ShareThis Page
Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances |

Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances

| Thursday, March 20, 2014 8:55 p.m

Lance: To Dennis Davin. The Allegheny County Airport Authority board treasurer insists the closed-door decision that left authority president Brad Penrod without a job was not a violation of the state Sunshine Act. Mr. Davin can rationalize all he wants — the board’s coming public vote on Penrod’s severance package is the only sunshine ray required, he says — but this pig stinks.

Laurel: To Jake Haulk. The Allegheny Institute for Public Policy boss pulls no punches in a post about Pittsburgh Public Schools: “(T)he poor academic performance and the high rates of absenteeism” (well over 40 percent, on average, at the high school level) “point to the same thing — a failed public school system.” He takes to task those who continue to think the “solution” is to throw more money at the problem. Anyone ready to listen yet?

On the “Watch List”: Oversight. The former Cecil police chief is charged with theft. The former secretary for Harmony is charged likewise. They are the latest in a troublingly long line of “public servants” accused of padding their own pockets. Once upon a time, trust was a given. It no longer can be.

Laurel: To Jim McCarville. The executive director of the Port of Pittsburgh Commission is retiring in June after 20 years at the helm. Mr. McCarville, 69, of Ross, has been a tireless advocate for maintaining and upgrading the system of locks and dams so vital to the nation’s third-busiest inland port. We wish him the best in retirement.

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.