Published: Tuesday, Aug. 27, 2013, 12:48 p.m.
We're not sure what's worse — the Corbett administration's lack of timely diligence in vetting his new Education secretary, the secrecy surrounding that nominee's sacking or the naming of that pulled nominee's acting replacement.
OK, they're equally odoriferous.
Everybody's hiding behind the phrase “personnel matter” to describe the forced bye-bye of William Harner, the acting Department of Education boss since June 1 (after the similarly unexplained sacking of Ron Tomalis). But there are plenty of whispers about supposed inappropriate comments made when Mr. Harner was superintendent of a suburban Harrisburg school district. Mr. Harner says any allegations were found to be meritless.
But, shhhhhhhhh! Nobody in officialdom can talk about the sacking of a public official paid with public dollars? That's not acceptable. And it took the Corbett administration three months to even learn of the matter? Who's doing the vetting, Sleepy the dwarf?
Then there's the matter of Harner's acting replacement, Carolyn Dumaresq. She's been the executive deputy secretary at Education. But she also once served as executive director of the Pennsylvania State Education Association, the state's largest teachers union.
Hold the phone! Anybody stop to think about the inherent conflict here? Obviously not.
Yech! Yuk! Phew!
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.
- On regulatory ‘autopilot’: Anchors on the economy
- The Thursday wrap
- The Monsour monstrosity
- Nelson Mandela: The real legacy
- ObamaCare & minimum wages: A double whammy
- The Box
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Anti-fracking scandal: More junk ‘science’
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- PSERS time bomb: Tick, tick, tick, tick ...
- ‘China City’