Joe Conti's deal: Yech!
We're not sure what's worse — Joe Conti's double-dipping or the Corbett administration's tacit approval of it. But no matter which one actually is more odoriferous, the yech!-factor looms large.
Mr. Conti — reading the writing on the wall that operations of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, for which he has been CEO, will be privatized (and also under an ethics cloud of suspicion) — will “retire” effective this Saturday. He originally said he'd leave on Feb. 15 but moved up his departure date after discussions with the board. Why? Who knows.
And in a sweetheart of an “emergency” deal, he'll be paid $80.16 an hour for up to 95 days this year to help the LCB in a number of matters. That's a nearly $61,000 premium. And that's on top of his handsome pension, the product of his LCB and legislative tenures.
You'll recall that the CEO's position is one that Gov. Tom Corbett criticized as unnecessary. Yet it was his Office of Administration that approved Mr. Conti's “emergency” return. Mr. Corbett's office defended the deal as a pro forma “ministerial-type function.” There's little that can be done to reject such a request, Corbett spokesman Kevin Harley said.
Really? How about just saying “NO!” because the double-dipping deal stinks, it deepens taxpayers' distrust of government and, for 95 days of work, is nearly $9,300 more than the median income that a Pennsylvania household earns in 365 days?
The Conti deal should be overturned.
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.
- A chilly reception
- Saving RadioShack: Innovation vs. focus
- The truth about the VA: Rank dereliction of duty
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- The medical device tax: An abject failure
- A misdialed number suggests a criminal conspiracy in the IRS scandal
- Saturday essay: Awaiting the peat
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- Education & entertainment