Letter to the editor: Penn Hills bailout costing taxpayers | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Penn Hills bailout costing taxpayers

The Penn Hills School District is in debt to the tune of approximately $175 million. Attorney General Josh Shapiro’s office said that investigators found gross financial mismanagement.

What is the district doing to erase this massive debt? The answer is to allow the government to bail it out using your hard-earned money (“Penn Hills can’t depend on state money.”

Sen. Jay Costa, D-Forest Hills, used his position to appropriate $3.3 million, which comes from the state budget, to help bail the district out. The Penn Hills School Board could have helped the situation by increasing property taxes at least 1 mill, like most school districts that are struggling to balance their budgets.

The problem is that the $3.3 million is your money. It is not government money, and the senator just rewarded the district for egregious financial mismanagement with money from each taxpayer in the state with no oversight planned.

Costa should be ashamed of his actions. Instead of being spoon-fed with a big fat check, the district should be paying it back in some way.

The residents of the Penn Hills School District did not create this mess. Mismanagement by the school board and administrators created it. It’s time to pay up.

Bob Brooks


The writer, a Republican, represents the 54th District in the state House.

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.