ShareThis Page
Tuesday takes |

Tuesday takes

| Tuesday, February 7, 2006 12:00 a.m

Spendthrift fact-finder: The Pittsburgh school district is struggling to right-size. It was forced to dip into its reserves to balance this year’s budget. Money is tight. And a fact-finder recommends raises for teachers• Nothing like being out of touch. The teachers union, of course, is all for the plan. The district, to its credit, has rejected it. Fact-finder Matthew Franckiewicz says the raises are affordable because the district is cutting a number of teachers. Which gives you a good idea what side Mr. Franckiewicz is on.

Swager’s swagger: The co-chair of the Pittsburgh Gaming Task Force never could be accused of pulling punches. And Anne Swager does just that in the current issue of a local architectural group’s magazine. Ms. Swager, an architect herself, warns that any Pittsburgh slots casino will be too big with 3,000 machines and end up looking like a “shed.” It’s a welcome spate of candor in a process that seems to be plagued by get-alongism.

On the Block watch: A good indication of a newspaper enterprise in decline is how it reports on itself. Or doesn’t. Witness the Toledo, Ohio, Block Bugler. It was the Trib that broke the story on the naming of a new Bugler editor. And last week, it was the Trib that had the details of some high-profile job cuts at one of America’s newspapers; The Bugler barely gave it a mention, not even noting the necks the ax chopped. Read all about it — here.

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.