New Dormont councilman says focus will be on unity
Dormont Borough Council on Monday selected longtime community leader and former mayoral candidate Jeffrey Fabus to fill the council seat vacated by Laurie Malka.
Council appointed Fabus, 52, to fill the rest of Malka's term by a 4-2 vote, with council members Eugene Barilla and John Maggio casting their votes for financial adviser Matt Hamilton.
Malka resigned Sept. 17, citing family issues.
“Mr. Fabus is our new victim. Congratulations,” said council President Willard McCartney.
A systems support analyst at UPMC and a resident of Dormont since 1972, Fabus has been a member of the Dormont Athletic Boosters Association since 1994 and is its vice president. He will fill the remainder of Malka's term, which expires in December 2013, and he said he intends to run for election to a full term.
Fabus often sat in the audience during some of council's most contentious meetings in the past couple of years. In that time, the majority of faces at the council dais have changed, making it important to continue council's movement toward more harmonious relations, he said.
Though he ran unsuccessfully for mayor against Tom Lloyd in 2002, Fabus said he had a great deal of respect for Lloyd and looked forward to working with him. Lloyd, 79, has said he won't run for re-election in November and may retire before his term is up at the end of December, but praised Fabus and Hamilton.
Former councilman Drew Lehman also applied for the seat but was not nominated. He noted that Fabus' brother-in-law is police Officer James Burke, who is pursuing a lawsuit against the borough for his demotion to sergeant when Lehman was on council.
Matthew Santoni is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-380-5625 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Add Matthew Santoni to your Google+ circles.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.