Election 2013: Some specifics, please
During each municipal election year we issue a challenge. And each time the response is nil.
As your neighbors seek your vote in the May 21 primary, we ask them to offer you one new, creative and constructive idea for reforming local government, be it at the school board, borough or township level.
We are looking for something that will energize your community. If it is truly a new idea — and newsworthy — we'll present it in a news story, contacting opposing candidates for their responses, of course.
For example: A candidate vows if elected to hold quarterly public meetings in which he or she solicits ideas to save money or to address problems, such as rundown housing, poor roads, park improvements, enhanced police protection, etc.
Recently, Kittanning Council failed miserably in two attempts to hire a police chief. But more notable was its inability to hold a productive conversation on the matter. Everyone went home mad.
Kittanning Council members are not alone in such consternation. Inability for productive dialogue seems increasingly common, but there are people who can do it. It's up to voters to select them.
Candidates running for local office need to be up front with the voters. Each has a reason for seeking office. The days of simply saying “to give something back to the community” are over.
Taxpayers deserve specifics.
Show commenting policy
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.