More seats' rationale
The members of Brighter Future PAC share the Trib's opinion, expressed in the “Referendum no resolution” item in “Greensburg Tuesday takes” (Sept. 17 and TribLIVE.com), that greater oversight of Ligonier Township operations is called for.
We also believe that as we move forward, the management of the township, the stewardship of its natural resources and guiding the energy and vitality of its hardworking residents are tasks best undertaken by a slightly larger board of supervisors than we currently have.
Enlarging the size of the board by adding two seats, permissible under the commonwealth's Township Code, is an approach we believe can prove fruitful by attracting candidates for supervisor whose education, experiences and skills are different from those typically associated with the traditional supervisor/roadmaster arrangement.
In our view, that dual role blurs the distinction between an individual's obligations as a public official and personal considerations relating to that person's employment.
We will be encouraging Ligonier Township voters to reflect upon the recent history and limitations of the current system and examine the possibility of creating a brighter future for the township by involving people with additional talents and skills in the governmental operations of our community.
That process begins with approving the referendum on the Nov. 5 ballot.
Phillip J. Fleming
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.
- Today’s big lie
- License, insure bicycles
- Puzzling trend
- Figures conflict
- Fair pay for hard work
- Rethink NFL fandom
- Climate & hunting
- Conservatives, back Corbett
- Religion & government
- Pay attention to history
- Revive postal accounts