Storm cleanup: Cooperation exemplified
When it rained, it poured — long and hard — on Armstrong County last week. Area firefighters answered more than 200 emergency calls.
In some cases, trees and downed wires blocked roads, as did rising water, making it difficult for emergency responders to reach residents in need of help
Once on the scene, crews often found that hours of work had to be done, such as pumping out basements, checking swamped homes for people, mustering boats, closing roads, etc. It was work in hot, humid weather.
Looking back on Aug. 28, we're impressed by just how well these fire companies worked together. There was no parochialism on these calls. Firefighters followed the chain of command. And their cooperative efforts produced results in short order.
In addition to the fine work by fire company volunteers, PennDOT sent out updates on road closings, county Emergency Management Agency officials and 911 dispatchers coordinated various efforts, and the local Red Cross and United Way got word out on where help could be found.
This was — and has been in the past — the best example of governmental cooperation in action. And it leaves us to wonder: Why don't municipal, county, state and federal leaders work better together? Not that they don't talk about it. The county planning office does, perhaps, the best job.
But if you ever see an elected leader from one town at the meetings of other elected bodies, let us know.
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.
- U.N. Watch: Another jaded ‘inquiry’
- The revolving door: Washington’s ‘gift’
- Expanding Medicaid: Gov.-elect Wolf embraces a false premise
- Sunday pops
- The Thursday wrap
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax