Three of five candidates for a vacant Latrobe City Council seat addressed the board last week before members make a selection for the post.
The two-year vacancy developed when Mayor Rosie Wolford was elected in November.
Two former council members who lost re-election in the fall, Robert “Stuffy” Forish and Richard Jim, have applied for the seat, along with John “Jack” Murtha, Madalyn Smith and Eric Bartels.
Forish wants to use his four years of experience to help the city grow.
“We are not Hempfield Township. We are not Derry Township. We are not Unity Township,” he said. “We have us a little square mile here, 2.3 square miles. Our economic growth … is limited, and this is something that council has to work at.”
Bartels, a social studies teacher at Norwin High School, told council that he moved to the city with his wife, who grew up in Latrobe.
“Service is where my heart has been. It's the reason why I took the teaching jobs that I've taken,” he said. “I have a heart to serve. I try to serve this community where I can.”
Smith, a 25-year employee of the city's tax office, said she would use her experience to work with city offices and Latrobe residents.
“They have seemed to be able to tell me what they like and dislike about our town,” she said.
Council plans to appoint someone to fill the post during a meeting on Monday.
After the appointment, Wolford said, standing committees will be formed to report each month to the full council.
Stacey Federoff is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-836-6660 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
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.