ShareThis Page

Vote for Fawn's future

| Sunday, Nov. 5, 2017, 9:00 p.m.

Patricia Bryant's letter “Change not best for Fawn” shared some of the challenges that the current Fawn Township supervisors have accomplished. What was not asked is, will any of the new candidates seeking a seat on the board have the ability and willingness to address the issues of the day or the fortitude to make future decisions?

Fawn Township's current positive position is a direct result of a board that makes decisions based on facts, not on emotions. Avoiding issues and doing nothing is not a healthy choice for Fawn Township.

Please consider Chuck Venesky and Clifford Thompson for the future of Fawn Township.

David Montanari

Fawn

The writer is chairman of the Fawn Township supervisors.

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.