Budget wrangling: More though, less politics
It is an annual ritual in many municipalities — politicking over budgets. Ford City just happened to be the latest on Monday night.
Mayor Marc Mantini had vetoed the ordinance that raises real estate taxes 9 percent to fund the 2013 budget. Council then voted 4-2 in a failed attempt to overturn the veto and keep things going. After the vote, no serious discussion ensued on what to do next.
Mantini, who was out of town Monday, had told council in a letter that he vetoed the tax ordinance because he didn't want to further burden already financially beleaguered property owners. In the course of the council's vote, councilmen Jerry Miklos and Gene Banks both said more spending cuts could be found.
As for those hurting taxpayers, what are they left to think?
Not much, since councils — again, Ford City being the latest but not the only one — don't really openly debate their budgets.
If there are cuts, why didn't council members list them? Are there areas in which combining efforts with neighboring towns might provide efficiencies?
It was 14 days into the new year, and Councilman Miklos told the public there was no need for the tax increase if there's “sound fiscal management.”
We look forward to Mayor Mantini and council members Miklos and Banks offering for discussion a specific list of ways they will reduce expenses in 2013 and maybe provide a funding surplus by year's end.
If taxpayers are aggrieved, they might show up and demand it.
Show commenting policy
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.
- The visa flap: A prevailing stench
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- The student-loan balloon
- Kittanning Council conundrum: Why disband authority?
- Saturday essay: Anatomy of a backache
- The Connellsville WCVI building: Another fine mess
- Mon-Yough Laurels & Lances
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Silencing whistle-blowers
- The Thursday wrap