Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
Laurel: To common sense. A ridiculous disorderly conduct charge has been dismissed against a South Fayette teenager who recorded his bulliers with his iPad. Local police filed the charge after being contacted by the school principal, who characterized the matter as a “wiretapping incident.” School administrators forced Christian Stanfield, 15, to erase the video. And, incredibly, Mr. Stanfield was convicted before a district judge. If heads don't roll, the injustice will be even greater.
Lance: To government incongruity. Former Allegheny County Airport Authority Board President Brad Penrod was forced out of his position for not getting the proverbial job done at Pittsburgh International Airport. Yet his cushy severance package notes that he was “let go through no fault of his own.” So, which is it?
On the “Watch List”:
• The H.J. Heinz Co. Corporations typically offer employee buyouts to reduce costs. But the newly private ketchup king has offered buyouts to all of its 775 employees in Pittsburgh, its headquarters town. Heinz says it's seeking a more motivated and productive workforce, not a smaller one, and will “backfill” every job vacated. Suh-LAPPP! And we'll believe it when we see it.
• Pittsburgh's land bank legislation. City Council adopted the much-debated ordinance that would create an authority to acquire and sell abandoned properties. And while it's a worthy idea on paper, proper implementation is key. That said, the enabling legislation falls short with no dedicated funding source. Placing the cart before the horse seldom ends up well, especially in government.
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.