The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue's new effort to help state residents live up to their 6 percent use-tax obligation is laudable.

However, it's reasonable to be skeptical about the success of the effort. There is no way to ensure that taxpayers will be honest in regard to the collection measure.

In theory, every person who files a state income tax return could claim to never have made an untaxed online purchase this year — and, indeed, there are many people who still do not buy merchandise online.

So the line on the 2011 state income-tax return asking taxpayers to declare — under the same oath they annually take in reporting their income — how much they owe in use tax might be a bust, although the state will welcome every dollar that the line generates.

For many taxpayers, the first reaction might be to scoff at the tax-collection plan, even though they're expected to pay the use levy when the 6 percent sales tax has not been collected on taxable items. Those taxpayers might hide behind the idea that with no way for the state to track such purchases, it is ludicrous for the state to try to collect the money.

Indeed, most taxpayers are not even aware of the use tax, since the state has not made much of an effort to remind taxpayers about it until this year.

Revenue Secretary Dan Meuser is hopeful that, by calling attention to the tax obligation by way of the line on the tax return, conscience will prevail.

For the sake of the state's coffers, residents concerned about the commonwealth's money shortage hope he's right.

Seven Fields Borough Council is not being unreasonable in proposing to charge a fee to nonprofit organizations for use of the borough's community center.But if the council decides to approve the proposal and possibly exempt some borough organizations from the fee, it should put down on paper a clear set of guidelines covering to whom and when charges will be imposed. The council should spell out the rules to avoid future disputes regarding the fee.Simply stating that charging of the fee will be handled on a case-by-case basis could result in hard feelings and headaches for borough officials in the future.They have more important things to do than spend time resolving such issues.But, again, the fee proposal is sound.As explained by Tom Smith, borough manager, even though the community center is supposed to be used by Seven Fields residents and organizations, many outside groups use it — because it's the only one in the area that doesn't charge a fee for nonprofits.Smith said more than 15 organizations use the center for free each year, almost all of which have little ties to the borough.He said borough taxpayers then are saddled with the bills for utilities, as well as repairing wear-and-tear on the center stemming from the groups' use.The borough merits praise for its generosity up to now, but local taxpayers' best interests also must be considered.The council plans to discuss the issue next month. The start of a new year is a good time to implement a change like that being proposed.

Todd Graham was hired last January amid much hope that he could revitalize the Pitt Panthers football team and lead the team to a Big East title in the first or second year of his contract.But the class he exhibited after his hiring was announced 11 months ago was nowhere in sight on Wednesday when he bolted from the Panthers to become head coach at Arizona State Univesity.Not only did he defy athletic director Steve Pederson, who on Tuesday refused to grant permission for Graham to speak with Arizona State, he compounded that absence of class by not meeting face to face with Pitt players to reveal his decision.Instead, he notified his players by way of a text message/email sent by an intermediary.That Graham began his news conference Wednesday in Arizona by saying that he wanted to tell his players at Pitt that “he loved them and he was proud of them” rang hollow amid what was transpiring.Jerry Cochran, Pitt executive vice chancellor and general counsel, summed up the situation correctly when he said, “Obviously, this is not the way we would have expected Mr. Graham to handle any possible departure. Beyond normal expectations with respect to professional conduct, he has failed to comply with the terms of his contract.”It was a contract in which Cochran said Pitt had made a significant investment to bring Graham and his staff to Pitt from the University of Tulsa.Yet here was a head coach who, after being refused permission to talk to the Arizona school, made it known that he already had engaged in conversations and was contemplating a job offer.Graham promised a “high-octane” offense to rejuvenate Pitt’s football fortunes. But there were a number of times during the just-completed regular season when Pitt’s sputtering performance indicated the need for a tuneup.There’s sadness at Pitt now, but perhaps Graham’s successor will deliver what Graham couldn’t — including some class.