Election postmortem: Changing times
Some thoughts on this week's general municipal election:
News: The nearly 32 percent voter turnout is what passes for pretty good in such an election. Then the tallies show some races were decided by approximately 10 votes.
Take away: Somehow the elected and the political activists in our towns (you remember those) need to invigorate the public's involvement.
News: Two mayors, West Kittanning's newcomer Mayor-elect James W. Sobiski and re-elected Kittanning Mayor Kirk Atwood, won.
Take away: Both these guys are showing signs that they appreciate the leadership responsibilities of a mayor. Both want to work with their borough councils — for instance, Sobiski wants to explore a police-coverage contract with Kittanning and Atwood wants to re-examine spending priorities.
News: Two Rural Valley buddies were re-elected sheriff and coroner.
Take away: Sheriff Bill Rupert is a Democrat and Coroner Brian Myers is a Republican. Both bring a wealth of experience to the jobs, and party politics did not trip up voters.
News: Newcomers were elected in several towns.
Take away: One of three new faces picked for Ford City Council was top voter-getter Kathy Bartuccio, who decried the bickering among members at public meetings. The public is tired of this pettiness. Let the word go out in all our municipalities that better creativity and cooperation must rule in the future.
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.