Share This Page

Greensburg Laurels & Lances

| Thursday, April 11, 2013, 8:55 p.m.

Lance: To easy (public) money. In the case of the Murrysville couple accused of bilking a former Westmoreland County agency out of $200,000 in mental health money, the alleged thievery isn't as disturbing as the ease with which it was perpetuated. Steven and Tammy Manns allegedly submitted false time sheets that inflated the amount of money owed them. And once again, it's government's pathetic lack of due diligence that puts the “ease” in easy money.

On the “Watch List”:

• Jeannette Senior High School. As if the cash-strapped city doesn't have enough troubles, now comes an academic one: If the high school fails to meet certain goals within a year, it could trigger the state's intervention. One option for parents is Pennsylvania's Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit program, which provides tuition to some low- and moderate-income students to attend nonpublic schools. At least that's a recourse. Jeannette taxpayers awaiting a plan to stem the city's fiscal hemorrhaging have yet to see one.

• The Excela-Post Acute Medical LLC face-off. Plans by the latter to open a 40-bed rehab hospital in Unity has touched off considerable criticism from Excela, which is planning to build an outpatient center in the township. Excela says it intends to meet the competition head-on. That's fine. But why then suggest that a competing facility threatens the jobs of 70 Excela employees and would drive up health care costs? Projecting doom and gloom doesn't exactly convey confidence and strength.

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.