Pittsburgh's director of communications resigns amid petition controversy

The recent controversy over a proposed referendum that would prohibit the City of Pittsburgh from doing business with any entity that has ties to Israel while the war in Gaza is ongoing has now pitted advocates for the Jewish community against some city employees and the elected officials for whom they serve.

About a dozen employees — within Mayor Ed Gainey’s administration and who work for council members — signed the petition, which some opponents have called antisemitic and said could be catastrophic to city operations.

But city officials and First Amendment advocates said that their employees are free to express their own political positions without fear of retribution — even as one of them, the mayor’s director of communications who signed the petition, resigned amidst the dispute.

“It is important to reiterate my administration’s commitment to supporting the full civil and political rights of our employees, who are free to advocate as they see fit, whether or not their views agree with my own,” Gainey said in a statement. “I will always uphold their freedom to participate in our democracy and to express their moral and political beliefs.”

Maria Montaño, who served as Gainey’s director of communications for 2 1/2 years, stepped down this week.

She did not return multiple messages seeking comment.

In a statement, Gainey said the war in Gaza is a charged topic that has created new divisions between and within communities.

“As mayor, my priority is the safety of every resident and the creation of unity,” he said.

In his statement, Gainey touted his efforts to listen to members of the Palestinian, Muslim and Jewish communities in negotiating a resolution to the encampment earlier this year at the University of Pittsburgh, as well as his condemnation of acts of antisemitism.

“Maria’s decision to resign from her position was her own and reflects her selfless desire to keep the focus of the administration on the required work and mission of creating a safe and welcoming city for all,” Gainey said.

The mayor did not answer several follow-up questions submitted via email.

At a press event earlier in the day on Thursday, he refused to answer reporters’ questions on the topics and directed them only to the forthcoming statement.

On Tuesday, the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh and the City of Pittsburgh controller’s office filed legal challenges to the referendum petition in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court.

A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Monday.

In their court filings, they argue that the proposed ballot question is overbroad, violates state law by discriminating against Israel and that the petitions don’t have an adequate number of qualified signatories.

Opponents to the referendum said it could seriously hamper the city’s ability to provide essential services, including public safety and medical services.

“We care about the impact — how it would affect the Jewish community and the city at large,” said Laura Cherner, the director of community relations for the federation.

Jeremy Kazzaz, the executive director of Beacon Coalition, a nonpartisan Jewish advocacy group, said his organization mobilized volunteers to review the signatures on the petition for potential challenges.

It was during that review that they flagged about a dozen city employees — including staff members for Councilwoman Barb Warwick, and employees in Gainey’s administration — as having signed it.

The city employs about 3,600 people.

“We are disappointed by the silence and participation in this dangerous action by the Gainey administration and Barb Warwick’s staff,” Kazzaz said.

While the Jewish Federation’s primary objective is ensuring the referendum question never makes it onto the ballot, Cherner said they also want to know whether the city employees who signed the petition are representing the officials for whom they work.

“No one has clarified that directly to us,” Cherner said. “When you are working in government or in a position where you’re advising an elected official, the policy decisions you make are representative of the official.”

Are those signatures, she continued, an endorsement of the referendum?

“I think it’s up to the officials to really clarify and act accordingly if their staff represents that viewpoint,” Cherner said.

That the referendum could have the potential to shut down city operations, she continued, makes it all the more concerning that city staffers signed it.

But Warwick, in a statement, said her staff members are free to engage in political activity after work hours.

“And quite frankly, as their employer, I find it disconcerting to be contacted about an action as passive and peaceable as signing a ballot measure petition,” she said. “It is entirely understandable and human to want this war to end.

“But targeting the livelihoods of individual Pittsburghers for expressing their position one way or another is a dark road I sincerely hope none of us wants to go down.”

Witold Walczak, the legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, said on Thursday that simply working for the government does not mean a person gives up their First Amendment rights.

But there can be limits, he said.

If an employee’s speech undermines an important employer interest, Walczak said, they could be subject to discipline.

But he doesn’t think that’s the case in this instance.

“It’s a balancing. What is the government employer’s interest versus the importance of the speech?”

Signing the petition, Walczak said, is basically commenting on foreign policy — core political speech.

“Whether you call it antisemitic or not, it’s clearly protected by the First Amendment,” he said. “There’s no exception to the First Amendment for antisemitic speech, or racist speech or misogynistic speech.

“If you’re a Pittsburgh resident and entitled to sign, I cannot see a scenario where a government employer could fire or discipline an employee for signing a petition.”

Leanne Davis, the executive director of the city’s ethics hearing board, said the city’s political activity rules are designed to balance freedom of expression with misuse of position.

The city’s charter makes it unlawful for employees to engage in political activity during working hours or at all times on city property, Davis said.

But it also recognizes the “right of city employees to support a political party, to vote as they choose, to hold party office or to express publicly and privately their opinions on political subjects and to attend political meetings.”