably would be a problem if that exception were put to a test before an appeals court.

Thus, if it “passed the test” of leadership, it was right to deliver a resounding “Yes,” and that’s exactly what happened. The 2021 law containing the problem provision received unanimous bipartisan approval in both the state House of Representatives and the Senate.

Unfortunately, now the problem with the provision has been exposed, as well as lawmakers’ inadequate, flawed consideration of what was presented to them for their approval.

Now, instead of Pennsylvania government agencies being required to make meeting agendas public at least 24 hours in advance, “thanks” to the Supreme Court’s ruling, that requirement “is out the window” and the public’s best interest is the loser.

Who knows what has been “slipped through the cracks” without public knowledge, or what might be in the future, if the problem provision isn’t corrected quickly.

Fortunately, two lawmakers have stepped forward to try to do that. They are Republican Rep. Brad Roae of Meadville and Democratic Rep. Robert Freeman of Easton, both of whom have circulated memos signaling their intent to correct the loophole by way of clarifying legislation.

But as the Jan. 12 article pointed out to Mirror readers, until such approved legislation is forthcoming, the Supreme Court’s ruling remains the law of the land, and that’s very troubling.