Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civic Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to defend unanimous divestment resolution against outside lawsuit
Summary
A large block of public commenters identified themselves as interveners in the lawsuit challenging the council's divestment resolution and urged the city to defend the resolution, citing moral, democratic and human-rights reasons. Multiple speakers described personal ties to Israel and Palestine and said they would not abandon the council's action.
Dozens of Northampton residents addressed the City Council during general public comment to support the council's unanimous divestment resolution and to announce that local residents have sought to intervene in a lawsuit that seeks to overturn it.
"I have joined as an intervener against the lawsuit seeking to invalidate the divestment resolution," said Catherine Hodes, who identified herself as a Northampton resident and Jewish American. She told the council she opposed the suit as an attempt by "a small group backed by out-of-town right-wing lawyers" to reverse the local resolution and to mischaracterize it as stigmatizing Jews.
Jenny Bender, another intervener from Ward 1, said she supports the city's resolution to divest from companies "complicit in human-rights violations" and described moral reasons rooted in family and religious memory for her stance. "I cannot be silent," she said.
Eve Glacier, who identified herself as one of roughly 30 Northampton residents seeking to intervene, told the council the action is about the city's right to align its investments with community values and to defend local democratic processes. "We had a resolution that was passed unanimously by the city council...and an out-of-town right-wing law firm wants to undermine those processes," she said.
Other interveners echoed these themes. Nick Macher cited an international expert''the UN special rapporteur on Palestine''and framed divestment as an established nonviolent tactic. Susan Taberish, who said she is Jewish, said intervening felt like an obligation to oppose what she called genocide and to protect democratic rights to determine local investment strategy.
Speakers asked the council to stand firm and to defend the resolution in court as needed. The comments were delivered during the council's public-comment period and do not represent action by the council; several speakers said they had already filed or joined motions to intervene in the pending litigation.
What the council did: The comments were received under the council's public-comment rules (two-minute limit); there was no council response during the comment period and no council vote tied to the public remarks at the meeting.
(Quotes and paraphrases are taken from the council's remote meeting transcript.)
