Published: Tuesday, Oct. 9, 2012, 9:05 p.m.
Any insinuation the Cheswick Councilors Jon Skedel or Vicki Roolf have done anything positive for the borough is preposterous (“Laurels & Lances,” Oct. 5). They've been a circus sideshow — acting inappropriately and lacking any understanding of Cheswick's government, finances and culture.
Before Skedel and Roolf came to help, this “sleepy” but safe and comfortable community was in solid financial condition. The council obtained reasonable loans, made timely municipal improvements and maintained good roads and parks.
It had an updated water system and was working with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to address the long-term water supply issue. Its police and fire departments were trusted and respected.
We had moderate property taxes and the council acted in a dignified way.
Now, our only problems are several council members. We're marked by their poor behavior, incorrect and misleading statements at meetings and an assault charge against Skedel.
This is not what Cheswick residents want. If waking up means banding together to protest this mess, then consider the community wide awake.
Joan C. Kristof
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.
- Christians must vote
- Legacy: All lose
- More overreach
- Delinquents often the working poor
- Regulate e-cigarettes
- Still get paid?
- Obits interesting
- CNG fueling sustainability
- Immigration a local issue
- Carnegie Free Library’s friends
- Values lost