Valley Laurels & Lances
Lance: To Rich Fitzgerald. The Allegheny County chief executive continues to chide the rule of law. During his "town hall meeting" in Harmar on Wednesday on how to appeal the new assessments, Mr. Fitzgerald launched into a tirade against Judge R. Stanton Wettick, who ordered the reassessment after several courts affirmed the old system's unconstitutionality. Far worse, however, is that the ACE's incendiary remarks could incite violence against the judge. His attitude and grandstanding -- Fitzgerald childishly placed an empty chair on the stage with the judge's name on it -- is despicable. Judge Wettick should not pass up the chance to sanction Fitzgerald once and for all.
Lance: To Cheswick Council President Jonathan Skedel. "Loose cannon" is about the nicest term we've heard about the hot-tempered Skedel since he took office in January. Skedel needs to learn a little bit more about politics, especially the part about working with others to get things done. He tends to issue what sound like dictates, but which are mostly bluster since he needs others to accomplish his goals.
Laurel (with a caveat): To the Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County. Board members rejected a proposal to raise customers' quarterly surcharge from $1 to $5. Admittedly, a few dollars more won't break ratepayers. But customers first deserve to see what the water authority is doing to control expenses before reaching for more revenues.
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.