I was born and raised in New Kensington and I'm darned proud of it!
An announcement made at Monday's city council meeting is one of the reasons why: “With 68 percent of our registered voters having voted in the most recent presidential election, New Kensington led the entire state.”
The vote was split at 50-50, so there was no agreement among the voters on who should be president, but it was a spectacular 68 percent of registered voters who agreed upon the need and obligation to vote.
Last summer, I was pleased with our city council's response to the new Voter ID law. Our council did not take a position on the legality or merits of that law; its only concern was our citizens maintaining their ability to vote. A plan to get adversely affected citizens to the driver's license center (where photo IDs were available) was spearheaded by Councilman John Regoli and the Elks Club.
The VND ran an article about this effort in its Sunday edition. Within 20 minutes of reading the article, which gave my phone number as a contact, I received a call from a Mrs. Calcagno. Calcagno expressed relief and gratitude for this assistance. She explained that she and her husband had not missed voting in over 50 years, but they were now in their 90s and didn't drive anymore.
Councilman Regoli took them in his personal vehicle to the driver's license center and then to Lunch. Sadly, Mrs. Calcagno died a few days before the inauguration and while I don't know whom she voted for, I do know she proudly voted.
Melvyn E. Smith
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.