Greensburg Laurels & Lances
Lance: To the wrong Monsour Medical Center solution. It's proposed that $1 million in state funding be secured for Jeannette, presumably to raze the condemned hospital and develop the former Jeannette Glass plant. That would require the county or state to take ownership of the deteriorating medical center. And the public should simply pay the tab for what's been dumped in its lap?
Why haven't the hospital's ex-administrators been called before officials to publicly account for what they abandoned? By what means did they achieve protective invisibility? This is no solution. It's a misbegotten surrender.
Lance: To reason-defying regulation. It's bad enough that the state Department of Environmental Protection wants to change the scope of a Hempfield flood-control project, boosting the tab by more than $2 million, to protect some spineless water species. But the aquatic habitats that the DEP demands likely would create breeding pools for mosquitoes. In matters environmental, the well-being of people comes first.
On the “Watch List”: Roadmaster reason. A $30,000 deal with Unity's supervisors settles their back overtime pay as roadmasters, but it brings up a far more significant issue. Namely, the administrative disconnect when township supervisors, elected to manage their municipality, also serve as employees eligible for lucrative overtime pay while effectively “supervising” themselves. “Roadmasters” had their place in an earlier era. It's time for Unity's supervisors to join the 21st century.
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.