ShareThis Page

Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances

| Thursday, Jan. 17, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

On the “Watch List”:

• Nate Harper. Pittsburgh's police chief is the subject of a federal grand jury investigation. At issue: Did he play a role in awarding a city contract to a shell company established by a friend to install computers in police vehicles? The chief previously said the department “had no involvement in securing the contract”; a spokeswoman says Mr. Harper was unaware of any investigation. Stay tuned.

• The race for Pittsburgh mayor. City Controller Michael Lamb has joined City Councilman Bill Peduto in the effort to unseat incumbent Mayor Luke Ravenstahl in the Democrats' May primary. Maybe former state Auditor General and council President Jack Wagner will join the fray, too. But perhaps there's a clever lad or lass waiting in the wings for an independent or Republican run, one who could make such a run more than the usual exercise in futility? Don't touch that dial.

• West Penn Allegheny Health System. Highmark Inc. has cut a deal with bondholders of the struggling health system to pay off its strangling, bankruptcy-threatening $726 million debt for a cash payment of about $635 million. It's considered key to the insurance giant subsuming, and saving, West Penn Allegheny. But while officials say the pensions of the health system's employees will be protected, nobody's saying how the plan's multimillion-dollar unfunded liability will be addressed. Details straightaway?

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.