Declaring an impasse in the dispute between the city of Pittsburgh and the Italian Sons and Daughters of America, an Allegheny County Common Pleas judge will mediate the dispute over the Schenley Park Columbus statue.
Judge John McVay issued an order last week telling the parties to identify who from each side will participate in the mediation.
He has not yet scheduled a date.
Last summer, the city received a petition asking that the bronze statue of Christopher Columbus be removed because of his legacy of mistreating Native Americans.
The Pittsburgh Art Commission voted unanimously to remove the 13-foot tall statue erected in the park in 1955, and Mayor Bill Peduto agreed.
However, the Italian Sons and Daughters of America filed a lawsuit against the city seeking to have the removal stayed.
Although the city was permitted to wrap the statue to protect it, McVay granted an injunction halting its removal.
Two weeks later, McVay issued a strongly worded order asking the parties to try to reach consensus.
“While acknowledging that historical figures are people and necessarily come with heroic qualities along with character flaws, nonetheless, racism, slavery and prejudice must always be condemned and rejected by our city,” he wrote.
That filing prompted the Italian Sons and Daughters to file a motion asking McVay to remove himself from the case.
In it, they wrote that McVay’s order cast Columbus in a bad light and created an appearance of bias by the judge.
“Concerning to plaintiff is that the court adopts its own beliefs as to what considerations belong in the settlement discussions surrounding this action and those beliefs are based on demonstrably false and biased recitations of history that are swiftly disproven by the primary sources of Columbus’s time,” the motion reads.
It took issue with a comparison McVay made between the Columbus statue and those of Confederate generals that came under fire last year across the country.
“The court’s attempt to contextualize this action in history is inappropriate and displays its bias,” they wrote.
The judge has not ruled on the recusal motion.
According to court records, the parties met several times to resolve their dispute, and as of April 21, McVay noted that they were still making progress.
However, following a status conference on June 8, McVay said that they had reached an impasse.
