CROYLE: Which Side Are We On?

Being the new “newspaper” game in town, I often get asked “Whose side are you on?” when it comes to various issues.

That is easy to answer. “Truth!” However, they often do not want to hear the whole answer.

Before there was a constitution, our forefathers found themselves in a monarchy where the people were at the whim of the government. As the break occurred, they wanted a new system, believing in the people to govern themselves. So they created a democracy. Because the popular vote could not be taken on every issue, the instituted a republic, where the people would vote representatives for their regions. If the will of the people was not being met, the solution was simple: they were voted out.

Because truth is not easily recognized, they came up with a way to discover it. That is called debate. Unfortunately, there was a time in our country when issues stressed our nation. Instead of persons of high integrity debating issues, they became bitter and made personal attacks to win a war at any cost. Brother began to fight against brother. Homes were split. Relatives were killed at the hand of their kin. We called it a civil war.

Since the formation of the Armstrong School District, there has been an ongoing debate over the best way to educate our children. Schools have been merged, closed, reopened, and new ones erected… all in the name of quality education. The debate has even moved into the halls of our vo-tech school.

Instead of debate, I fear another civil war is on the horizon. Brother cannot eat at the same table with sister. Battle lines have been drawn. Generals have been assigned to each side to lead the fray. There is bloodshed looming in our courts, in the board room, and will flow into the streets of our communities unless we pause, reflect, learn from our past, and hold fast to our future.

The Kittanning Paper wishes to foster the debate, not the hatred. We are not joining someone’s army in any of the battles. We are looking for that statesman who will be able to stick to the issues, debate them strong and passionately, but not lose the kindred spirit that makes us one district under God, indivisible; with liberty and education for all.

This is a test of our character to see if this district, or any district, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We will meet next Monday on a great battlefield of this war in Elderton. To modernize the words of Lincoln: may we highly resolve that these school board directors shall not work in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of direction – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from this county.

CROYLE: Garbage Collection Decision Was Unethical

It is one thing to enact ordinances in a borough after public debate. It is another thing to give the perception of public debate while the vote is merely a rubber stamp made by previous consensus.

Kittanning Borough Council voted Monday night requiring all businesses, government, professional, and non-profit organizations to use the borough haulers for their trash service. The ordinance allegedly would make it unlawful for anyone to use a trash company other than Kittanning Borough.

Council permitted almost an hour of time to be consumed by business groups protesting the ordinance prior to the vote. They sat in their chairs, appearing to be concerned about the constituents for whom they were voted in to serve.

In reality, the decision had been made prior to the Monday night Council meeting and they were simply placating the visitors.

Proof of their actions came in Tuesday’s Leader Times newspaper. An ad placed by the Borough on page A3 states: “An ordinance has been enacted requiring all above listed organizations to be served by the Borough…”

Advertising cannot be placed in any newspaper in less than 24 hours notice. Someone at Kittanning Borough placed the ad prior to the Monday night meeting. Not only was the ad placed in advance, but it stated the ordinance was enacted prior to the actual vote. Therefore, it did not matter that Mr. Nassar voiced opposition. Mr. Vogel thought Council was listening to his concerns while all the time they had privately and previously decided the outcome of the vote.

Was Councilman Mark Sillson’s dissenting vote a rouse? Did he vote no because he heard the visiting voices or did he vote no to make it look like Council’s final vote had not already been decided?

Did any of the businesses that were given a “survey” form realize they were actually completing a request for service, and that changing information on that form will result in a $50 fee?

Does this rise to the level of a sunshine law violation? I doubt it. Does it show the Borough has just levied another tax on the businesses and non-profits? Yes. I guess they finally found a way to “tax” churches as well as commercial establishments to raise an additional 3 mills of taxes. Meanwhile, they eliminate competition in the marketplace and tell trash collection businesses they are not welcome to do business in the borough.

Your comments are welcome below. (Registration required to make comments. Register by clicking top right-hand link)