Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Values Aligned Investment Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables consideration of mayor‑vetoed values‑aligned investment ordinance amid legal and community debate
Summary
Medford City Council tabled further consideration of a mayor‑vetoed 'values‑aligned' investment ordinance and heard extended public comment both for and against the measure, including claims it conflicts with Massachusetts law and counterarguments that the ordinance is practical with proper definitions.
Medford City Council on Oct. 21 tabled further action on a mayor‑submitted, values‑aligned investment ordinance after Vice President Collins moved to defer consideration until the next regular meeting.
Supporters of the ordinance said the measure would align city investments with local values and that drafters had worked with staff and KP Law to make the policy practicable. Opponents, including resident David Rich, urged caution and warned the ordinance conflicts with state investment law. Reading from the statute, Rich said, "[All money held in the name of a city] shall be invested ... at the highest possible rate reasonably available, taking account of safety, liquidity, and yield," and argued passing the ordinance could invite litigation.
Other public speakers raised practical questions about implementation. Robert Carney, who works in values‑based investing, told the council he opposed the ordinance's current language and urged clearer definitions about what constitutes a human‑rights violation. Micah Kesselman disputed broad legal interpretations offered by opponents, saying the KP Law letter was misread and urging the council to explain specific points rather than assert violation by implication.
Several speakers — including Munir Germanis — criticized the timing of the mayor's objection, saying an email from the mayor reached councilors shortly before the third reading. Council members did not vote to override the veto; they instead approved a motion to table the matter until the next regular meeting.
The council also received related public comments requesting that the city publish explanatory materials about the ordinance and how it would be implemented if adopted. No formal action to adopt the ordinance occurred at the meeting; the item remains pending.
