No Cheswick problems
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Friday, Jan. 18, 2013, 9:14 p.m.
No Cheswick problems
In response to residents' questions at its November meeting, the Cheswick Council acknowledged the “problems” it claimed were created by previous councils were not problems after all.
Our council now realizes that Cheswick Borough is not bankrupt, nor does it have a $2.5 million debt problem, as some councilors had insisted. The claim that the borough's books hadn't been audited from 2009 through 2011 was abruptly squelched when a local resident produced the 2010 audit report. This obviously surprised the councilors. Also revealed was that there is not $88,000 missing, as this council had insinuated.
Adding to the insult, the council also admitted it had recently discovered the borough had not submitted a permit application for the proposed new water plant. This came after residents were told repeatedly for almost a year that a permit application had been submitted, but no response had been received from the state Department of Environmental Protection.
You can't make this stuff up. Fortunately, our previous councils governed quietly with consideration and forethought.
Marie Elise DeSantis
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.
- What to give Ukraine
- Where to cut
- Apathy’s cause
- Finally, funds to fix
- Keeping us dumb
- So much for diversity
- Tired of Springdale shenanigans
- Pointless for GOP
- Corbett’s choice
- Islam & women