Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Investments Israel Bonds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Cuyahoga County to explain decision not to reinvest $3 million in Israel bonds
Summary
Multiple public commenters told Cuyahoga County Council that $3,000,000 in Israel bonds were not reinvested on March 1 and urged the county and its investment committee to resume reinvestment and be transparent about who made the decision.
Several residents used the public-comment period at the Cuyahoga County Council meeting on March 11 to urge county leaders to explain why $3,000,000 in Israel bonds were not reinvested when they matured on March 1.
"Israel Bonds is a solid investment that financially has benefited and benefits our County," said Sherry Sax, who identified herself as a 44-year county resident, arguing the bonds meet the county's investment policy and urging the investment committee and council to "continue investing and reinvest in solid long term Israel bonds." She told council members the failure to reinvest amounted to divestment that she said rewards "pro-Hamas historical revisionists" and harms Jewish residents.
Marlene Weinstein also spoke during public comment, disputing statements made at a prior meeting about who made the reinvestment decision. "My understanding is that the decision regarding these bonds was made by a three-member committee consisting of treasurer Crohmes, county executive Ronain, and council president," Weinstein said, urging more public transparency and quicker notice if liquidity concerns were the reason for not reinvesting.
Howard Davis framed his remarks in personal terms, describing family and community impacts since October and urging the county to back allies and democracies. Daryl Houston raised separate concerns about rising property taxes in Bedford Heights and asked council to press state legislators on tax pressures.
Council did not take an immediate action on the bond question during the meeting. Public commenters framed the issue as both a financial decision and a matter of principle; some speakers called for a formal letter or public explanation identifying who made the reinvestment decision and why it was made just days before the March 1 rollover.
Next steps: the public comment portion ended without council debate on the specific reinvestment; Weinstein urged councilmembers to use their representative roles to discuss the matter publicly and to consider establishing a clearer forum for investment decisions.
