Harmar: Hillery or Janoski? I
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Tuesday, Oct. 29, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Harmar Township supervisor candidate Pat Janoski is a consensus builder and a bridge builder between people. Pat works hard to help people and always has a smile and words of comfort.
Pat dedicated untold hours for 12 years as a director on the Allegheny Valley School Board. She was all about helping the community and serving our children's needs.
During Pat's years on the board, everyone got along and moved the district forward.
I read the Oct. 23 story “Tax collector challenges Harmar supervisor,” with both candidates' thoughts and comments. Pat spoke about getting everyone to work together, apparently because Mike Hillery does not get along with two other supervisors.
In the article, Hillery said he has “worked to bring an end to the constant bickering and fighting.” This is a false campaign statement.
I attended a township meeting in which Hillery intentionally provoked another supervisor into an argument.
Worse, Hillery's majority excludes the other two supervisors from any real decision-making. For example, Hillery refused to put Supervisor Bob Exler on any committee.
Hillery does not realize is that he is the problem, not the solution.
I am voting for Pat Janoski because she is the real deal. We finally have a real opportunity to vote for someone who leads by example.
Linda L. Cegan
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.
- Lebo’s coyotes
- Saved her life
- Fix icy hazard on Rt. 66
- Conspicuous by absence
- Drought answer?
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Not reviled abroad