ShareThis Page

Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances

| Thursday, March 28, 2013, 8:55 p.m.

Lance: To Rich Fitzgerald. The Allegheny County chief executive continues to defend his practice of extracting and keeping on file signed, undated resignation letters from authority board appointees. Mr. Fitzgerald says the letters ensure that appointees to what are supposed to be independent bodies will do his bidding. That's a stunning admission. If signing such letters is a term of authority service — and it's obvious that it is — it's a “public service” perversion that borders on extortion.

Laurel: To the Pittsburgh mayoral race. It took a much-needed step toward sanity this week when the city's firefighters and police unions and two other unions, in a rare show of unity, endorsed Jack Wagner for the Democrats' nomination in the May primary. Mr. Wagner is the former state auditor general and former president of Pittsburgh City Council. Make no mistake, the endorsements are a major blow — with a capital “B” — to the hopes of Councilman Bill Peduto, who fancied himself as the de facto front-runner when incumbent Mayor Luke Ravenstahl bowed out.

On the “Watch List”: The Pittsburgh Pirates open the 2013 season at home on Monday against the Chicago Cubs. The Bucs are hoping lightning strikes this year in pursuit of their first winning season in two decades. So break out all the cliches you can muster and hope for the best. But history offers a sobering lesson and Pirates fans should prepare to be disappointed for the 21st-consecutive year.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.