ShareThis Page
Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances |

Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances

| Thursday, June 9, 2016 8:55 p.m

On the “Watch List”:

• Anthony Hamlet. Will the incoming superintendent of Pittsburgh Public Schools soon be the outgoing superintendent? Not only was he forced to defend several questionable metrics used to bolster his resume that countered others, it appears that Mr. Hamlet cribbed from other sources — most notably a Washington Post editorial — in expounding “his” educational philosophy. It also appears that Hamlet lifted his mantra about being a “transformational leader” from Wikipedia and This raises serious questions about Hamlet’s fitness for the post and the vetting process that brought him to Pittsburgh. Next!

• Pittsburgh police. Its union is up in arms over a proposed arbitration award that would see salaries rise in excess of 5 percent through 2019 and force police to pay less than a quarter of their health insurance premiums. Yes, additionally losing seven of 10 annual “personal” days is a tough pill to swallow. But, all in all, and in this day and age, this deal is not unfair.

• Westinghouse Electric. On the surface, it sounds like a great deal — the legendary company will build six nuclear reactors in India. It’s a contract that could be worth $30 billion and lead to more jobs worldwide, Pittsburgh included. But questions abound about financing. And that means Westinghouse shouldn’t be counting its reactor windfall until it’s hatched.

Categories: Editorials
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.