Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
Lance: To the Baldwin-Whitehall school board. It's hiring resigning director Martin Schmotzer to a cushy five-year deal worth at least $600,000. His job, in part — supervisor of projects for the school directors — is a one-of-a-kind position in all of Pennsylvania. The job was not advertised, there was no interview process and the hiring was not on the board's agenda. It's a sweet deal for Mr. Schmotzer but a sour one for taxpayers and transparency. Featherbedding for one of its own never smelled so bad.
On the “Watch List”: The August Wilson Center. The fate of Pittsburgh's insolvent black cultural complex now is in the hands of retired U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Judith K. Fitzgerald. She's been appointed as the Uptown facility's overseer. Her first task is to prepare a cogent business plan that will attract benefactors. That could be a tall order given the center's poor operations record. But we do wish Judge Fitzgerald every success.
Lance: To Mt. Lebanon. It continues to dither over its exploding deer population. By one estimate there are nearly 80 deer per square mile. But instead of culling the very large herd, once again rutting, it will spend nearly $12,000 for a second aerial survey in as many years and to educate residents on how to deal with deer and avoid car accidents. But as it dithers and as it employs half-measures, it increases its legal liability for refusing to address a growing public safety threat.
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.