The resignation letters: Fitz sees the light?
It's good that Allegheny County Chief Executive Rich Fitzgerald has abandoned his practice of demanding signed, undated resignation letters from appointees to county boards and authorities for use should those appointees not toe the ACE's line. But credit for this positive development goes to public and Allegheny County Council pressure that forced his hand — not to Mr. Fitzgerald.
He had to be pushed to correct this glaringly, grievously erroneous and autocratic practice, which made a mockery of the supposed independence of those county boards and authorities. Fitzgerald says he decided to change his ways after speaking with several council members — but in all likelihood, he did so only grudgingly.
Councilman John DeFazio, D-Shaler, says the letters issue was becoming a distraction for council's Appointment Review Committee. Councilwoman Heather Heidelbaugh, R-Mt. Lebanon, no doubt focused Democrat Fitz's thinking by criticizing the letters as illegal.
And the letters were something the county “could do without,” according to Charles Martoni, D-Swissvale, council president.
Fitzgerald says he'll destroy the resignation letters he has and won't require them from future appointees. That will blunt his my-way-or-the-highway approach to governance but won't end it, so the public, council members and sitting appointees can't rest easy.
The only way they could is if they had an undated resignation letter signed by Fitzgerald — which would be fit comeuppance indeed for him.
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.