ShareThis Page
Editorials

Greensburg Laurels & Lances

| Thursday, Aug. 21, 2014, 8:55 p.m.

Lance: To better living through bigger government. After a push by “concerned citizens” to add two supervisors in Ligonier Township — supposedly to improve efficiency — the township has hired a new manager, Terry Carcella, 59, of Unity, for $61,000. And he says he needs an administrative assistant. So in this sleepy town where public services are few and there's not enough work for three supervisors (a former supervisor and an ex-employee had time enough to dawdle their days away), there will be two more supervisors plus a handsomely paid manager and an assistant. And the return on investment? Don't count on any from this unbridled excursion through residents' wallets.

Lance: To the federal school food police. Fundraisers like bake sales conducted on school grounds during school hours now must meet more healthful federal guidelines. But when whole-wheat brownies don't sell as well as the traditional variety, don't count on Washington's calorie cops or their state apologists to compensate for lost sales.

On the “Watch List”: Connellsville's referendum. Voters this fall will be asked whether the city should “disband the paid fire force in favor of having fire protection services performed by volunteers.” This, at a time when many volunteer fire departments are struggling just to keep their doors open. With the future of firefighting in flux, this is hardly the time to increase the city's reliance on volunteers.

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.

click me