Medford Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn vetoed an ordinance on Oct. 9 that would have required the city to divest from entities operating contrary to human rights standards, a move that disappointed proponents of the measure.
The ordinance passed in August with a 5–1 vote, with Councilor George Scarpelli dissenting and Councilor Anna Callahan absent. Specifically, it called for Medford to divest from fossil fuel companies, weapons manufacturers and other entities contributing to human rights violations such as displacement and war crimes.
Reportedly, the proposal followed a public records request revealing that Medford had invested public funds in fossil fuel companies and in weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin. Some community members argued that such investments contradict the city’s stated values and human rights commitments.
“If we have these public funds, we are not going to invest them in this global effort that disregards and dehumanizes people in so many different ways — whether that’s for political gain or for private profit, or in many cases both, in a never-ending cycle of destruction and violence,” City Council President Isaac “Zac” Bears, a sponsor of the ordinance, said at a Council meeting.
Lungo-Koehn vetoed the ordinance, citing unaddressed legal and financial implications for the city and its employees.
“This ordinance, in its current form and in my opinion, has not undergone the level of diligence required for matters of such legal and financial magnitude, nor were any recommendations to do so considered,” Lungo-Koehn wrote in a letter to the City Council. “Specifically, the final ordinance was passed without fully addressing the substantive concerns raised by the Law and Finance Departments.”
Lungo-Koehn added that these concerns had been raised in a memorandum from KP Law, the firm the city hired to deliver a legal opinion on the ordinance, but went unheeded by the council.
“The lack of a pause by the Council when they became aware of the memorandum by KP Law before the adoption is unfortunate, but not irreversible,” Lungo-Koehn wrote.
However, volunteers involved in advocating for the ordinance pushed back on the mayor’s claims. Micah-Shalom Kesselman and Josh Eckart-Lee, organizers with Medford for Palestine, described Lungo-Koehn’s characterization of the process as misleading. Medford for Palestine spearheaded the effort to draft and pass the ordinance.
“I’ll just say that she lied about it in her letter — that the City Council did not address any of the feedback given to it by KP Law,” Kesselman said. “Many months ago, they sent an analysis and feedback, and amendments were put into the ordinance to address those specific issues with particularity and focus.”
He added that KP Law’s memorandum was not actionable and was not provided to the council in a reasonable timeframe, leaving members unable to address it during the Aug. 5 meeting.
Kesselman pointed to the citation of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 44, Section 55B in the memorandum as a key legal implication of the ordinance. The law states that the city treasurer must invest funds at the highest possible interest rate reasonably available.
Eckart-Lee argued that the state’s Prudent Investor Act gives municipalities discretion to make investment decisions.
“The problem is that no one has so far provided an actual, actionable, cogent analysis of how the ordinance runs afoul of that — other than to say that it does because it does,” Kesselman said.
Kesselman went on to claim that Lungo-Koehn’s collaboration with council members on the ordinance was in bad faith.
“She’s trying to appeal to reactionaries in Medford by saying no to this and also play the other side by saying, ‘Well, maybe my hands are tied by the state,’ which they’re simply not,” Eckart-Lee said. “She’s hiding behind references to [Massachusetts] general laws because she takes it for granted that Medford residents won’t care enough, or maybe won’t even be smart enough, to read them themselves and form opinions.”
A vote to override the veto was tabled by the Council during a meeting on Oct. 21. However, Eckart-Lee expressed optimism that the ordinance could return for discussion in a future meeting.
“I feel fully optimistic in saying this will be heard in an upcoming City Council meeting, and I feel confident in the members to vote in line with the sort of interests of our new city charter, which is also on the ballot, and promoting a Medford that is able to live its values and put its money where those values are,” Eckart-Lee said.
