Residents urge Palm Beach County to halt or curb Israel-bond purchases, cite legal and moral concerns
Loading...
Summary
Dozens of residents told the Palm Beach County Commission at a public forum that the county's roughly $1 billion in Israel bond holdings violates state investment rules, concentrates risk and raises ethical questions; the county comptroller defended the strategy as lawful and yielding higher returns for local needs.
Dozens of Palm Beach County residents urged commissioners at a public forum to stop or sharply limit the county's purchases of Israel bonds, arguing the holdings both violate state and county investment rules and are morally indefensible.
Speakers said the county now holds about $1 billion in Israel bonds and pointed to a pattern of policy changes that they said increased allowable exposure from 5 percent to 10 percent, then to 15 percent and now 18 percent of the county portfolio. "Do not let our community be bankrolled by bloodshed," one resident said during the public-comment period, asking the board to "align our investments with our conscience." Many callers also urged commissioners to pass an ordinance banning county investments in entities they described as "engaging in genocide or occupation," to stop further reinvestment in November and to remove Norman Taplin from the county's Investment Policy Committee.
The calls for action combined legal and financial arguments. Several speakers cited Florida statutes (referred to in the record as "Florida statute 5 18.11" and "218.415") and the county's own investment policy, arguing that the bonds now fall below the county's credit-rating, liquidity and diversification requirements. "This investment does not meet this standard," a resident said, calling the concentration "highly risky and irresponsible." Others emphasized alleged human-rights violations abroad and said continuing to buy the bonds makes the county financially complicit.
The county's elected clerk and comptroller responded at the forum. The official present (recorded in the public record as "Clerk Cabrusto") said the office follows Florida statutes and county guidelines and defended the purchases as pecuniary decisions, not political gestures. "I have a constitutional duty to maximize the rate of return on the investments that we have," the clerk said, adding that the Israel-bond purchases yield roughly $37,000,000 "more than any other investment" available under current statutory limits and that those additional returns fund local projects.
Speakers and the clerk framed the dispute differently: residents emphasized alleged statutory violations, conflict-of-interest concerns tied to named local advisers and moral objections to giving taxpayer dollars to a foreign sovereign; the clerk emphasized legal authority, portfolio rules and incremental earnings to be used for county programs. Several residents said they had lost faith that the commission would change course without an ordinance or a direct change in policy.
The commission accepted the public record of the comments; no formal vote on the county's investment policy or an ordinance occurred during the forum. The clerk said that the public comments would be entered into the record and that the county follows the statutory authority that permits investment in Israeli bonds under the present rules.
What happens next: commissioners did not take a vote at the forum. Residents in the room repeatedly asked the board to either adopt an ordinance or instruct the comptroller to stop reinvesting in Israel bonds; the transcript shows the public record will include the speakers' statements for commissioners' consideration.
