Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
Lance: To the New Kensington Council and the city's municipal authority. It's obvious the city doesn't want to sell the authority, yet city fathers don't want to state why. That appears to be the reason the city continues to hide behind an interpretation of a state law that was narrowly written specifically to block the sale of a city authority in Eastern Pennsylvania. Is the Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County's $32 million offer to buy the authority a good deal? We don't know and neither does New Ken, which should do some due diligence and find out what the authority is worth.
Lance: To the Springdale Council. The council is getting on Mayor Eileen Miller and police Chief Joe Naviglia because they won't provide members with a copy of the police work schedule. Simply from an officer-safety standpoint, the fewer people who know the schedule, the better. From a practical standpoint, cops don't want council members bothering them at work. We'd also refer the council to the Pennsylvania borough code, which states the mayor oversees the police department, not the council.
On the “Watch List”: Apollo's government: The borough may end up permanently on the list with its ongoing problems. Now Mayor Rich Dixon has resigned, just weeks after Councilwoman Debbie Schrecengost quit. Dixon's heart didn't seem to be into the job, so maybe it's best he left. But who is going to run Apollo? That's four resignations in a year and there's no line of people willing to step up and crawl into this hornet's nest.
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.