Top police candidate withdraws application in Carnegie
Carnegie police again are searching for an officer after a top candidate withdrew his application less than 24 hours after being offered employment.
Garret Lukacs withdrew his application Tuesday morning. Borough council voted Monday night to offer employment to Lukacs as a probationary officer, pending completion of physical and psychological exams.
Chief Jeffrey Kennedy said Lukacs revealed he was a top candidate in other departments that he would prefer over Carnegie.
Council Monday night also offered a position to Iraq veteran Cynthia Senkow, pending her physical and psychological exams. Kennedy said she is on track to complete the exams.
Kennedy said this sets the department back at least a month in bringing it back up to a 13-officer force.
“(Senkow) will be the only hire in February,” he said. “We can't get a background check or anything done for someone else that soon.”
Senkow has a bachelor's degree from Indiana University of Pennsylvania and graduated No. 1 in her class at the Allegheny County Police Academy. She will be sworn in next month.
The department must hire two officers in order to maintain its 13-officer force. The department had been down to 12 officers after then-Chief Jeffrey Harbin retired and then-Sgt. Jeff Kennedy took his place.
The department's second opening came after officer Timothy Clark left for a different department.
Megan Guza is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-388-5810 or email@example.com.
Add Megan Guza 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.