Former borough manager says Munhall councilman misspoke
Former Munhall manager Matt Galla said he can prove council members lied about his status as a bonded employee at an emergency meeting.
On Saturday, Galla released his first public statement since abruptly resigning from the post last June, answering critics, including Mayor Raymond Bodnar and several council members, who have blamed him for the borough's dire financial state.
On Monday, he emailed another press release to The Daily News to correct a misstatement he says was made by Councilman Rob Falce in answer to a constituent's question.
“Even when (certain council members) are trying to crucify me and paint me the villain, they can't even be honest with their constituents,” he said.
Galla said he watched video of the council meeting and caught Falce in a lie when a resident asked if the former manager had signed a continuous public official bond to insure against any potential losses to the borough because of misconduct.
“He was advised to be bonded,” Falce said. “It was (accounted for) in the budget, the money was there and it wasn't used to get bonded. Did we double-check it? We did not.”
However, Galla forwarded an unsigned copy of a $35,000 bond dated June 21, 2011 — about six months after he was appointed manager. Much of the information on the document, including the insurance company that issued the bond, was redacted by Galla to protect his personal information.
“They claimed in earnest that I did not have one and that I lied to them,” said Galla. “What do they say now? They have just demonstrated in a public meeting that they can't be honest.”
Falce said he couldn't comment until he sees a copy of the document.
Tim Karan is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-664-9161 ext. 1970, 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 â 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.