Greensburg Tuesday takes
It's showtime!: Some Greensburg Salem School Board members are aghast — or so they say — that the base salaries of six administrators were inflated to boost their retirement benefits, according to a state audit. And, yes, it is appalling that district staffers reportedly raised concerns over this practice, even pointed out the state rules, but nevertheless were ordered by “administrators” to comply. Yet despite board members' “concerns,” no one's saying who supposedly gave the order to pump up the pensions. It took a Right to Know request from the Trib just to pry loose the names of the administrators who benefited.
Better management: Ligonier Township supervisors are looking into the possibility of bringing aboard a municipal manager after an audit revealed the “unofficial” Internet pursuits of a former supervisor, who has since resigned, and an ex-interim secretary-treasurer, fired for allegedly running an “Internet flea market” on her office computer. Given these embarrassments, consideration of professional management would be a prudent step.
All aboard?: A program being touted as a “safety blitz” this October in West Newton, in cooperation with CSX Corp., is aimed at increasing residents' awareness of the dangers around the rails and at railroad crossings. Especially for folks who live near tracks and get accustomed to trains, a safety refresher is a good idea. Just as it would be in other locales, where blaring train whistles too often have signaled tragedies.
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.