Greensburg Tuesday takes
Shoddy treatment for a hero: Months after touching tributes followed a student's horrific stabbing spree at Franklin Regional High School comes word that security guard John Jay “Sarge” Resetar, 70, stabbed in the stomach while doing his job, is out of a job. His employer, Capital Asset Protection Inc., and Franklin Regional officials concluded in a letter that “going forward it is best for the school and Capital to relieve you of your duties … .” The details are few, but this deed is appalling.
Fair play: In keeping with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Greensburg will pay a sign interpreter up to $1,600 per season for a deaf boy to play soccer through the fall of 2016. This, to settle a federal lawsuit brought by a couple who accused the city of discriminating against their son. And what happens if the recreation program gets tapped for other special-needs requests under these laws to the point where it no longer can afford to sponsor youth sports — for any kids? That's the law of unintended consequences.
Fayette's $2 million prison romp: From the get-go, the proposed $32 million prison was doomed by public opposition and the vagaries of its plans. Now that those plans have been halted, and the board of commissioners' Democrat majority has burned through $2 million, perhaps a logical, realistic discussion can begin into Fayette's prison needs.
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.