ShareThis Page

Harmar: No Trouble II

| Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

I agree with Linda H. Slomer's letter “Harmar: No Trouble.”

Supervisor Bob Exler is clueless. Harmar was in trouble more than eight years ago. Since then, the township turned around. Debts were paid and the township has established reserves.

To me, Mr. Exler's new direction means going back to the cronyism of the past, which means missing money and creating debt. Supervisor Kim Toney's comment about getting the best people is laughable. For township boards, they just replaced some of the best people with relatives and neighbors whose backgrounds and skills are unknown.

When asked what qualifications these people had, council members would not answer. Someone asked about a resume that was submitted. Ms. Toney's answer was something like, “You don't need to submit a resume; you only need to ask for the position.”

When Mr. Exler was asked about his son-in-law's qualifications to serve on the Zoning Hearing Board, his response was that his son-in-law is smart. There are many smart people in Harmar. Background and experience should be the criteria for appointing people to important boards.

In my mind, it took Mr. Exler, Ms. Toney and Supervisor Pat Janoski less than an hour and a half to jeopardize the years of progress the township has achieved.

Jackie Cain

Harmar Township

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.