tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481330.post8080754595078746702..comments2023-10-24T11:05:25.288-04:00Comments on Mark Rauterkus & Running Mates ponder current events: Some comments at Pittsburgh Comet to Anonymous. Hoppy EasterMark Rauterkushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17157914569686528007noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481330.post-79314376902218054382009-04-10T12:51:00.000-04:002009-04-10T12:51:00.000-04:00Then I posted:Bram, no. Not wait forever. Hell, La...Then I posted:<BR/><BR/>Bram, no. Not wait forever. Hell, Lamb's term is up in 3 years or so. <BR/><BR/>Let's get him in gear. <BR/><BR/>Are you saying that Lamb will NEVER do his job? You must mean that then.<BR/><BR/>We can't afford to have different branches of government doing jobs that are not their own after not doing the job that is theirs to do. That's what can't be done. That's folly in the highest order. That's expensive.<BR/><BR/>The information was at hand, early -- within the city -- within City Council's chambers. Council's duties can't be ignored any more. <BR/><BR/>If the controller can't get the job done fast enough then he's not well suited for the job. <BR/><BR/>I don't want wholly disinterested 3rd parties governing. Hell, Lamb sounds like a wholly disinterested 3rd party now if he is doing an audit (as hinted at above) in the spring and won't look into this too. <BR/><BR/>And, city council was a wholly disinterested party 3rd party when it gave the rubber stamp to the original bond deal. <BR/><BR/>Even W&SA board members are seemingly disinterested stewards -- as they now seek seats on the bench (i.e., Walko). <BR/><BR/>Pittsburgh has far too many wholly disinterested people -- so let's not advocate so as to create more of them.Mark Rauterkushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17157914569686528007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481330.post-85274540438822968432009-04-10T12:16:00.000-04:002009-04-10T12:16:00.000-04:00Furthermore, it was posted, in part: there will be...Furthermore, it was posted, in part: <BR/><BR/><I>there will be an audit of the pwsa this spring, but that audit doesn't look at the bond deals. It simply confirms that the numbers on the PWSA books. (revenues and expenditures).</I><BR/><BR/>So, why would Michael Lamb do an audit that does NOT look at the whole picture? <BR/><BR/>Is Michael Lamb doing a cover up?<BR/><BR/>Who is to blame for that audit?<BR/><BR/>Is that pussyfooting or not? <BR/><BR/>Is there any truth to that nameless blog posting claim?Mark Rauterkushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17157914569686528007noreply@blogger.com