GOP challenger for Allegheny County executive proposed 5 debates | TribLIVE.com
Allegheny

GOP challenger for Allegheny County executive proposed 5 debates

Jamie Martines
1685907_web1_ptr-DrozdForExec-030819
Courtesy of Drozd Campaign
Matt Drozd.

Republican candidate for Allegheny County Chief Executive Matt Drozd has challenged Democratic incumbent Rich Fitzgerald to a series of five debates this fall.

Drozd, a former two-term Allegheny County councilman, ran unopposed in the May primary to win the Republican nomination.

Both Drozd and Fitzgerald will appear on the ballot Nov. 5.

“I hope it’s going to get a message out, and get people to start thinking,” said Drozd, who could be spotted throughout the summer holding a sign printed with the slogan “Cut Taxes” and waving to cars along busy roadways throughout the county.

County Executive Rich Fitzgerald could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Drozd said he hopes to debate a long-term vision for the county and to discuss issues including homelessness, lowering taxes and finding cost savings in county spending.

Drozd, formerly of Ross Township, represented part of the North Hills before losing the Republican primary to current District 1 Councilman Tom Baker, R-Ross, in 2013.

In 2015, Drozd ran against Donald Trump in the New Hampshire Republican primary.

Jamie Martines is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Jamie at 724-850-2867, [email protected] or via Twitter .

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.