ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Cheap shots at Hempfield supervisors | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Cheap shots at Hempfield supervisors

Tribune-Review
| Friday, February 22, 2019 10:00 a.m

Regarding the article “Hempfield to review past votes, but supervisors balk at state audit” (Jan. 31, TribLIVE): It seems to me that this is nothing more than a cheap political attempt by upstart township supervisor Robert Ritson to discredit the previous township manager and the supervisors who hired him.

With the election in a few months, it was the perfect time to start throwing out innuendos of misdeeds by officials seeking re-election. My expectation would be to see that any supervisors’ questions about specific topics be properly and promptly answered, as I saw was done by the township solicitor, according to the article.

Creating political drama may have been the norm for Ritson when he worked in former County Commissioner Tom Balya’s and Sen. Kim Ward’s offices, but it is unnecessary in our community government. I thought Ritson was going to cut red tape and get things done for the community I love, as supervisors Tom Logan, John Silvis and Doug Weimer have done well for their years in office. What a disappointment he is. My hope is that he will learn how to govern because, so far, his mudslinging attempts demonstrate otherwise.

Fred Francese Sr.

Hempfield

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.