ShareThis Page
State-appointed board withdraws suit against city |

State-appointed board withdraws suit against city

| Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:00 p.m

A state Legislature-appointed board overseeing Pittsburgh’s finances ended a five-month legal battle by formally withdrawing its lawsuit against the city.

The five-member Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority withdrew the lawsuit from Commonwealth Court after Pittsburgh’s Act 47 recovery team inked the final letter of understanding with the oversight board to improve their cooperation and communication on the city’s fiscal problems.

The deal would compel the city to reopen its pact with firefighters at the beginning of 2007. In its lawsuit against Pittsburgh, its firefighters and the Act 47 team, the authority claimed the contract would not save the city enough money and violated a financial recovery plan laid out under Act 47, a state law designed to help struggling municipalities.

Neither the mayor’s office nor firefighters’ union opposed reopening the contract in 2007.

The Legislature created the Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority in 2004 to look at Pittsburgh’s finances independent of the Act 47 team, a financial recovery team appointed by the state administration.

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.