Allegheny County Council’s Top Issues
- Council expected remove its president May 26
- Bill to unmask federal agents in the county hits a legal wall
- Proposed ordinance would keep sexual abuse protections for trans county inmates
Help turn feedback into impact. Subscribe today.
Each week, we share surveys on the biggest issues and take your responses directly to our elected officials. Join for free to make your voice heard.
SUBSCRIBECouncil president removal vote expected May 26
Allegheny County Council is preparing to remove Member Pat Catena of Carnegie from the president’s seat because of a mailer sent by his campaign for state representative.
Council Member DeWitt Walton of the Hill District called for a vote to oust him as president during the May 12 meeting, but the law wouldn’t allow a swift removal.
The mailer, sent to households in the 45th Legislative District which is represented by state Rep. Anita Astorino Kulik, who is retiring from the seat, included a line that his primary opponent, Brittany Bloam, was supported by “an extreme left group that advocates for transgender athletes in our sports.”
Sixteen county residents spoke out against the anti-transgender message of the mailer during the public comment portion of the council meeting.
The speakers spent almost an hour calling for Catena to step down as president or resign from council altogether. Speakers pointed out the vulnerability of the trans population as well as trans youths’ increased risk of being victims of violence and suicide.
Catena apologized for the mailers prior to the meeting as well as made a personal $500 donation to local nonprofit TransYOUniting PGH.
But the nonprofit sent it back. Saint-Osei McClendon, speaking on behalf of TransYOUniting, said, “We returned the money because our community is not for sale.”
According to the rules of council, a new president can be chosen by a simple majority. State law prohibits council, however, from voting on non-agenda items.
“If you want to delay it by two weeks, I suggest that President Catena resign tonight. Right now,” said Walton. “We’re going to do this next two weeks, regardless of how you try to delay.”
According to The Trib, almost four dozen residents attended the meeting. The next morning, seven council members issued a joint statement calling for Catena to step down. Walton did not sign the statement.
Council’s next scheduled meeting is May 26.
When a county council member in a leadership role takes a public position that many residents disagree with, what do you think should happen?
Bill to unmask federal agents in the county hits a legal wall 🔗
An effort to unmask federal law enforcement working in Allegheny County will remain in committee for now.
Council Member DeWitt Walton of the Hill District introduced the legislation last month. It would have barred local, state and federal law enforcement from wearing masks, obscuring their badges or otherwise concealing their identity while working in the county.
Frederick Frank, council’s solicitor, said at the May 14 public safety committee meeting that most of the proposed ordinance could not be enforced due to federal law preempting local law. It could likely be enforced with county police. “I do believe that we have the authority to direct the district attorney and the sheriff to do this,” he said. “They may have a difference of opinion.”
Council’s chief clerk, Jared Barker, clarified that the two models for the proposed ordinance no longer stood since Walton proposed his. Philadelphia City Council amended its bill, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted an injunction against the state of California’s.
“It would appear that our efforts to go down this path further would probably not be met with the kind of success we’re looking for,” said Council Member Paul Klein of Point Breeze.
Committee members voted to hold the bill to allow Walton to amend it to reflect the scope of the county’s authority.
If a revised version of the bill only applied to county police—and could not legally cover federal agents—would you still want the county to pass it?
| Strongly Agree |
| Somewhat Agree |
| Unsure |
| Somewhat Disagree |
| Strongly Disagree |
Proposed ordinance would keep sexual abuse protections for trans county inmates 🔗
Should the federal government remove protections for transgender individuals in the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), they may still be protected at the county level.
Council Member Bethany Hallam of Ross, who sits on the Jail Oversight Board, said during the May 14 public safety committee meeting that the federal government may remove protections for transgender individuals.
Then-president George W. Bush signed PREA into law in 2003. It is designed to prioritize detection, prevention and punishment for sexual abuse in prisons, jails and juvenile facilities. Former President Barack Obama added additional protections for LGBTQIA+ individuals in 2012.
A Dec. 2025 Department of Justice memorandum instructed PREA auditors to ignore provisions that conflicted with President Donald Trump’s anti-trans executive order from earlier that year.
Hallam’s proposed ordinance would codify those protections in the county jail and juvenile detention center even if they’re no longer compelled to do so by federal law. It would establish a zero-tolerance standard for the incidence of rape and also increase the available data and other information toward improving management in the county’s correctional facilities.
The committee unanimously recommended moving the bill to the council for a final vote.
How important is it to you that the county establish its own protections for transgender individuals in local jails and juvenile facilities, independent of what federal law requires?
| Very important |
| Somewhat important |
| I'm not sure / Need more info |
| Somewhat unimportnat |
| Not at all Important / We should not have these protections at all |