The Michael Moreland interview: Utter ignorance
Veterans Affairs Regional Director Michael Moreland finally sat alone for reporters' questions on Tuesday. And he came across more as the arrogant and self-serving proprietor of a slummy nursing home than as the public servant in charge of veterans' care at 10 hospitals in three states that he is.
The VA has been under fire for its shoddy handling of a deadly outbreak of Legionnaires' disease at the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System in 2011 and 2012. Five vets died and at least 16 others were sickened. Investigations have shown a bumfuzzled response to the outbreak. VA officials perfected the art of stonewalling. Federal prosecutors are investigating.
Adding insult to deadly injury, Mr. Moreland was awarded a $63,000 bonus as the outbreak was announced and the VA's failure was revealed. And in this week's interview with the Trib, he defended that bonus in an unflattering me-me-me-meeeee performance.
Moreland said he has a tough job, don't you know. The Legionnaires' matter is old news, he seemed to say. And, he said shockingly, it's really not his job to be concerned with such things as the plumbing where the deadly Legionella bacteria were allowed to hold regular club meetings for so long.
Moreland obviously flunked Applied Accountability 101 but aced Advanced Arrogance 405.
While Michael Moreland says he won't resign over the Legionella scandal, he intimated that it might be time for a career change. As we're sure many veterans and their families will agree, that change should have come long ago.
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.