Archive

ShareThis Page
The turnpike scandal: More wet noodles | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

The turnpike scandal: More wet noodles

Tribune-Review
| Saturday, November 22, 2014 9:00 p.m.

How disgusting it is to see that good-old-fashioned bribery is not only alive and well in Pennsylvania, the State of Corruption, but tolerated, if not encouraged, by the state judiciary.

No other conclusion can be drawn from the latest round of sentencing — more wet noodles to hardly contrite wrists — of those convicted in the state Turnpike Commission pay-to-play scandal.

Guilty pleas were entered Thursday in Dauphin County Common Pleas Court by Joe Brimmeier, the commission’s former CEO (and once the supposed favorite of Allegheny County Chief Executive Rich Fitzgerald to head the Port Authority), and George Hatalowich, the commission’s former chief operating officer, to felony conflict of interest charges.

Mr. Brimmeier, of Ross, accepted “free hospitality” from an engineering firm and solicited donations for the campaign of former Gov. Ed Rendell in return for influencing contract awards. Mr. Hatalowich, of Harrisburg, accepted the same kinds of “free hospitality” from another engineering firm for the same kind of consideration.

And for accepting such rank bribes and making a mockery of the public trust, these “public servants” turned self-servants were sentenced by Judge Robert A. Lewis to — drum roll, please — five years’ probation, fined $2,500 and ordered to perform 250 hours of community service.

That’s not a punishment for such a crime. It’s an undeserved gift. And it’s outrageous.

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.