ShareThis Page
Westmoreland Tuesday takes |

Westmoreland Tuesday takes

| Tuesday, February 14, 2006 12:00 a.m

Pass the whitewash: It’s hardly surprising that Westmoreland County’s “investigation” of its Children’s Bureau reveals that everything’s just dandy. That’s because the report does not directly address the starvation death of Kristen Tater, 4. Her case was handled locally before it was transferred to Armstrong County. A state investigation turned up a dozen deficiencies in the Children’s Bureau’s operating procedures. So, exactly what was the point of the county’s review, if not damage control?

Forget the high-fives: Before Westmoreland officials congratulate themselves over Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield’s $50,000 reimbursement to the county to settle overpayments, keep in mind that the sum was accrued over three years . Paying beyond what the county rightfully owed shouldn’t reach several thousand dollars before the money is returned. Closer tabs must be kept on future payments.

Arson arrests: It’s never easy for volunteer firefighters to investigate their own. But that’s what helped state police nab two Indiana County firefighters, John R. Narone and James L. Foster, both 19. They’re accused of conspiring with others in at least two fires — one of which gutted a barn and killed two horses. Both will have their day in court. Sadly, and even though such cases are rare, in-house investigations come with the job of firefighting.

Categories: News
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.