Editorial: Steelers camp or Trump rally? Westmoreland security decisions are inconsistent

Consistency might be the hobgoblin of little minds, but it is important when it comes to government.

We need our laws to be consistent so people obey them. If speeding isn’t illegal for everyone, why would anyone obey the speed limit? Embezzlement, shoplifting, fraud — prosecution shouldn’t be a matter of who the accused is or who they know, but rather it should rely on the evidence and whether what happened fits the definition of a crime.

The same should be true of other aspects. You should pay your taxes whether you are CEO of a Fortune 500 company or the owner of a corner pub. Your house should be built to the same minimum standards whether it is on one end of Main Street or the other. What affords justice or safety or freedom for one should do so for all.

So it is a little disconcerting when the rules don’t live up to that measure.

Take North Huntingdon’s rejection of a waiver for the $15,755 building permit fee for Norwin School District. A waiver is, by definition, a way to bypass a rule, so it might seem that Norwin is the one being inconsistent here.

However, North Huntingdon routinely has granted such waivers to nonprofits in the past, including schools and churches. With that in mind, there is no reason to deny it for Hillcrest Intermediate School’s $1 million roof project.

Then there is the Westmoreland County park police who will be working at Saint Vincent College in Unity. They are providing added security for the Pittsburgh Steelers training camp, which returned to the area this week after two years at the team’s home training facilities.

That’s great. But is it consistent?

In May, the county commissioners put the brakes on a similar plan by Sheriff James Albert to have deputies work at the Westmoreland Fairgrounds while former President Donald Trump and Republican Senate candidate Mehmet Oz were on hand for a political rally.

County solicitor Melissa Guiddy says this is consistent with prior procedures to have an agreement worked out in advance. Albert definitely didn’t do that when he sent eight deputies to the rally anyway.

Is it really inconsistent to send county law enforcement officers to provide an additional presence at an event alongside Secret Service personnel? One would think not.

Maybe it was the flagrant politics of it in the midst of a hotly contested Republican primary that might have seemed like an endorsement. It’s possible that was the commissioners’ concern. Maybe it was just a little internal headbutting and power-playing between the commissioners and the sheriff. Also a possibility.

But this is exactly why consistency is important.

It shouldn’t be necessary to dissect the reasons that county personnel are sent anywhere to provide security. There should be clearly spelled out circumstances for what requires a public response and what is wholly a private problem — and should that get a little muddy, the commissioners and not the solicitor should be speaking to their decision.