Share This Page

Greensburg Tuesday takes

| Monday, July 28, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

Prothonotary's illogic: Fayette County Prothonotary Nina Frankhouser, under fire for restricting public access to protective court orders, based her decision, in part, on the advice of former solicitor Davis and Davis of Uniontown, where her husband is a partner. The firm resigned after the Trib questioned the legality. Mrs. Frankhouser defended the firm's appointment based on the so-called “de minimis” exception to the state Ethics Act, which dismisses conflicts of interest when a minimum amount of money is involved. The only de minimis consideration here is the reasoning behind these decisions.

Penn's pigpen: Penn Township has been thwarted in attempts to clean up a blighted private property. So, local leaders are suing the owners of the old farmhouse site on Frye Road. That's as it should be. But it shouldn't take more than a decade of neighbors' complaints before negligent property owners are compelled to clean up their mess.

A sick connection: The conviction of an Export man accused of using a charter school's wireless Internet to meet a “14-year-old girl” (actually a police officer) attests to the determined mindset of child predators, no matter how many get nabbed in similar stings. Theodore Mamel, 64, will serve up to two years in prison. His case is a reminder to parents of the sickness lurking on the Internet.

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.