Greensburg Laurels & Lances
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Thursday, Sept. 19, 2013, 8:55 p.m.
Lance: To Greensburg Salem's “naming names” game. Supposedly legal issues have held up identification of the district senior administrators who reportedly demanded that staffers inflate six former officials' salaries to boost their retirement benefits. This, according to a state Auditor General Office report, which showed nearly $141,000 in overpayments. Amid all the district's excuses and hemming and hawing, taxpayers are being treated as a third party when, in fact, they're the ones smacked by this public shafting.
Lance: To the lunkhead who stole a 1925 high school basketball championship ring from its display case at Uniontown Public Library. News of the ring's theft spread quickly throughout the city, making unloading it a tad difficult. Hot? This ring is nuclear. It will go easier on the thief if he simply returns it.
Laurel: To Norwin's energy-wise policies. Simply switching off lights and shutting down copying machines on weekends have saved the school district more than $500,000, cutting its energy bill by 22 percent. Such success should provide “illumination” for all school districts.
Laurel: To Excela Health's ambulatory care center plans in Unity. Before the three-story facility is built, Excela will first build two access roads at what's become a Route 30 bottleneck. Keeping construction vehicles out of an already congested corridor will be a big plus.
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.
- Liquor privatization: Now’s the time
- Keystone caper: Pipeline politics
- Saturday essay: Resurrection
- Easter 2014: Churches’ vital role
- All taken seriously