ShareThis Page
Resident questions residency of member |

Resident questions residency of member

| Tuesday, January 8, 2002 12:00 a.m

FORD CITY – Councilman Jerry Miklos had to defend himself Monday when questions were raised concerning his Ford City residency.

Jo Ann Scopel, asked council if all members of council must live in the borough.

“I feel council members must be living in town,” said Scopel.

“I want the public to know you (Miklos) don’t live there all the time.”

Scopel said that she was aware that the borough has had the water shut off at Miklos’ residence for a long while and that he spent his time living away from the area.

“Why isn’t this mandatory for council members when it is for borough workers,” said Scopel. “It’s not fair either to business people in the borough who live elsewhere and could do the same thing.

“How can I get a hold of my councilman when he’s not here?”

“This is a personal issue,” said Miklos.

Council asked its borough solicitor, Frank Wolfe, for his opinion on residency.

“It has to be a place you stay that you declare as where you live,” said Wolfe. “And get mail there.”

“Case closed,” said Miklos. “I live at Sixth Avenue.”

Miklos said after the meeting that he had lived at a house on Fifth Avenue from 1996 until Sept. 2001 when he moved to Sixth Avenue.

According to Miklos, he’s been working to remodel that house and has spent much of his time staying with a friend outside of the Ford City area.

“I’m not spending 100 percent of my time in Ford City but I am there every single day, more time there than not there,” he said.

Miklos said the water is not on because there is uncompleted plumbing. The other utilities are on and he receives his mail there, he said.

Categories: News
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.