ShareThis Page

New policy falls short

| Sunday, Aug. 24, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

Regarding Eric Heyl's column “Heyl: Gravy train comes to an abrupt halt for Allegheny judges' relatives” : It's unfortunate that Allegheny County Common Pleas Court President Judge Jeffrey Manning, in his anti-nepotism policy and his “grandfathering clause,” could not have made an exception for the most Honorable Donna Jo McDaniel, who misused her power in hiring four of her relatives. Donna Jo found nice, well-paid court positions for her relatives yet did nothing as president judge to help Allegheny County court employees receive a fair and equal wage. I only hope the voters of Allegheny County remember her stunts in 2015, when she's up for retention.

Judge Manning's anti-nepotism policy does not go far enough and the gravy train will continue for the judges' friends and friends-of-friends who will not be selected on merit but by the old-fashioned county way, which is “who you know, not what you know.” Their cushy ride is also enhanced by the fact that judges' staffs follow their own individual “rules” of conduct and attendance, very different from regular county and court employees who must punch clocks and dare not be a minute late.

So, the gravy train may lose a few family passengers but the seats will surely be filled by a select few of the judges' choosing.

Robert O'Shea


The writer is a retired Allegheny County family court manager.

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.