Posting Issues (And Other Things)

Dear Patch readers:

(Especially those commenting on the latest article.)

I don’t know why some comments are showing up late or not at all. I am getting email alerts with the posts on them, but posts aren’t showing on the site.

I’ve also tried posting things in the “What do you have to say?” section, but I can't. I don’t know if it’s a browser issue or what, but I wanted to let you know it is not intentional. I’ve alerted our help desk about it. Hopefully, it will be cleared up soon. Some other of the 800+ Patches around the country have also had problems. Patch recently released some product tweaks: perhaps that's it. (As an aside, no, I do not own this site. It’s a venture of AOL. Go to Patch.com and check some others out. There are a bunch in the Pittsburgh area.)

I can’t go and repost every comment that may not have made it, but a few deserve putting in here (with my responses, when necessary):

Mary Pitcher wrote: "Lee also wondering: Are the civil service documents (exhibits) public record? Dan do you know?"

The answer I tried to post: My understanding is the civil service exhibits are not public record. I’ve asked for them and that’s the answer I was given by the borough’s labor attorney. Similarly, I'm told, the borough can’t release the transcript of Phil Ross’ April appeal hearing of his demotion. Ditto for the findings of fact that each side will have to furnish to the civil service commission to help in its decision. I’ve asked Ross’ attorney specifically for his findings (no) and generally what it is that they say the borough says Ross did—or didn’t—do to warrant discipline. (No answer on that.)

My understanding is they're exempt from right to know laws because they deal with personnel issues.

Drew Lehman wrote: "Sometimes things are said in answering a question that don't end up in print the same way that they were meant. One thing that I have found out in almost four years on council is that Dormont politics is a tough game. I have a great deal of respect for your father being able to put in so many years of service. Tom and I have not seen eye to eye on this issue but we still talk and I will still ask him questions about protocol relating to governance. I appologize to you and the rest of your family for how this came across, my comments were to mean that he has stood his ground and I wouldn't be surprised to see his name on a campaign sign in two years."

Julie Overand wrote: "I have since received an email from Drew, which I feel to be sincere, aplogizing for the way his words were perceived. It appears that he also tried to convey these sediments on the Patch earlier when there were issues with the comment field."

Then she wrote this, which gave me a chuckle:

"oops...I meant sentiments..I really did!"

(And honestly, I don't think Drew meant this in the way people are saying he did. He certainly meant no ill will, as he's previously talked to me about the mayor respectfully. His point that I took was the mayor is dug in and believes he's right on this issue and, to a degree, wants to maintain power that council does not believe he has. Would he take it back? In a minute. Did he mean ill-will? No. He contacted me before people started posting to express chagrin. I believe him.)

To those who think it is a slanted article: I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinions.

Educating the Watching posted this: Hello to all, been away for a while but I see the circus is still in town. A little food for thought FACT Chief Ross sent 2 officers to a grant writing seminar and upon its completion they were told by Mr Rizza that grant writing was the managres job and the seminar was a waste of their time beccause they would not be writing any grants and had he known before hand he would have never let them go. Just another way RIzza has tried to control every waking move of our PD.

I asked Rizza about this. He said the problem was they’d been sent without prior planning, resulting in some $1,500 in overtime, and the officers didn’t get any grants.

And for Leah Petrilli: Richard Dwyer, the acting police chief, is covered by the borough’s insurance at no additional cost.

To those who think I’m trying to stir the pot to get people reading: Partly yes, partly no. No, I am not trying to stir the pot, so to speak. What I tried to do was explain how things got to this point. If council is contending Ross was ineffective, why did they hire him? Did they see signs, or did things change? Could there be more to it? Sure. And I gave Ross and Mayor Tom Lloyd their say. They maintain council and manager Gino Rizza are exceeding their authority.

Do I want people to read Patch? You betcha. (and by the way, I turned down a job offer at the Trib to take this) because I feel there’s value in knowing what’s going on in our community. We live here, we pay taxes here, elected officials and employees serve us. We have a right to know what’s going on.

Do I want it all to be Dormont police and council?

No. The issue is just a thread in the fabric of our community. I repeatedly ask people to tell me about interesting people and goings-on that I don’t know of so they can be written about and shared. Since taking this job, I've met people I've never known—and I've lived here nine years. Some interesting ones, too. But I need some help finding things out. And, as I’ve said before, some of the extremely negative personal attacks have scared people off who might have something valuable to offer.

Just something to think about.

Be passionate, but, please, be polite. By the way, I’ll be off for most of next week, but may check in. And this was arranged WAY before things developed to the point where Ross’ discipline is expected to come up at Tuesday's council meeting. It’ll be the first time I’ve seen some of my family members in more than six months.

Now, have a happy Fourth of July.