Letter to the editor: Republican in name only | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Republican in name only

In response to the article, “Westmoreland commissioner endorses chief of staff in Republican primary” (March 14, TribLIVE): Chuck Anderson sent a clear message that a vote for Sean Kertes is a vote for Gina Cerilli. Apparently the minority commissioner likes the status quo and couldn’t bring himself to endorse a second Republican with seven to choose from. Why would he, when he himself was appointed commissioner by Democratic judges 11 years ago, over the objections of the Republican Party, and he has rubber-stamped almost every policy Cerilli asked for?

Only Ted Kopas, a Democrat, votes against Cerilli. A look at Anderson’s donor list shows the same board members from our Municipal Authority as Cerilli. Kertes also sees no appearance of impropriety in accepting donations from no-bid ($1.6 million contract) Charles Volpe, who is a longtime friend of Cerilli. Is Volpe a secret longtime friend of Kertes and Mark Mears, or just buying influence?

Anderson said, “(Kertes) gives me sound advice.” Does that include Anderson’s assessment at the January Chamber of Commerce luncheon that Westmoreland County is in a “death spiral”?

There is a long list of commissioner failures under this administration.

Unlike Anderson, I endorse two Republicans not named Sean. We all respect Anderson’s military service. Join me in wishing him good health in his retirement.

John Ventre 

Hempfield

The writer is a Republican candidate for county commissioner.


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.