Pittsburgh Tuesday takes |

Pittsburgh Tuesday takes

The wrist is slapped: Cecelia H. Yauger of Grove City stole $5,500 from the Midwestern Intermediate Unit IV, where she was executive director. Prosecutors think she stole more but couldn’t prove it. The regional public education agency serves among the neediest in society. But Ms. Yauger, at a time in which the agency was laying off staff, used the money to buy meals and make department store purchases, among other things.

Yauger’s attorney says the death of her mother triggered the behavior. She has since repaid the money. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti sentenced Yauger to three months’ probation, two of which must be served in a halfway house, 150 hours of community service and fined her $2,000. It’s a far too-light sentence for such an egregious violation of the public trust.

A shackled step: The state Public Utility Commission is earning praise in some quarters for granting the Uber ride-sharing service an experimental license that could lead to a more permanent situation. But two conditions remain troublesome. One prohibits cars more than 8 years old. It’s an arbitrary and capricious rule given inspection requirements. The other requires Uber to turn over certain ride data to the PUC. What, so it can disseminate it to competitors, as it has done in the past?

Do not forget: Six executives of insurance giant Highmark Health and Allegheny Health Network received more than $1 million in total compensation in 2013. Remember that when your insurance premiums go up and you open your next hospital bill.

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.