Convenient retirement: The sudden (though hinted at) retirement announcement of Michael Moreland, the Veterans Affairs regional administrator, one of several at the heart of the Pittsburgh VA Legionella scandal, raises a whole host of questions. Mr. Moreland, 57, will leave on Nov. 1. Was it a forced retirement? Will his departure absolve him of any responsibility in the mess? Are there any special pecuniary parting gifts above his normal pension? Will he surface as a highly paid “consultant”? Answers, please.
AI on AC: The Allegheny Institute for Public Policy is blasting the Allegheny Conference on Community Development for pushing for a $2.5 billion state transportation bill underwritten largely by an increase in wholesale fuel taxes. Institute President Jake Haulk cites conference boss Dennis Yablonsky's lack of seeking quid pro quos for his support — such as eliminating transit strikes and prevailing wage laws. Asks Mr. Haulk, “Where is it written that taxpayers always have to shoulder the burden of overly expensive government projects and programs while the beneficiaries of the government's imposed excess costs do not have to make any sacrifice?” Excellent question.
Where's Luke?: Pittsburgh lame-duck Mayor Luke Ravenstahl appears to be setting some kind of record for mailing it in. Sightings are rare. His staff insists he's busy working on city business. But what city business that might be isn't known — the administration steadfastly refuses to release his daily schedule. It's a pretty crummy way to treat not only taxpayers but the office itself.
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.