Feeding the hungry
It was with great sadness that the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank staff, board of directors and volunteers learned of the passing of Richard Scaife. Mr. Scaife was one of our most stalwart supporters, giving through his various foundations and personal wealth more than $1.8 million over the past 10 years to help feed the hungry of our region.
These gifts were not always responses to food bank requests. Often they came from Mr. Scaife unsolicited and unrestricted, given to the food bank to use as we saw fit as long as his contribution was sure to help ease the suffering of those less fortunate.
I can recall, for example, that shortly after the current recession began in December 2007, the food bank received a sizable and unexpected check from Mr. Scaife with a simple note: “People must be hurting.”
Mr. Scaife never sought recognition for all he did for our organization. Still, the food bank recognized Mr. Scaife's generosity and support in 2009 with an award honoring his commitment to helping hungry men, women and children throughout Southwestern Pennsylvania.
It was a small token of appreciation for a man who did so much for Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank and those we serve.
His friendship will be missed.
On behalf of the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank family, of which Mr. Scaife was a valued member, I extend our deepest sympathies to his family and friends.
Lisa A. Scales
The writer is CEO of the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank.
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.
- On right track
- Quarantine quandary
- Not ‘too stupid’
- EPA impoverishing seniors
- Back to ‘Mad Men’?
- Invite God to school