Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Divestment Lawsuit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Northampton City Council to defend divestment resolution after lawsuit
Summary
Multiple residents told the council during public comment that a lawsuit by the National Jewish Advocacy Center seeks to invalidate the council’s divestment resolution; speakers urged the city solicitor to defend the policy and described the suit as a threat to local democratic authority.
Several residents urged the Northampton City Council on March 31 to defend a recently passed divestment resolution after a lawsuit was filed seeking to invalidate it.
“The lawsuit is baseless. It's morally bankrupt,” said Matt Spurlock, a Ward 4 resident, urging the city solicitor to defend the council and warning that the suit could undermine the city’s ability to make future investment decisions. Spurlock said the plaintiff, which he named as the National Jewish Advocacy Center, had previously brought suits he described as “lawfare” against other institutions.
Ella Carlson, a Ward 3 resident, told the council she was “so grateful” the body had acted last term and said the lawsuit was “legally baseless and undemocratic,” urging councilors to oppose it.
Deborah Yaffy of South Deerfield said the resolution reflected months of local discussion and collaboration, including work with the American Friends Service Committee, and described the suit as an attempt to intimidate municipalities. “As a Jew, I'm standing up against apartheid and human rights violations in Israel,” she said, attributing recent policy developments in Israel as part of her rationale for the resolution.
Dvo Rosenstein, who identified as a Jewish resident who spends most days in Northampton, said the divestment work had been inspiring and urged the council not to be “cowed” by legal threats. A resident who identified only as Z also spoke in support of the resolution, saying holding institutions accountable through investment policy is one way to refuse complicity.
None of the speakers described any formal action taken by the council at the meeting to respond to the lawsuit; their remarks occurred during the public-comment period. The commenters asked that the city solicitor vigorously defend the council’s prior resolution, and attendees said the litigation raises broader questions about the ability of municipalities to align investments with local values.
The public-comment period continued with other speakers later in the meeting; no vote or formal direction on the lawsuit was recorded in the provided transcript.
