By The Tribune-Review
Published: Tuesday, Oct. 29, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Recently, several Ligonier Township residents, including me and members of the Brighter Future PAC, met with James E. Leventry, Whitehall Borough manager. He stated that as manager, he has found that with five or more supervisors, it is necessary to hire a manager to avoid having five people trying to pull things in different directions on a daily basis.
This is an unforeseen cost, which no one wants to discuss, of the referendum on expanding our township board from three to five members.
Qualified managers start at about $60,000 per year, plus benefits, and should not be local, as they may well have their own agendas. I believe that at some point, a manager may be a good investment. As far as the PAC's concern about supervisors not being employees of the township, neither candidate on the ballot intends to work for the township, leaving only one.
There have been some comments to the effect that having five supervisors would make the township office more accessible. A public work session is held each Friday prior to the supervisors meeting on the second Tuesday of every month and is open to the public. Questions also can be addressed by calling the township office during normal business hours.
I hope voters take time to ask questions so they can make an educated decision.
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.
- Medicaid’s future
- Slots & property taxes
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Obama & Reaganomics I
- Harmar needs better enforcement
- Putin’s actions I
- Lebo’s coyotes
- Obstacles to hiring
- We pay to keep poor warm
- Conspicuous by absence
- Springdale’s dysfunction