Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
Lance: To Vince Gastgeb. It's simply outrageous that the now-former Republican Allegheny County councilman did not immediately recognize the inherent conflict of interest in attempting to remain on the council in his new role as the director of corporate and community relations for the county Airport Authority. The dual role is expressly proscribed by the county Home Rule Charter. Mr. Gastgeb resigned that council seat Tuesday night. But the episode calls into question his judgment.
Lance: To the Allegheny County Airport Authority. Out of one corner of its mouth, the authority board demotes CEO Brad Penrod for failing to adequately strategize. Then, out of the other corner, it names Mr. Penrod to the newly created position of “chief strategy officer” and will conduct a national search for a new CEO. Good grief.
On the “Watch List”:
• The South Side crackdown. Dozens of arrests have been made and hundreds of citations have been issued in Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's efforts to restore some semblance of sanity and propriety to the often out-of-control city party district. As laudable as it is, where was the enforcement in prior years? Ah, yes, of course — it's an election year.
• UPMC. It can't seem to get its story straight as to why it has delayed construction of a much-ballyhooed $300 million science center in Bloomfield. UPMC-Shadyside President John Innocenti blamed a lack of funding. But UPMC spokesman Paul Wood claims “funding is not an issue”; he blames an overly aggressive initial timetable for the delay. Later in the week, UPMC reported a precipitous drop in second-quarter operating income. We report, you decide.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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 â 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.