Greensburg Laurels & Lances
Laurel: To all assisting in the resumption of classes this week at Franklin Regional Senior High School. After a student's horrific stabbing rampage, the difficult task of restoring normalcy, and a sense of security, began with special sessions at the campus — and lots of community support. Here's to moving forward.
Lance: To the Rullo deal. After months of wrangling over an employment dispute with administrator Lisa Rullo, Greensburg Salem school directors agreed to pay her $193,000 to make the matter go away — regardless of citing specific reasons for why the district wanted to demote her. Was the district's case against Ms. Rullo so weak, or ill conceived, that a fat bolus of cash was the only resolution? And what happens, in this district or others, if another staffer or administrator up for demotion or discipline envisions a similar payday? This is the sorry price paid when the tail wags the dog.
On the “Watch List”: Unity-Latrobe relations. The township is pulling out of a joint recreation commission with Latrobe. A snit over funding for Adams Memorial Library in Latrobe turned into a donnybrook. And now Unity is miffed because it didn't have much “correspondence” with Latrobe over putting a resource officer (a police officer) in the Greater Latrobe School District, which serves Unity? This new low in communications between neighbors requires less finger-pointing by municipal leaders and more willingness to sit down and clear the air.
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.