Medford council tables values‑aligned investments ordinance after hours of public comment

The Medford City Council on July 15 heard more than two hours of public testimony on a proposed values‑aligned local investments ordinance (Paper 25‑105) that would direct how city funds are invested. Residents and organizational representatives delivered sharply divided views: some urged the council to use municipal investments to advance human‑rights and climate goals, while others warned the measure’s language — particularly subsection D — is vague, administratively impractical and could stigmatize Jewish residents.

Supporters—including residents who identified themselves as Palestinian or concerned about fossil‑fuel and weapons investments—said the ordinance would align municipal investments with Medford’s stated values and avoid funding human‑rights abuses. “I encourage you all to support this,” said a member of the city’s Energy and Environment Committee, urging fossil‑fuel divestment and linking investments to climate impacts.

Opponents raised two central objections. Financial and fiduciary experts and longtime local trustees warned that broad divestment rules could harm the city’s portfolio and run afoul of state law governing municipal investments and certain trust funds. Several speakers named examples such as index funds and major technology firms that could be affected. “You don’t have the time or the expertise to make these decisions,” a resident said, urging reliance on federal Treasury instruments or a narrower approach.

Many speakers also objected to subsection D’s language, saying it mirrors Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement terminology and could be read to target Israel, which several Jewish residents said has created fear in the community. “It scares me,” one longtime Jewish resident testified. Religious leaders and other residents asked the council to remove or substantially amend subsection D to avoid treating the Jewish community as a monolith and to reduce the risk of inflaming antisemitism.

Proponents disputed that the ordinance targets Jews or Judaism. On Zoom, Micah Kesselman said the text “nowhere does it say Israel in specific” and that it refers to human‑rights violations worldwide. Several speakers urged the council to preserve the ordinance’s human‑rights and climate aims while tightening definitions and procedures.

Councilors acknowledged the breadth of concerns and said they plan amendments and continued outreach. Vice President Collins (the ordinance sponsor) said she would propose edits and meet with community members who raised concerns; she also urged commenters not to speak about the Jewish community as a monolith. The item had been placed on the agenda for future action earlier in the meeting and was formally tabled to a later date per an earlier motion to table Paper 25‑105.

Next steps: Councilors said they will circulate proposed amendments and continue public outreach; no final vote on the ordinance was taken on July 15.