Share This Page

Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances

| Thursday, May 9, 2013, 8:55 p.m.

Lance: To obligation failure. Amy Poydence and Pat Zelonka were elected to Apollo Council in 2011 with police Chief Paul Breznican. What a waste of votes. Breznican never was seated on council and now is headed to jail for stealing from the borough. Poydence and Zelonka basically filled chairs for a year and now they're not even doing that — they can't be bothered to show up for meetings. Thank God this pair isn't seeking re-election.

Laurel: To Carol Schrock. When Schrock heard gunfire outside her New Kensington home Monday afternoon, she ran — to the aid of a wounded man. Schrock, who will graduate from Citizens School of Nursing next month, may have saved the life of Jordan Jefferson, 18, after he was wounded in a drive-by shooting along Kenneth Avenue.

On the “Watch List”: The UPMC threat. State Auditor General Eugene DePasquale says he'll audit the health giant if it doesn't allow Highmark insurance customers access to UPMC services after 2014. Access is in doubt because of the long-running Highmark-UPMC dispute over the former's takeover of the Allegheny Health Network. Mr. DePasquale has auditing power because of the substantial public subsidies given to UPMC. The bottom line is that any insurance should be accepted anywhere.

An observation: The Greensburg Catholic Diocese closing two parishes is only the tip of a much larger issue. The number of active priests in the diocese is down from 101 in 2000 to 67 today — and 40 of those are 60 or older.

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.