MONROEVILLE, Pa. — The controversy surrounding the removal of a Pride display from the Monroeville Public Library earlier this year is expanding beyond the display itself, as residents call for a formal code of conduct for borough council members and an investigation into whether officials followed Pennsylvania’s open-meetings law.
The proposals follow weeks of scrutiny over the actions of Monroeville officials and communications surrounding the removal of the library’s Pride display, including records obtained through QBurgh’s Right-to-Know Law request.
Those records have raised questions about the involvement of council members in the decision-making process, the role of Municipal Manager Alex Graziani, and whether actions affecting the library occurred without a public vote or opportunity for residents to comment.
Now, the resident proposing the code of conduct says the controversy points to a broader problem of accountability within Monroeville government.
“This isn’t about creating rules because I disagree with someone’s political position,” Nicole Scott said. “Councilmembers are absolutely entitled to have opinions, disagree with residents, and engage in political debate.”
“What I believe they are not entitled to do is use their position, their public platform, or their social media presence to harass, intimidate, demean, or target the very residents and community organizations they were elected to serve.”
The proposed code would establish standards governing professionalism, transparency, civility, conflicts of interest, social media conduct, and interactions with residents and municipal employees.
“The goal isn’t to silence anyone,” Scott said. “The goal is accountability.”
Social media becomes part of the debate
One proposed provision would specifically require council members to refrain from harassment, bullying, intimidation, or disparaging comments directed toward residents, borough staff, fellow officials, and community organizations.
Scott said elected officials’ social media activity should be considered part of their public conduct, particularly when officials use those platforms to discuss municipal issues or members of the communities they represent.
“There is a significant difference between political disagreement and personal attacks,” they said.
Councilmember Bill Krut’s public Facebook activity is among the conduct that prompted those concerns, according to the resident.
They pointed to publicly visible posts and memes involving subjects including patriarchy, immigrants and race, as well as posts and comments related to the ongoing dispute over the library and its staff.
Their objection, they stressed, is not that Krut holds political or personal views with which they disagree.
“My concern is the manner in which those opinions are expressed and the people who are being targeted.”
“If an elected official is publicly engaging in behavior that would be considered harassment, intimidation, or disparagement if it occurred in person at a council meeting, I don’t believe putting it on Facebook somehow makes it acceptable either.”
The resident said a written policy could establish a consistent standard regardless of the political affiliation or ideology of the person holding office.
They are continuing to develop the proposal while speaking with other Monroeville residents and community members about what should be included. They also said any eventual policy would need legal review to ensure its provisions are lawful and enforceable.
“If Monroeville is going to have a code of conduct, it needs to be something that applies equally to every councilmember, regardless of political affiliation or who is currently in office,” they said.
Questions of bias surrounding Pride display
The resident also rejected the suggestion that the decision to direct library staff to remove the Pride display was made without bias.
They specifically questioned Graziani’s role in issuing the directive.
“No. I believe it was absolutely biased, and that is one of the things that concerns me most,” they said.
Mallory Grantz, communications secretary for the Monroeville Area Pride and Community Aid, said that, “I think that there was absolutely bias, especially because on July 7th he quoted Corinthians and then talked about how he [Graziani] does not think Pride should be celebrated.”
They contrasted the handling of LGBTQ+ representation at the library with Graziani’s previous support for accessibility concerns affecting another marginalized community.
According to the resident, Graziani had previously supported a local resident advocating for improved sidewalks and accessibility, an issue to which he has a personal connection.
“That was important, and it was the right thing to do,” they said. “But LGBTQ+ residents are a marginalized community too.”
They said the contrast raises questions about whether LGBTQ+ residents received the same consideration.
“If the Pride display was removed because it conflicted with someone’s personal or religious beliefs, then that raises an even bigger concern for me,” they said. “Personal religious beliefs should not determine which members of the public are represented or welcomed in a public institution.”
The resident said elected and appointed officials are entitled to hold religious beliefs and to personally disagree with LGBTQ+ issues, but argued that those beliefs cannot determine how government institutions treat LGBTQ+ residents.
“You can be a person of faith. You can have deeply held Christian values. You can disagree with LGBTQ+ issues. You still have an obligation to serve the entire community,” they said.
“And LGBTQ+ residents are part of this community.”
Calls for resignation
The fallout from the library controversy has also included calls for the resignation of officials involved in the display’s removal.
Some residents believe those calls are legitimate given the questions raised by records that have since become public.
- Advertisement -
“There are texts, emails, and other records that the public has been able to see,” Scott said. “Those communications raise serious concerns about the involvement of Alex Graziani and Bill Krut and whether pressure was placed on the library to remove the Pride display based on personal or religious beliefs rather than a neutral government policy.”
When asked at Monroeville Council’s Citizen Night on September 1 whether he continues to uphold his contention that he acted impartially and without any pressure from other councilmembers, Graziani said, “It’s very complicated.”
“It was councilmembers who commented. I spoke with my board director, I spoke with the library director herself, Ms. Henline, numerous councilmembers, so it was not done in a vacuum. My actions were entirely about trying to move forward and turn the page.”
“Like I said, and will continue to say, private businesses that weekend had already transitioned into Fourth of July, we’re celebrating our 75th anniversary, concerns of library safety, concerns of the library being in the middle of the fire were being expressed to me by numerous people.”
Graziani went on to say he believes the controversy rose to the level it did because library staff removed the Pride display but failed to ‘follow up’ on the second part of his request, which was to install an Independence Day-themed display in the same area.
When asked whether or not she would support calls for resignations of those involved with both the takedown of the display as well as private discussions about the matter, Grantz further added, “I do, and in fact I am calling for it.” Grantz was the first speaker of the evening.
The resident said government officials have a responsibility to represent constituents even when they disagree with their identities, beliefs or lives.
Scott criticized what, in her view, was inadequate representation of women, LGBTQ+ residents, immigrants and Black residents by officials involved in the controversy.
“That’s not because I expect every council member to agree with every one of those communities on every issue,” they said. “It’s because representation means protecting the rights and dignity of people you may not personally understand, identify with, or agree with.”
They stopped short of asserting that the available records conclusively establish misconduct, instead saying the evidence should determine what happens next.
“If the evidence ultimately shows that elected officials used their positions to pressure municipal staff into removing a public display because they personally objected to the people it represented, then I believe that is a serious breach of public trust,” they said.
“At that point, resignation is a reasonable conversation for the community to have.”
Sunshine Act questions remain
The controversy has also raised questions about how the decision was made.
Mayor Dennis Biondo and Deputy Mayor Eric Poach have previously stated to QBurgh that council did not vote on removing the display and that they were not notified in advance.
Documents uncovered through QBurgh’s Right-to-Know Law request further raised questions about communications involving council members before Graziani directed library staff to remove the display.
Scott said she believes the circumstances warrant an independent investigation into whether Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act was violated.
“I am not claiming that a Sunshine Act violation has been legally established,” they said. “That’s exactly why there needs to be an investigation.”
They called for a review of the communications and timeline surrounding the decision, including who participated, what decisions were made, who issued directives, and whether officials complied with the requirements of the state’s open-meetings law.
“If everything was done properly, then an investigation should establish that and provide the public with some clarity,” they said.
“But if the investigation finds that public business was conducted outside the required process, then residents deserve to know that too.”
For Scott, the question goes beyond whether officials ultimately violated the letter of Pennsylvania law.
“Even if someone ultimately determines that no law was violated, I believe there is a serious appearance of impropriety, and that matters. Government doesn’t operate solely on whether something technically crossed a legal line. It also operates on public trust.”
A controversy larger than one display
Scott said Monroeville residents should not have to rely on social media posts, conflicting accounts and Right-to-Know requests to determine how their government reached a decision.
They said several basic questions remain at the heart of the controversy: Who made the decision to remove the display? Who directed library staff? Which officials knew about it and when? What authority or policy permitted the action? And why wasn’t the matter handled publicly?
“Those shouldn’t be controversial questions,” she said.
“I don’t think government transparency means that every resident has to agree with every decision. It means residents should be able to see how those decisions were made.”
The Pride display has consequently become a symbol of a broader dispute over the relationship between Monroeville’s government and the residents it serves.
“The Pride display itself has become the symbol of a much larger issue. Can residents trust that decisions are being made through established processes, with transparency and accountability, or are decisions being made behind closed doors and explained afterward?”
The proposed code of conduct would attempt to answer part of that concern by putting expectations for council members into writing.
For its proponents, however, the principle behind the proposal extends beyond the Pride display, LGBTQ+ issues, or any particular member of council.
“I want to live in a community where government officials understand that they work for the public—not the other way around,” said Scott.
“And I think every resident, regardless of political beliefs, should want that same standard.”