ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Parties in Penn Hills

| Wednesday, May 6, 2015, 9:00 p.m.

Penn Hills, May 2013: Four Democrats (cross-filed on the Republican ballot) sent out a campaign advertisement headlined “Your Hometown Republican School Board Candidates,” thus giving faulty information to Republicans. Most got more votes on the Republican ballot than the two Republican candidates. That November, all four faux “Republicans” were elected.

April 2015: They deny knowing about Penn Hills School District's financial problems any earlier. The Trib's Kelsey Shea reports they were told about this mess in January and March. So, are they now giving faulty information to all who voted for them? Quoting Pauline Calabrese, “(W)e were given faulty information” about finances ( “Business director: Penn Hills leaders knew of financial problems” ).

April 27: Board member Pauline Calabrese said there are two sides in this financial controversy. The public “would have to decide who to believe” — the director of business affairs, Rick Liberto, or the board. She said “It's a matter of trust.”

Her name was on that bad 2013 ad! A matter of trust! She's not up for election, but whom should the Democrat voters trust? Candidates supported by a local committee that stretched the truth to get their folks elected?

Democrats, open your eyes! One-party rule leads to mismanagement. There's a real Republican on the primary ballot, William Phifer. He ran in 2013, too. Write him in on the primary ballot and begin to put an end to nonfeasance on the Penn Hills School Board.

Gwendolyn Korvick

Penn Hills

The writer is the Penn Hills Republican Committee secretary.

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