Employee firing irks Baldwin councilman
A Baldwin Borough councilman wasn't shy when it came to expressing his dismay with his colleagues' decision to support the borough manager's termination of an employee.
John “Butch” Ferris abruptly left last week's Baldwin Borough Council meeting after council members, in a 4-1 vote, approved a motion to ratify the borough manager's actions in October, including, but not limited to, all personnel terminations.
Council President David Depretis and Councilman John Conley were absent. Ferris was the lone dissenter.
“This is the most despicable council/group, (bar none) in the Borough of Baldwin's history since 1952,” Ferris said as he walked toward the rear door of the municipal auditorium where the council meeting was being held.
Borough solicitor Stanley Lederman declined to comment on the termination saying it was a personnel matter. Lederman would not say who was terminated, only noting that it was one employee who was let go in October. Borough Manager John Barrett also declined to comment.
Ferris confirmed that public works foreman Harold Barrowman was the employee who was terminated. Barrowman could not be reached for comment.
Ferris, this week, said he is not happy with the way municipal officials handled the situation.
“I don't condone what happened,” said Ferris, who also said he was upset with “how the decision was arrived at” by his colleagues.
Other councilmen said they didn't necessarily support the termination, but just voted “yes” to back the borough manager.
“My ‘yes' vote was just affirming that I support the borough manager in his action,” Councilman Ed Moeller said.
Stephanie Hacke is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-388-5818 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
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.