Share This Page

Greensburg Tuesday takes

| Monday, Nov. 12, 2012, 8:52 p.m.

A redder Westmoreland: The days when voting in Westmoreland County meant simply pulling the old Democratic Party lever are over, as evidenced by last week's Republican romp. GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney claimed more than 60 percent of the county's vote while Democrat Barack Obama won in only seven municipalities. As well, all four of the county's incumbent Republican state lawmakers breezed to re-election. Like the antiquated voting-machine lever, the Democratic Party draw — locally, at least — just isn't what it used to be.

Prison protocol?: An investigation into rumors of sexual liaisons involving two Westmoreland County Prison inmates have led to sexual assault charges against former corrections officer Melissa Ann Boggs, 43, and Belinda Lee Sapanara, 38, an ex-nurse practitioner. The prison's zero-tolerance policy is clear. What isn't clear is how such intimate fraternizing occurred in the first place — and what's being done to prevent future interludes.

A closed book?: Unity residents have rejected a 0.25-mill property tax (totaling about $71,000) dedicated to library services and a bookmobile, provided by Adams Memorial Library in Latrobe. And supervisors say they won't vote to provide township funding (currently $50,000). At issue all along has been what Unity gets for its significant contribution. Instead of referendums and ultimatums, is it not worthwhile for supervisors and the library board to sit down together and discuss what would be fair, service-wise, and at what price?

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.