Krieger wins state representative spot in 57th District |

Krieger wins state representative spot in 57th District

A veteran lawmaker came out on top in the race for state representative in the 57th District.

With all 51 districts reporting, Rep. Tim Krieger, R-Delmont, won a fourth term with 69 percent of the vote to Greensburg Democratic challenger Donna McClelland’s 31 percent.

“It’s always gratifying to see the voters you represent trust you,” Krieger said. “I’m going to continue to do the work I told them I would do.”

McClelland could not be reached for comment.

Education funding was the top issue for both candidates.

Krieger, 53, said reining in pension costs, particularly for school districts, is crucial to alleviate budget pressures and ease the burden on property owners. The state’s unfunded pension liability tops $50 billion.

Krieger said a good start would be to approve a pension reform proposal before the House, which was championed by outgoing Gov. Tom Corbett. It proposes a hybrid pension for public employees, but would not alter benefits for current retirees.

McClelland, 58, a Greensburg attorney, said education funding was her No. 1 issue because she saw the impacts of cuts when her younger daughter was a student at Greensburg Salem High School. Cuts to the music department forced parents to step in to help raise money for the school musical.

The 57th District covers Delmont, Greensburg, Hunker, New Stanton, Salem, South Greensburg, Southwest Greensburg, Youngwood and parts of Hempfield.

House members serve two-year terms with a base salary of $84,000.

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.