Balla eligible to run, serve
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Thursday, May 16, 2013, 8:55 p.m.
The May 11 letter “Why is Balla running?” suggested Ron Balla couldn't be a New Kensington councilman while employed by the city water authority. As a voter who cares deeply about our democratic process, I looked into that issue and discovered Mr. Balla has every right to run and serve on council.
To be listed on the ballot, Balla submitted paperwork to the Westmoreland County Election Bureau. That paperwork is to ensure the candidate meets all of the eligibility requirements to be on council. The election bureau examined his eligibility and approved his candidacy. Simply, if Balla wasn't eligible, why is he listed on the ballot?
There is a process to challenge the eligibility of any candidate who files for office. The deadline to do so has long passed. If there was a belief he was ineligible, why didn't someone from New Ken challenge Balla's paperwork? Why didn't one of the other candidates do it?
If this was an issue, it should've been raised and resolved long before now. And if the incumbents — or city Solicitor Anthony Vigilante — try to challenge Balla's eligibility after he wins, how is that not sour grapes?
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.
- Budget & business taxes
- Telling facts
- Strong enough
- Corbett’s choice
- Medicaid’s future
- Tarentum’s ‘questionable practices’
- Obama & Reaganomics I
- Invest in pre-K
- Islam & women