Frustration over funding |

Frustration over funding

United Way of Westmoreland County has launched an adversarial relationship with one of its staunchest supporters — The Salvation Army. Why has the United Way’s administration badgered the Army corps in Westmoreland County (” Salvation Army wages funding battle with United Way ,” Sept. 11)•

For months, Salvation Army staff members have been diligent to complete what United Way demanded.

But apparently it wasn’t enough to please Nancy Kukovich, president of the umbrella fund-raising agency.

United Way withheld $21,000 from the Salvation Army in April. The Salvation Army tried to meet all United Way demands. But there was always something else dictated, while community programs went unfunded because the April allotment was pulled.

As for an audit, the Army agreed with that mandate and expects to do that by February 2004.

As a member of the Greensburg Salvation Army Advisory Board, I have listened for too long to details of what has turned into a runaround by United Way. The whole episode has been an exercise in frustration and confusion for Salvation Army units in the county.

United Way has flexed its muscle. Charles G. Urtin, United Way chairman, stated in a letter that “both organizations need to step back and re-examine the basis for this relationship.” That sounds reasonable, but then there’s this touch of intimidation: “Any additional adverse publicity created by the Salvation Army between now and then will weigh in on the decision.”

Sounds as if Mr. Urtin wants to fuel the dispute rather than look for ways to mitigate it with a dedicated agency whose only mission is “Soup, Soap and Salvation.”

Wash Gjebre

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.