Share This Page

Greensburg Laurels & Lances

| Thursday, Jan. 3, 2013, 9:01 p.m.

Lance: To the continuing Monsour merry-go-round. Jeannette's engineer says he's been unable to provide a detailed evaluation of the dilapidated Monsour Medical Center building because of lacking architectural drawings. But there are clear signs for concern, including loose siding that could fall onto Route 30. Enough's enough. The hospital's surviving board members and administrators must be brought to account for the intolerable mess they left behind.

On the “Watch List”:

• Jeannette officials. Back in November, city fathers touted an optimistic “balanced” budget. Now comes a report of a $250,000 deficit and the need to reopen the city's 2013 budget for some “minor adjustments.” All of which brings into question the city's fiscal wherewithal.

• Westmoreland's records and forensic center proposal. County officials suggest using a former waste-to-energy plant in Hempfield. But aside from the projected price tag — $800,000 — and how it would be paid, there's the equally important question of the county's return on this proposed investment. Specifically, what efficiencies and/or savings would this center provide?

Lance: To a sick prank. The person who's been using obituaries to call recently widowed women in Greensburg and tell them that he's holding a relative captive should be disconnected posthaste. Here's hoping public tips will lead to the caller. The miscreant should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and ordered to apologize to each woman he called.

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.