At a business in Ligonier, I was asked about a petition to put a referendum on the ballot to increase the Ligonier Township Board of Supervisors from three to five members. After some research, I have found the only township in the Westmoreland County Association of Township Supervisors that has five supervisors is Hempfield.
Hempfield Township has more than 41,000 residents, as opposed to Ligonier Township's 6,973; more than 50 employees, as opposed to Ligonier Township's 21, which includes a police department, something Hempfield does not have; and 219 miles of roads, as opposed to Ligonier Township's 96. The real kicker is Hempfield has a budget of over $12.5 million, as opposed to Ligonier Township's $2.036 million. This is still a lot of money for a small-town budget, but when you figure the level of services provided for the dollar, it is a pretty good deal.
Early this spring, I was approached by a proponent of this petition as to what I thought of this form of government, with none of the supervisors being a roadmaster. I expressed my concerns that it would not only be more expensive, as the Second Class Township Code provides that each supervisor be compensated for meetings, conferences, training and any wages lost for attending if the supervisor is not a township employee. Under the township's current makeup, the person getting the work done is the same person you speak to at township meetings.
Adding this new level of bureaucracy will definitely affect the one-on-one quality control that residents have come to appreciate, as well as being more expensive. I welcome residents to contact me to further discuss this subject.
Timothy R. Komar
The writer is a Ligonier Township supervisor.
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.
- Punishment pushback II
- Steel at stake, too
- Lawsuit: Publicity stunt
- Pedro must go
- Duty to disclose
- Help for Tina
- Oberdorf firing
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Reverse red-kettle ban II
- Good riddance