Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
On the “Watch List”:
• Luke Ravenstahl. The federal investigation into a police department slush fund that already nailed the police chief now appears to be focused squarely on the mayor. A grand jury is believed to have heard testimony from Mr. Ravenstahl's former bodyguards and his personal secretary. The proceedings are secret. But it's sure starting to sound like somebody “flipped” on the mayor — or at least is trying to.
• The UPMC threat. State Auditor General Eugene DePasquale says he'll audit the health giant if it doesn't allow Highmark insurance customers access to UPMC services after 2014. Access is in doubt because of the long-running Highmark-UPMC dispute over the former's subsumption of what's now the Allegheny Health Network. Mr. DePasquale has auditing power because of the substantial public subsidies given to UPMC. The bottom line is that any insurance should be accepted anywhere.
Laurel: To Jim McCarville. The head of the Port of Pittsburgh Commission has worked tirelessly for years to promote waterways commerce and lock improvements on our rivers. Now, Mr. McCarville, 67, has been honored by the White House for his work — in conjunction with a committee of volunteers, Carnegie Mellon University and the Army Corps of Engineers — to create a computerized virtual locking system. The recognition is well-deserved.
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.
Show commenting policy
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 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.