Share This Page

Greensburg Tuesday takes

| Monday, Feb. 25, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Safety net?: The case of an Indiana County couple charged in the drowning of their 13-month-old son — who was left unattended with two siblings in a tub — is unsettling. But no less disturbing is that for almost a year, Tonya and Wesley Thomas of White were on the radar of Indiana's Children and Youth Services because of caseworkers' “concerns” over the couple's supervision of their children. A closer look into those concerns and how they were handled is warranted.

Meeting lockout: Gov. Tom Corbett's office and officials from other state departments do themselves no favors by barring the public from what should have been an open meeting with state lawmakers and local officials on the June 30 closure of the state prison in Hempfield. Christopher Abruzzo, Mr. Corbett's deputy chief of staff, says the meeting was closed — the state's call — to allow for a “free and open dialogue.” Some of those shut out suggest there's an ulterior motive. Why needlessly add fuel to that fire?

A community's resolve: What started with a senseless arson that gutted a Latrobe playground last year has evolved into a communitywide rebuilding project involving companies, trade schools and colleges along with area residents. That level of public involvement may well cut the playground's initial $200,000 cost estimate in half, officials say. It also signals the community's intolerance for such mindless destruction.

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.