Greensburg Laurels & Lances
On the “Watch List”:
• Jeannette's fiscal plight. It's bad enough that city fathers in their disconnected wisdom allowed top police salaries to balloon over the years to well more than twice the city's median income of $30,575 while Jeannette's population dropped. Now unable to reach a contract settlement, the city and its police are headed toward arbitration, which Jeannette Solicitor Scott Avolio says could be a “budget crusher.” Especially when arbitration typically favors unions.
• Fayette's continuing airport authority mess. After the detail-bereft furlough of airport manager Mary Fast and the resignation of board member Terry Shallenberger, Fayette's two Democrat commissioners don't appear to be terribly concerned. They have announced a replacement for Mr. Shallenberger and trust that the authority's board will meet aviation requirements. But at least two board members have expressed worries about maintaining day-to-day operations of the Joseph A. Hardy/Connellsville Airport. This unfolding situation deserves more than an autopilot response.
Laurel: To Westmoreland County Sheriff Jon Held. With gun applications up dramatically in the county, along with residents' questions, Mr. Held conducted a public forum Wednesday to address residents' gun rights. Given the hyperbole from gun grabbers and their media acolytes, a calm, fact-based discussion about guns and citizens' Second Amendment rights is refreshing. And overdue.
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.