Ditto.

Question: Who is up for re-election this year?

And the morons on council (all Democrats btw) probably WANT to pay their friendly solicitor to defend the practically guaranteed lawsuits that the employees have every right to bring. I may just have to register as a Dem so I can vote in the primary for anyone, and I mean anyone else who may decide to run against these schmucks.

I hope that they are documenting every instance of abuse.

Drew:

I respectfully disagree with you! Most of the employees were over at the fire station prior to the meeting telling the stories of what has happened to them. They are mistreated by this "manager." The union did not "force" the employees to sign this! You really are out of touch! Not only did they sign it but they showed up too! You never respond to facts Drew! Your more smoke then fire! Anybody can see just by the way he carries himself at the meetings. He does not look people in the eyes, answers no questions, will not return phone calls. Can we at least agree that it has been said a dozen times or more that he does not return phone calls??

What do you say to Joan's comments last night? Or what about the letter from the zoning hearing board member? Is she just smoke too? Does any complaint ever make you think this guy just might be wrong?

Answer some questions!

Respond to facts!

Drew,
Really, after everything that has gone down, this is the line of happy political B.S. you want to give. I have read numerous times that you ask residents to come to meetings and be heard and ask questions. You sat there last night and said nothing of importance and answered NOTHING. Please do yourself and all residents a favor and continue to support Gino and his wonderfully positive and constructive way of doing things. Nothing could better assist in the decision making process come election time.

I'm still waiting for an intelligent response to any of the questions asked. Once again when you stop the name calling and forget about emotion and just throw some facts out there Drew disappears?

Bryan, Joan comments are unique to her. I don't agree with anything that she said last night. The letter from the Zoning Hearing board member will be looked into and vetted properly. We can and will hold all employees accountable for all actions, or inactions, however we can't speak publicly about personel matters such as punishment or suspensions because they are confidential. BTW I answer questions from people that I can identify, and I do the best I can so I hope you understand.

Well I applaud Joan for doing the right thing last night.

And I wish I could believe you when you say the letter will be looked into, I sent a letter too about three things I witnessed Gino do that were unprofessional, I hope it was looked into. They were not rumors they were incident's I witnessed! As I said before you were the only one who answered my letter but still I can't help but feel like it was a waste of time to even write. Gino can do anything ANYTHING he wants and he will be protected. Why?

We hear so much, like the Gillece incident, falsifying police reports, asking the asst. borough manager to throw salt down using his personal vehicle, calling a borough secretary a word that I will not even use, the incident with Chief Davis and the fire department, the whole pool diving board issue. I can go on and on and on and on! Maybe you can't comment but this borough is in trouble right now and council better do something about it!

Are you kidding me! Just because they are union employees has nothing to do with the signing of this letter. I commend all of the employees for standing up for themselves as well as the people of this borough! Let me ask you a question Drew, is that why you won't stand up for what is right? You are siding with the majority of the counsil? Public safety is number one... Do you do any reearch on other boroughs that have cut emergency services? Is that the type of borough you would want to live in let alone raise your family? You all have a problem with this police department, but I'm sure if you need their services you would expect them to respond. When you cut the police I would like to know who is backing our police to keep them safe, and who is patroling our streets during other calls? As far as I am concerned you and coucil have no respect or regard for our police and borough workers, better yet the people of this community. What was done to Phil Ross is appauling to me as well as many of the people in this community. When election time comes around you bet you rear-end not one person who wants to make cuts to our emergency services or voted for Phil to be demoted will get my vote. Don't come to my yard asking for me to put your signs in my yard, because hell will freeze over first!!!!!

@ Bryan,
Regarding your comments about Joan doing "the right thing." If you consider grandstanding the right thing, then you are right, she nailed it.

Joan mentioned last night it cost the borough $52,000 last year!

Jeff I will join you in saying I have zero confidence in a council that does not respect it's residents enough to even listen!

VOTE MAY 17th!

I totally agree with you... Rumor has it our borough manager has been arrested in the past by the dormont police.... Is this rumor or truth, or are we not privy to that information either, like everything else in this borough. Then to demote the chief, seems like a revenge move to me if there is any truth in this rumor. Also the fact that Rizza has no experience for this position to the point of needing an assistant, who by the way was the only one who did not sign this paper, but why would he he could lose his job.

Liquor license? Where is the "fine" establishment?

Wow an extra 1.5 million ? Think they could of spent that on a better 911 system ? NAAAA it's soooo much cheaper to outsource to ding dongs in Point Breeze that don't answer the calls in a timley manner and who are bewildered when you present every day Dormont landmarks out to them. Do ya think this slows response time down ? Ok I wanna know who is sitting on the 1.5 mil golden egg ?

Ms. Fontaine, council menbers are not volunteers, they are paid

I can't imagine they are paid anything more than a stipend, but I will look into this just out of my own curiosity.

And as far as the facts go, anything presented on this blog is really someone's opinion or what they heard. I don't even bother to read those that are posted as anonymous or use a cute screen name (most of the first names only, I can figure out so it's close enough). This is precisely why I show up at the council meetings when I can. Nothing beats hearing and seeing what is happening for yourself.

Really are your serious? I was also at the meeting. What about how they would not give a reason on why they fired Phil. Yopu are so concerned about the way that council was treated.... They are not worried about how the community feels, they give no reasons or "facts" to the people of the borough who have every right to know the facts about their borough and police department. The only reason that people got so upset is because there is no just cause for the demotion of Phil and if there was then they should have stated this. Gino was not calm, he was shaking his leg, red in the face and appeared as though he may explode. He said nothing at the advice of his attorney sitting to his right. he has exploded on the workers of this borough and he has destroyed the morale of the police department. That is not someone who should be running a borough or any company municapality etc. We all know that we may not always like the people that we work with, however, we have to be respectful. Gino is not , Not screaming at your employee in public. Also, what else does the public have to go on other then what they hear when they won't even answer a question when asked or give one explination. If you don't want to hear what others have to say then don't read the pathch... Also the only witch hunt that I see here is the council going after our police department. Cutting overtime, now demoting our chief.

I'm still seeing more hurt feelings than actual facts. We all have our own agendas and what we think is best for the borough. If we all see we're all on the same side, perhaps we can agree to disagree and realize that not everyone will be 100% happy all the time. There are many decisions that council has made that I do not agree with, that happens in life. These are not perfect people.

Bryan: The issue with Gillece was that they were going to charge an elderly couple over $14,000 to do supposed repairs on their system. They had told the couple that they couldn’t use their bathrooms or anything and had to do the repairs right away. When they came up for the permit to shut down the street, Gino went to talk to the couple who were in a panic that they wouldn’t even be able to use their bathroom if the work wasn’t done immediately and over the cost. Gillece had a clause in their contract that once the work begins, you can’t cancel the contract - so naturally time was of the essence.

Gino asked the elderly couple if they had the insurance and they did. Gillece had told the couple that the work wouldn’t be covered by insurance. Gillece tried to state that the elderly couple could not get out of their contract - even though they hadn't started the work yet. Gino called me to see if that was true and I told him that there was no way Gillece could hold these people to the contract and to call the PA Water Company to have one of their contracted companies come out to see if the work would be covered by the couple's insurance. They did and the work was covered under their insurance and was done for the couple for around $4,000. So the facts are that Gino was looking out for our resident’s best interest and didn’t let a company take advantage of them.

Well I will answer my own question. No recalls unless we can get a better definition of "misbehavior". I'll be really interested to see the audit.

Can an elected official (i.e., mayor, council member , township supervisor, etc.) be removed from office by the citizens?
No, the Pennsylvania, Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that the Pennsylvania State Constitution only allows an elected official to be removed from office through impeachment, conviction of a crime, or misbehavior in office.

Are you really serious? Do you think that letter is ANOTHER thing that should have been hidden from the taxpayers? Why? So Mr. Lehman and his other council friends could continue to blog on here that there is no problem, everyone is happy and all is well? The employees have been trying to be heard privately for a long time and that got them no where. And, as far as Gino keeping his cool during the meeting, that is TYPICAL bully behavior. What did you expect that he would do in a room full of witnesses and reporters? So what you are saying is ALL of the borough employees are liars, including the police and fire departments. They made everything up just to pick on poor Mr. Rizza. You'll continue to see things as you want them to be no matter what is presented to you. If Lehman, Maggio and Rizza suddenly started pushing in favor of a skate park I think you'd change your mind pretty quickly. Like Bryan said, there are other things in Dormont besides the pool, "passive park" and skate park.

Any call for being calm and rational is certainly lost on you MB. You certainly have a very large axe to grind with this council and I don't think that anything you say is objective. I am not advocating for anything being swept under the rug. Any borough employee who signed that letter could have read it at the meeting. I don't think it was council or the mayor's place to do so because it is a personnel matter. I am sure that the employees of this borough would not want council discussing their employment files with the public, same goes for Gino and the Chief. I don't think that suggesting council sit down and speak with each borough employee is calling anyone a liar. It is a way to get to the truth and hear all sides of the situation. You are always saying that things need to be done right. Don't you think that this borough would be liable if they just fired Gino without following proper procedures? Wonder what our legal fees would be if that happend.

I can't be objective? Joan Hodson is a friend of mine and yet I spoke out publicly, at a council meeting, in opposition to the skate park that she voted in favor of. Just because she is a friend, I do not blindly agree with her on every issue. Nor does she expect me to. I was at a meeting at YOUR house with others, including Mr. Maggio, discussing our reasons for opposing the skate park. I form my opinions based on the issues, not the person presenting them. You didn't attend council meetings prior to the skate park becoming an issue, so I am unsure how you can state that I have a "large axe to grind with this council".

Pennsylvania is an "at will" employment state which means anyone can be fired, for any reason, at any time, so long as it is not prejudicial. Mr. Rizza has an employment contract with the borough which should very specifically spell out the terms for his dismissal. As long as those terms are followed there is NO basis for any litigation. Legal fees? $52,000 was spent on the labor attorney last year because of all the employment issues, most of which were created by Mr. Rizza. It is a pretty safe to say those fees are tracking at an even higher rate this year and will continue to while we have a manager that thinks it is okay to berate and swear at employees. The fact that the borough has been made aware of serious allegations by numerous employees and has chosen to ignore the complaints and do nothing is what has put the borough at liability.

"I would urge council to sit down with each member of the borough staff (on an individual basis) to hear their concerns."

Daniele, I agree 100% with you here! Great point! The problem is I also said that on the patch a week or two ago, Councilmen Lehman (who I am assuming you support) responded to me this way, it is not council's job to sit down with the employees of the borough, it is Gino's. Gino manages the borough not council.

So where do we go from here Daniele?

Mary Beth you seem very knowledgeable about Council procedures so wanted to ask a question regarding this statement:
"I was at a meeting at YOUR house with others, including Mr. Maggio, discussing our reasons for opposing the skate park. I form my opinions based on the issues, not the person presenting them."

Is it appropriate/ethical for Mr. Maggio who is on Council or maybe even president of council at the time, to attend, encourage or actively seek support in opposition to a proposal being presented to the Council he is on?

JM, at the time Mr. Maggio was not council president and the second skate park vote had already been taken so it was no longer a proposal. He was not the organizer of the meeting, so I was a bit surprised to see him there. I think it is much more of a concern that he is president of FODP and continues to vote on council for things concerning the pool. The current solicitor says that isn't a conflict, so I doubt attending any other type of meeting where public opinions are expressed is considered a conflict or unethical. Inappropriate, however, is probably more subjective.

Thanks Mary Beth but since it was voted on favorably by council why was Mr. Maggio there? Was that a meeting to organize people to contact their non-profit to make sure they couldn't raise money? I read in the paper that the solicitor called their non-profit and was reprimanded by the Mayor. But then I saw on the videos and read on the Patch that Mr. Maggio, as a council person, called and emailed their non-profit leading them to drop them . Do you feel that is ethical of a council person? or a President of another non-profit in the same town? From what I know the IRS looks long and hard and doesn't look favorably on a non-profits who interfere with other non-profits. I wonder why Mr. Maggio would do that?

If Mr. Maggio as a councilman and a president of a 501c3 would do that to one organization in Dormont what would stop him from doing it to another?

jm, all very good questions. I attended just one meeting. It was an informational meeting of some people opposed to the skate park and the primary discussion was whether the second vote taken was legal or proper and if we could ask council to rescind the vote until there could be further public notice and discussion. Many people felt blindsided by the second vote because we did not know it was to happen and it had been denied not long before. There was never any discussion of anyone contacting anyone's 501(c)(3) - at least not while I was there and not at that first meeting (the only one I attended). I read and learned about the things you've mentioned the same way you have. The borough solicitor should only act at the request of the entire council, not at the direction of one or two.

For the record, I don't agree with the behavior you've mentioned and it also makes me wonder what else could happen behind the scenes.

Mary Beth I appreciate your replies as you seem very level headed with your responses and have it seems experience in government and on council. Although this is not the right thread probably, but things certainly seem to be kinda mucked up and much of it is coming from behind the scenes as you mentioned.
For instance although it may be a moot point now it seems, Mr. Maggio is yet again involved as he met with State Reps and heads of the Health Department about the diving board but no one admits to applying for the variance? Could it be that Mr. Rizza took the fall for that when he admitted to sending a letter of support into the Health Department? Sounds familiar as with the solicitor calling on behalf of a citizen to the non-profit as it does Mr. Rizza sending a support letter at the request of Mr. Herman "a citizen", doesn't it?

The bad part about all of this, even though some may say, who cares, they got it any way they could is, Mr. Maggio and the same people who accused Pitcher Park and some on council of oh what was the pharase used? I cant remember but basically accusing council and Pitcher Park of sneaking the vote in, (after 2 years of discussion) but when you think about it, what Mr. Maggio, State Rep Deasy, and Friends of Dormont Pool did to the people was completely take away their right to discuss, question or even ponder the placement of the diving board in the pool.
Isn't that completely going against not only the rest of council, him being a member of that council, but more importantly the democratic rights of the people?

I know I've heard this phrase before "Back Door Meeting" but what does that mean Mary Beth?
Mr. Lehman stated he didnt even know about it and he is the head of the recreation committee?

jm, although there may have been two years of discussion about the skate park, there was a lot of opposition and it had already been voted against once. At that time, many people - myself included - thought the issue was over. It was hurriedly added to the agenda for another vote when the new council came on board without any public notice and absolutely no chance for public discussion. Some on council did not even know that second vote was to be taken the night it was approved. I believe that was very unfair to the public and not the way the borough should treat its taxpayers. If it was such a right decision, would it have been so terrible to announce at a public meeting that there would be a second vote the following month? We disagree about the skate park and that is fine. I respect that you have your own opinion. Although I believe that the way the second vote on the skate park came before council was not handled properly, that certainly does not make it okay to handle the diving board issue in the manner it was (and I've posted my opinions about this on the diving board article). How can a variance on a diving board be granted to the borough when supposedly the borough never applied for one?! The fact that 6 voted in favor proves to me that most people on this council do not feel the need to follow procedures. No matter your opinion about the diving board itself, we should all be VERY concerned about the underhandedness that seems to be becoming commonplace.

I am with you on the lack of procedure following related to the diving board issue.
But I do disagree with you on the comment stated above that ""It was hurriedly added to the agenda for another vote when the new council came on board" and ..."Some on council did not know that second vote was to be taken the night it was approved.

After reviewing the video the following dates are when this occurred.

January 2010 New Council in place
March 29, 2010 Skatepark put on the agenda for the next business meeting. Council discussed it then. Who on council didn't know? Were they at the meeting?
April 5, 2010 Skatepark motion was read, discussed by Council and voted on by the Council and approved by majority vote.
June 7, 2010 There was a motion to rescind the vote but the motion to rescind the yes vote on the skatepark was voted down
So then the very next day on-
June 8, 2010 Councilman Maggio called and sent several emails to the Pitcher Park non-profit leading them to drop their non-profit affiliation with them.

What is the procedure Mary Beth to have council address an issue? especially one that was addressed many times with the same things being said repeatedly in the videos.

jm, You are right - the new council was in place on 1/4/10. There was absolutely NO mention of the skate park in either the Agendas or business meeting Minutes in Jan or Feb. On 3/29/10 there was a written agenda - again no mention of the skate park or Mary Pitcher. Then there was a "revised" Agenda, also 3/29/10, and under "Registered Comments from the Public" it states "a. Mary Pitcher about Multi-use Park". On this revised Agenda under Ms. Schmidt's Property, Supplies, etc. committee there is NO mention of anything to be voted on concerning the skate park. At the very next business meeting on 4/5/10, suddenly under Ms. Schmidt's committee there is a motion to approve the skate park and a vote was taken. These are facts and can be confirmed by reading the BOROUGH website. NEVER on any Agenda was it mentioned there would be a second vote. The Agendas are posted to inform the public what motions will be presented at the business meeting. Many people rely on the written Agendas as they are the OFFICIAL borough records and only attend meetings when there is something they wish to speak about. The Borough does not record the meetings and Pitcher website is not the official site for borough information. Please tell me how anyone reading the borough agendas would have known a vote was to be taken on 4/5? The procedure? It's simple. Put the actual MOTION that is to be voted on in the Agenda that is published one week before the business meeting. Facts only, please.

What should have happened is simple. When Ms. Pitcher spoke under "Comments from the Public" on 3/29, she should have been told that the motion would be put on the NEXT Agenda, so that the public had notice of it. That is the procedure. Everything I have stated can be read in the Borough records on the Borough website. Anyone who only saw the 3/29 Agenda would not have even have Ms. Pitcher was going to speak let alone ask for a vote in one week! She was added in a revised Agenda. The Motion was NEVER published prior to the vote. The proper procedure was not followed.

I looked at the Borough website and found many other motions made at agenda meetings that were voted on at the next business meeting giving no public notice or time for public discussion. So are you saying no motions are allowed to be voted on at the next business meeting like they are?

Some recent examples: The diving board motion was put on at the agenda meeting on Feb 28th and then voted on at the business meeting on March 7. The motion to allow senior citizens to swim for free wasn't even listed on the agenda meeting for Jan 31 but it was voted on at the next business meeting on Feb 7 and actually on Feb 7 there was a motion to adopt a resolution that was never even mentioned on the agenda meeting on the January 31 st minutes. I wonder how many more I would find. So are you saying that all of these issues should have been made to wait until the following agenda meeting after they were mentioned at an agenda meeting to give the public time to discuss it? I am confused now, but if that is so, shouldn't the solicitor have intervened and said something with all of these?

jm, You and I have already agreed that nothing about the diving board was handled properly. And, that the current council tends to frequently not follow procedures. You said the public was given notice that there would be a second vote on the skate park. I have given you facts to prove no official notice was ever given. The ENTIRE purpose of an Agenda is to inform the public what items will be voted on at the next meeting. This is an important part of transparency in government and even more important when the council is fully aware of the contraversy of a proposal, as they were with the skate park. There are over 8,000 people in Dormont and the only ones who knew there was to be a second skate park vote are possibly the FEW who actually attended the 3/29 Agenda meeting. You certainly could not tell by reading the Agenda for 3/29 or the revised Agenda of 3/29 - that was revised the SAME day as the voting meeting! How much notice was given of the vote? None!!

Your argument that there have been multiple times procedures have been ignored, thereby making this okay, makes no sense to me. Yes, I am saying ALL voting items need to be on the Agenda to give the public time for discussion. Also, this is the reason why any special meetings must be adequately advertised. The public has a right to know what our council is doing! Why doesn't the solicitor intervene? You would have to ask him that question.

JM, I can confirm Mary Beth's chain of events on this. I was there and personally witnessed how the events unfolded. The way council (and public) found out that the matter would be discussed at the 3/29/10 agenda meeting was from Channel 11 News on 3/28/10. The agenda for this meeting was closed at 3:30 pm on Friday (3/26/10) with not mention of a presentation from the Pitcher Park group. The item magically appeared (and when I say magically, not one person will admit to knowing how the item made its way on to a closed agenda) on a revised agenda on Monday. Mrs. Pitcher made her presentation and the very next voting meeting (4/6/10) the matter was voted on. I will also add that this was Easter week and many folks were out of town and not paying attention to the politics in Dormont.

Dan,

I can't not ask, why did you take down your post on the Criminal Background Check? Not trying to put you on the spot just curious.

Just Mom:

I have a new associate regional editor who wasn't aware of the initial disclosure and my regional editor was out of town when I made the latest mention and there were some questions since it involved me, so, it got pulled.

Lorenzo - a few quick clarifications. Gino has never been arrested according to an earlier post by Dan, the editor of the Patch. The open container thing was something Dan posted a while back and had nothing to do with Gino. Dan himself was arrested for leaving the bar with an open container. Obviously the rumor mill twisted that all up and made it sound like it was Gino. A lot of rumors are going around and not everything you hear/read is true. In terms of the money that the borough has (BTW the amount keeps growing every time I hear about it). That is a surplus and I'm not sure anyone is trying to hide anything. I would imagine that this money will come in handy to pay out bills/salaries, etc for the beginning of the year. It is my understanding that the borough usually has to take out a loan at the beginning of every year in order to pay for everything until March/April when taxes are due. I would recommend attending the finance and legal committee meetings every month if you have questions or contact Laurie Malka who is chair of that committee.

Good luck! I hope you can show that you are NOTHING like the yahoos that are up for reelection...and those that I wish were up for reelection.

Educating the Watching
The correct spelling for Yvonne (Onnie) COSTANZO
Thank you for your support.

Jeff, just to clarify, council gets $138.46 per month. The net is about $25.00/ week.

Lee, where do you get your information on what is really happening? Who do you talk to? Since "half" the people don't really know what they are talking about why don't you tell us your source of information.

I for one am willing to say I am wrong if you provide factual information and provide your source.

Thanks YOU Lee for YOUR free advertisement. I have never stated ONE word about my business in our Borough,only posting useful fact.But again Thank You and let me know if I now owe you some form of compensation for your posting.

You are welcome Bob - I just thought I would add some humor into the mix. No compensation needed. It just saddens me at the amount of anger and hatred that is emanating from these comments. I read this and people are taking in circles - going on and on about an issue then changing it to coincide with a familiar commenter. Bottom line: Change is needed in this community. No matter who is on council, or who is the manager or who is on the police force, etc. I have lived in Dormont all of my life (over 40 years) and the last 10-15 years the borough has really changed for the worse... until now. In the last year or so, Dormont has taken a turn for the better, it looks brighter, cleaner, and richer. All of this and no one has been laid off or no ones taxes have been raised - we should be the happiest community around, instead everyone is so angry because they feel like a certain group has been isolated and being "Picked On" - not true - everyone has to do their part. Come on now - you all have to admit things in Dormont have been looking up and I for one am very proud of that fact and commend those that had a hand in the change!!!!

LTDR,
Your posting name is "LTDR" and you start everyone of your entries "LTDR," as if you are addressing them to yourself. Are you confused or are there two " LTDR"s and you are talking to each other?

I was going to say the same thing Mary Beth. Maybe they think they are writing incognito but aren't LOL! or split personality disorder LOL!

LTDR & LTDR, As far as a coucil person saying they are going to check and double check everything, what is wrong with that? Wouldn't you want council to do that as a part of their job?

Thanks for the heads up Lee, I never noticed (insert a chuckle)

Yeah, ETW I think that you may need to check your facts. You're wrong on both counts. Just want the record set straight on that info.

Lee, the police have a pention fund to which they contribute 8%(the state maximum). The fund is also funded by state funds the borough receives for having police and fire. At retirement they get 50% of the average of their last three years wages. The borough does not pay into the fund with tax payer money and when they retire, the fund, not the tax payers pay their pension. As for social security, they and the borough do not pay into it ( at least for the police. Which is also saving the brorugh 7 1/2 % per officer.). So, when they retire, they would have to get another job to build up their quarters if they wanted to get social security. So, ETW was not wrong Drew. Maybe as a council member you should stay better informed. Not to mention that the police tried to settle their contract (with a reasonable offer), but Gino refused to negotiate. Maybe thats why the brorugh spent $52,000 on labor attorney fees?

Lee, her's another artcile you might want to read. http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_726138.html

Also, remember the pensions in Pittsburgh are a little different. Dormont is not able to take money, as the City did, from the pension fund.

Jeff, what's really sad is the word has gotten around to many of the 42 percent of Dormont residents who rent that they mean nothing to certain council people so these "FOLKS" say they will be at the polls just to show those that say only "residents" count that they will be counted for something! Hard to believe isn't it, that an elected official does not think he represents all of the people but only a "chosen few"?
If anyone has paid a gas bill in the winter or sunk thousands upon thousands of dollars into repairs to a make their house livable again in Dormont, one might wonder, if the renters aren't among the smarter people in Dormont. Instead of treating them like dirt, they should entice them to stay in the community by showing the rest of the community that the government cares about ALL PEOPLE! Isn't that how it is supposed to be?
Luckily the majority of "common folks" in Dormont do not agree with such treatment of ANY people!

Well said Mr. Fabus!

Lee,
You didn't say that about the Dormont Police Department???? Exactly who were you talking about in your above post at 5:54 PM on Monday March 14th??? (Those time stamps are REALY convenient!)

Lee,

I find your comments completely offensive. I believe the Police and Fire Dept. Employees and Volunteers DO work their buts off. In fact if necessary they will put their own lives on the line for you. Unfortunately people like you do not appreciate them until you need them.

Lee, For one, I think Dormont only has one, maybe two officers getting ready to retire and they are not the top earners. Pension spiking may occur, but that's not what's going on here. Pension spiking is if an officer only works a minimal amount of overtime his entire career and then in his last three years (the ones used for the calculation) works everything and anything. I think if you would check (that is if you would be able to get the info), you would find that the top earners in the article on the patch, have been the top earners for most of their career. If someone works the extra hours, I don't have a problem with them being compensated for it. I know at least one of the top earners has at least 5-6 years to go and I believe on of the others has at least 15 more years, so how is this pension spiking?

LTDR,
Apparently you have a problem with Joan Hodson. She is not attacking Mr. Rizza. She knows the truth and refuses to have the wool pulled over her eyes or stick her head in the sand. She's sees the problem (which unfortunately Mr. Rizza is a BIG part) and is trying to do something about it, without the help and support of her fellow council people. I think many of you forget that the majority of our borough employees are also residents here. I for one am thankful, after seeing how some on council treat regular residents, that I don't in turn have to go to work for these people and be treated the same way there. All I have to say is "Joan, hang in there. Hopefully we can get you some support come May 17.

LTDR,
In response to your earlier posts.
Who is making anything personal? The only personal attacks seem to be coming from you. If you believe that asking uncomfortable questions, and not getting a straight answer, is personal, welcome to Fantasy Island. As to the "double secret probation" crack, to paraphrase Dean Wormer, "why don't you put Niedermaggio on it, he's a sneaky little s....". (apologies to National Lampoon). If you really are a long time resident, we probably have crossed paths and if you know me, you know that I am a very approachable person. So I suggest you come out of the closet and let us all know who YOU are.

LTDR I do apologize for saying that but it did look kind of weird, but now that you explained you are new to posting, it is understandable. I'm am truly sorry. However I still do not see anything wrong with any council person who wants to check and double check anything in the Borough. I did not mention ANY particular situation in that statement and that was my opinion.

LTDR - people get rude when they have nothing else to fall back on. JM is not worth losing any sleep over!

I think DormontMOM has made some very good points. I am sure there are many responsible renters who care about the community they live in. There may even be many that are long term renters and of course they are entitled to express their opinions and vote to help improve the community. Hopefully, if those people decide to buy a house, they will choose to stay in Dormont. However, like it or not, the truth is there are MANY renters that are not here for long and simply could care less. I know many of the rentals on my street might as well have revolving doors. Tenants are in and gone so quickly that I doubt they are even paying wage taxes here. I would guess that a lot of homeowners in Dormont were renters at some time, somewhere - nothing wrong with that. If any those people told me they cared as much about the places they rented as they do about the house that they own, I don't think I would believe them.

Apartment Dweller,

Great comments and I absolutely agree with all that you’ve said. I know many people specifically rent because they don’t want the hassle of yard maintenance and snow shoveling. Many even pay additional rent with the understanding that those things will be taken care of by their landlord. If they aren’t, regardless of what agreement was made with the tenant, it is ultimately the responsibility of the landlord/property owner. I agree, too, that property and school taxes are paid (or should be) on every structure in Dormont whether owner occupied or rented (that was DormontMOM who commented that they weren’t). I think the problem may be that many landlords do not live in Dormont and do not treat their properties with the care that they should. Thanks for pointing out that enorcement should definitely start with the landlords. This is a difficult task but serious efforts do need to be made to ensure landlords are doing what they are required to do – registering new tenants and maintaining their properties. That way the borough can ensure that appropriate wage taxes are being collected from everyone and that the community looks better for ALL of us, as well.

I didn't want to ignore your post, but I must apologize to Dan Nephin for this being off topic.