Letter to the editor: Hempfield audit necessary | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Hempfield audit necessary

In response to Fred Francese’s letter “Cheap shots at Hempfield supervisors” (Feb. 22, TribLIVE): It appears agenda items were overlooked, then placed into effect without public review by the entire board.

Learning that items were not voted on in public, Supervisor Rob Ritson requested an audit of the items in question (“Hempfield to review past votes, but supervisors balk at state audit,” Jan. 31, TribLIVE). These items were reported on by the Tribune-Review (“Hempfield officials find $125,000 union settlement agreement not done in public eye,” Feb. 27 TribLIVE).

If this activity doesn’t attract your attention, Mr. and Mrs. Hempfield, consider the bird pond episode at Hempfield Park in 2012. Here, the Public Works Department began construction of a pond area for a bird habitat. The Westmoreland Conservation District brought it to a halt when headwaters to a public stream were touched (“Hempfield public works director faulted for damaging wetlands,” Dec. 30, TribLIVE). The township spent $32,000 initially on the project, which was not approved by the board, and then budgeted $150,000 for repairs and possible fines.

In the million-dollar category: The Hempfield Township Municipal Authority was sold to the Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County (MAWC) for $35 million; $5 million was paid initially, with $1.5 million to be paid each year for 20 years. But what about the $20 million unassigned in various Hempfield authority accounts ? It has a new home at MAWC.

Will $1.5 million in 2019 have the same value in 15 to 20 years? Is an audit necessary? As a former supervisor and taxpayer for 54 years, I say it is absolutely necessary.

Bob Davidson


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.