Archive

ShareThis Page
Greensburg Laurels & Lances | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

Greensburg Laurels & Lances

Lance: To Hempfield’s ex-public works director’s payday. Details of a separation agreement, obtained under Pennsylvania’s open-records law, reveal that Mike Volpe will pocket about $37,000 (six months’ salary) in severance pay plus full pay for unused vacation days and half reimbursement for leftover sick days. It’s easy to make a public employee go away quietly when the public pays.

Lance: To a loopy Greensburg parking ordinance. Aside from the fact that the wrong signs were posted on Cranston Drive (the original signs said a seasonal street-parking prohibition goes into effect Nov. 1 instead of Dec. 1, per the ordinance), enforcement shouldn’t be a matter of police “discretion.” If there’s no parking on the street when it snows, to enable snow removal, then the city ordinance should say exactly that.

On the “Watch List”: Connellsville’s firefighters referendum. The vote to eliminate the city’s paid fire department comes as volunteer fire companies statewide struggle to maintain manpower and funding. The assumption is that Connellsville somehow will defy a decades-long trend.

Lance: To stealing brighter smiles. The Target store in Hempfield Square is the latest to be hit by thieves attempting to steal $1,200 worth of teeth-whitening products. Why? For drug money, authorities say.


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.