FOP backs newcomers for councils, sheriff, judge
Fraternal Order of Police Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1 announced on Friday its endorsements for Pittsburgh City Council and Allegheny County Council, sheriff and judge.
“We have firsthand knowledge of the character of these candidates because we work with them every day,” said FOP President Mike LaPorte. “We want to make sure that we're putting the right people into the job.
“The second prong of that is I think society looks toward us for endorsements because of that same reason.”
The FOP selected Franco “Dok” Harris, 33, of Downtown over incumbent City Councilman Daniel Lavelle, 35, of the Hill in District 6. Charles Hanlon, who chairs the endorsement committee, said Lavelle did not seek an endorsement.
The union also endorsed John Lee, 52, of Brookline over incumbent City Councilwoman Natalia Rudiak, 33, of Carrick for District 4.
City Councilwoman Theresa Kail-Smith, 53, of Westwood, who is running unopposed in District 2, got the FOP's backing.
Endorsed judge candidates include Mark Tranquilli, 45, of Upper St. Clair; Paul Cozza, 52, of Baldwin Township; Daniel Regan, 37, of the North Side; and Pat Connelly, 45, of Shadyside.
The police union endorsed incumbent Allegheny Councilman Jim Ellenbogen, 57, D-Banksville, and Ed Kress, 41, of Shaler, a Republican appointed to council to fill the unexpired term of Chuck McCullough.
Sheriff Bill Mullen, 66, of Banksville, who is running unopposed, also earned an endorsement.
Bob Bauder is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at 412-765-2312 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.