Greensburg Tuesday takes
Easy come, easy go: A contractor's return to Jeannette of $65,000 in grant money for a recreation center that never was built should, by law, be repaid to the state. Not that Jeannette officials will miss the so-called “walking around money.” By all indications, they lost track of it for four years until questions arose about the rec center's “status.” Chalk up another case study in “economic development,” Harrisburg-style.
Still waiting: Greensburg Salem School District officials are still awaiting word from the state on the consequences (if any) of inflating six administrators' pensions. An audit uncovered the deal. Meanwhile, the district remains mum — for legal reasons, of course — on naming the top official(s) who reportedly ordered district employees to boost those administrators' salaries, even after the employees expressed reservations about doing so. We suppose district taxpayers left holding the bag will get the names of those who gave the order after those responsible have enough time to get their ducks scrubbed and lined up in a row.
Colorblind: In recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, the county's public works department planned to illuminate Westmoreland County's impressive courthouse dome in pink lights. A nice touch, certainly. But when workers initially installed fuchsia-colored films over the lights, what they got was the color that was picked: purple. Moral of the story: Don't ever let these guys paint your house.
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.