AI-generated transcript of City Council Special Meeting 04-14-26

[Unidentified]: Medford City Council special meeting April 14th, 2026 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Callahan.

[SPEAKER_05]: Councilor Callahan.

[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Mullane. Councilor Leming. You present? Councilor Scarpelli.

[Nayla Savage Romanos]: Present.

[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Tseng.

[Unidentified]: Present.

[Rich Eliseo]: Vice President Lazzaro.

[Anna Meyer]: Present. Thank you, President Peers, for calling the meeting to order.

[Rich Eliseo]: President Peers.

[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. Councilor Living.

[Matt Leming]: One moment. Sorry, I have two copies of the same agenda here, just going to the online one. Let's see. Motion to take the proposed amendments to the Medford Zoning District out of order.

[Zac Bears]: Motion by Councilor Leming to take paper 26058 out of order under suspension, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Callahan. Councilman Lange? Councilman Leming?

[Matt Leming]: Yes.

[Rich Eliseo]: Councilman Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? President Pierce.

[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none of the negative, the motion passes. Communications from the mayor, paper 26058, proposed amendments to the Medford Square zoning ordinance chapter, Medford zoning ordinance chapter 94, Medford Square City Hall overlay district. This is the Medford Square City Hall overlay district zoning amendment. This is for the city hall parking lots for the MSO overlay district. This was discussed and referred out unanimously with minor changes as recommendations from the Community Development Board. on March 31st, 2026. The recommendations from the Community Development Board have been adopted and tonight we need to take a vote to accept the recommendations of the Community Development Board and approve the zoning ordinance. We do have, I believe folks, we have Valerie Moore here. So I will certainly let Valerie Moore speak and I will also happily You know, turn this over to public participation for one last time, and then we will move to the next item on the agenda of our special meeting. First, I'll recognize Councilor Leming.

[Matt Leming]: Thank you, Council President Bears. Yeah, this ordinance, well, this overlay has been discussed quite extensively already. Essentially, it will allow transom to begin the actual building of the actual building process. They first were granted the RFP in a 99-year lease approximately a year ago. It is not the final Medford Square rezoning, which I believe will be considered by the Community Development Board tomorrow and there was an informal agreement to if they did refer it out to discuss that on the 28th. But this was taken separately because, you know, we were taking quite a while to go through with the Medford Square process. I believe Transom expected us to finish that process. months and months ago, and so they ended up working with the city's planning department to come up with a special overlay so they could just get through with their process and hopefully go through with a bid on a grocery store that they were talking with and get that finalized. So I'd like to thank everybody for attending all the meetings that we've had on this. And I would motion to accept the Community Development Board's recommendations and approve.

[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Council, I'm going to approve the Community Development Board's recommendation, accept the Community Development Board's recommendations and approve this zoning ordinance, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Is there anyone who'd like to speak on this matter? Please raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium in person. First, actually, I will recognize Councilor Callahan.

[Anna Callahan]: Yeah, I think just for the public as well, if somebody can just summarize what these small changes were, that would be great. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I recognize Valerie Moore who is council to transom on this project.

[Valerie Moore]: Thank you. And thank you all for taking this up tonight. The changes that were recommended by the community development board were primarily to align the use table with the edits that they had previously made to the use table for the Medford square base district that's under consideration. So there were minor changes to consolidating the types of parking garages that allowed and modifying certain uses such as banks to require special permits. These were all changes that were made to match exactly what is in the existing draft of the Medford Square based zoning district. So those were the changes that were made based off of the recommendations of the Community Development Board between their last public hearing and tonight's hearing.

[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.

[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. I applaud our council working together with the Community Development Board in multiple meetings. I think that it would not be respectful if I don't bring up the point that I think most of us made, the biggest fear that we have is making sure that while this project is in process and while we're moving forward with this project and making these changes, I think the biggest concern was the protection of our senior citizens and making sure that their parking is in order. I believe from what we've heard that there'll be ample parking for our residents that will be attending the senior center for activities and we're not losing anything. And the other piece is that we were told is that as we move closer to the stages where we start taking spots and where it's an issue that our neighbors will be feeling a little unease is that that will be the process that we can move forward with initiatives to make sure that we're following through for their protection and making sure that their parking and their safety is paramount as we move forward with this project. I think that that was something that was brought up multiple times in all the meetings that You know, we've had multiple meetings on this and I think that that was probably the biggest, most emails and contact I received as we followed through is making sure that our seniors had the parking for the senior center and it's not forgotten. And as we were told again, When we get close to the building process, this councilor, I'm sure my colleagues agree, that we'll be very active to make sure that we have a plan in place that they are satisfied and safe. Thank you, Mr. President.

[Zac Bears]: I would refer folks back to previous discussions by the City Council and Community Development Board in previous meetings on this matter. A number of presentations have been given and the zoning again is just the foundation. It's the beginning of a process for the next year. Transom will be pulling its building permit beginning site plan review. and actually finalizing the exact designs with our city team, our boards and city community development board and planning department before they begin to construct new buildings on the parking lots that are sitting right behind us. I will go to the public. Name and address for the record please and you'll have three minutes.

[Nick Giurleo]: So at the meeting in which the zoning was referred to the Community Development Board, I raised to all of you my concern regarding spot zoning. And I believe the city's attorney responded to my point and said that it would be discussed by the CDB during its public hearing. Unfortunately, that didn't happen and now it looks like the council is preparing to take a vote to adopt this zoning. without a legal opinion analyzing the possibility of illegal spot zoning. Just as a reminder on that, illegal spot zoning is when a discrete parcel is zoned for the economic benefit of the owner and it's not consistent with the surrounding zoning. And as was discussed at that March 31st meeting, which I wasn't able to attend but I listened to after the fact, there are significant differences between the Medford Square zoning and the zoning for transom. And we also heard many comments on the record suggesting that the legislative intent of this zoning is to facilitate the developer's project and meet its economic goals. For me, based on what I understand about spot zoning, all of this raises concern that we might be going into the legal territory. So I'm not here to tell you definitively whether it's legal or not legal, but I think if I were in your shoes, I would not feel comfortable adopting this zoning until I receive the legal opinion. analyzing that specific issue, which does come up often with overlay districts to benefit its specific developers project. It's almost always, I believe the city's attorney mentioned that, it's almost always raised the spot zoning question. And of course, that opinion does need to come from what I would say is a competent law firm or a lawyer or a disinterested one. Actually, preferably both. You can't rely on the representations of the developer. And I'd say you can't even rely on the representations of the city's planning office because you're going to probably hear, you know, in their opinion, it's okay. It's fine. There are no problems. So I don't think I should have to say obviously adopting zoning is a big and consequential thing. it will have a very dramatic impact on what our community looks like. And I think it's important to say we do have to make sure all boxes are checked before any zoning is adopted. And one of those is protect against potential legal liability. So it'd be my opinion that you should request that opinion before any vote's taken. I don't really see why this needs to happen tonight, this vote, necessarily, given the timeline. I understand there's a contract. I understand a schedule has been made and adopted and kind of put into place. But I think you should perhaps take your time with that and explore that aspect of it just to make sure, like I said, all those boxes are checked. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Cheryl on Zoom. Cheryl, name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.

[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Hi, Cheryl Rodriguez 281 Park Street. I just want to reiterate that the ask the seniors are making to transom is to build the garage and one of the two lots that is proximal to the senior center, so that I can be located in an ADA compliant distance. because the current location for the garage is proximal to City Hall and not proximal to the senior center, rendering those parking spaces unusable by the majority of the seniors who want to access the senior center. So this is very important to the seniors. They handed in a petition to the planning office with over 100 signatures that they collected in less than a week. And they have been attending meetings about this project for well over a year, and repeatedly have made their ask known. So I don't know why it's being misconstrued here. They are asking for the parking lot to be, the parking garage located proximal to the senior center so that they can access it. As they are elderly, many are disabled and they need the parking to be located close to the senior center or you're gonna choke off the senior center because they're not going to be able to access it. And unless that is the intent of the city to choke off the senior center and then take that land and sell it for more luxury housing, you need to correct this issue. immediately. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no hands on Zoom, we'll go to see no hands in the room. We'll stay on Zoom. Marion, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes. Marion, if you could unmute, I'm requesting that you unmute. Is there anyone else in the chamber or on Zoom who'd like to speak on this item? Seeing none, Marion, I'm going to try one more time, and then we're going to have to move. All right, on the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. This is to accept the recommendations of the Community Development Board and approve the zoning amendment and map amendment.

[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Kelly? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Mullain? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro?

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Rich Eliseo]: President Bears?

[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. Motions, orders and resolutions 26-073 offered by President Bears. There's a reason I don't have this memorized because I didn't write it. Resolution to request that the Mayor fund legal defense in Turtagvi City of Medford be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we request that the Mayor review our request to appropriate additional city funds to defend the City Council in pending federal litigation in Turtagvi City of Medford et al. Be it further resolved that we request an initial appropriation of $75,000 for defense costs and expenses of the City Council's defense of said litigation relative to the values aligned local investments ordinances adopted by the City Council on November 12, 2025. The administration requested that I put this on the agenda. We have told them in multiple settings, in addition to the vote that we took to override the mayor's veto last fall, that we believe in this ordinance and that we want the administration to defend against the lawsuit that we consider to be spurious and open to significant You know, that lawsuit has a lot of holes in it, and we think we can beat it. So we want the mayor to defend the city, defend herself, the city, and the city council, all of which are named parties. And in the back and forth that we've had for several weeks now, she requested that we put forward this resolution to make that request in an open session, even though we've already made it of her. previously. I will note, we're not in unanimous agreement on that. We weren't in unanimous agreement on the ordinance or the override vote. And I respect my colleague, Councilor Scarpelli, and his opinion on the issue. But, you know, six of us feel this way and that's how we voted on this. But I respect my colleague's position on the issue as well. So thank you, Councilor Scarpelli, and thank you to all my colleagues. That's why I put this forward at the mayor's request to reiterate something that we've said before. Any further discussion by members of the council on this matter? All right. Seeing none, I'll go to members of the public. If you'd like to speak on this request to the mayor, please come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. Give me one second here. We'll start at the podium. Name and address for the record. Please, and you'll have three minutes.

[Micah Kesselman]: Micah Shalom Kesselman, 499 Main Street. So before I start, I want to be clear to the city stakeholders and commenters that this is an important case and that delegates up and down the legislative stack from local and other cities to state and even federal are keenly aware of this case and watching, even if they do not tune in or speak tonight, though I certainly hope some will. Narrative framing, which I'll get into shortly aside, this case has significant ramifications across the state and even country, especially in view of the shockingly broad and deeply problematic arguments made in the complaint. In other words, because of how bad the complaint is, to capitulate to its claims and demands without contest would be catastrophic for many issues, unrelated even to the substance of the values-aligned local investment ordinance itself. And let us be crystal clear that this is not about money, but about petty local politicking. Offers to arrange pro and or low bono representation on this case have been met with mute response across multiple channels. I am, of course, in full support of the city actually defending the ordinance. Not only is the complaint riddled with myriad deficiencies, many of which could very easily prove to be individually fatal and some quite honestly potentially sanctionable, such as effectively lying by omission to a judge, the public comments, both including and excluding nonresident commenters, were overwhelmingly in favor of this ordinance. However, I want to point out an additional concern that has to be raised in regards to the defense of the ordinance. By all appearances, it would seem that KP law is still coordinating and leading strategy on this litigation. Given their previous work on this ordinance, there is a very obvious conflict inherent in them going on to determine defense strategy related to the ordinance. Of course, a client, in this case the city, can waive and choose to ignore these concerns. But let me remind everyone that beyond the obvious conflict, it is under KP Law's counsel and representation that the city has seen the largest uptick in litigations and subsequent litigation losses in its history. Why on earth would a reasonable, competent steward of the city's interests give them control over defense against even the facile complaint now at issue? I also want to take this opportunity to address one very obvious other element of this lawsuit. The two sole actual plaintiffs in this suit, Elliott Jokelson and Zachary Chertok, literally have the power to just drop the suit and actually engage with the community through the vast array of democratic tools at their disposal. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt and presume they do not understand who the groups are that are manipulating them into serving as a foothold to interfere with our city's governance. Gavura Fund and the National Jewish Advocacy Center, non-party co-signatories to the complaint, seek to usurp local Jewish voices in a dangerous effort to shackle our identity to the State of Israel, despite the majority of Jewish commons in this city being in favor of the ordinance and Temple Shalom even contributing language to the past draft that would not be there if not for their willingness to engage in dialogue. Moreover, as can be seen in the on-the-record words of Bridget Herbst, director of the Gavura Fund, these groups are pushing an Islamophobic narrative asserting that the Council on American Islamic Relations are, quote unquote, opponents of Jews, and that their support for the ordinance inherently makes it anti-Semitic. The entire minority detractor voice against this ordinance has been filthy with anti-Arab and Islamophobic dog whistles and undertones. Now, however, the dog whistle is a publicly disseminated statement to the media and one to which the plaintiffs are forever associating themselves. I urge you to consider whether that is the legacy and notoriety you wish to achieve in this city. We have just concluded the Pesach reflection on liberation and Tzedek. Do not yoke yourselves to these new would-be pharaohs who see you as nothing more than the instruments for their wretched co-option of our shared culture. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: I'm going to say that you've used your other minute as well. All right. No hands on zoom will stay at the podium name and address the record and you have three minutes.

[SPEAKER_18]: Jonathan Buss 15 Howard Street Waltham. You may be wondering why a former Waltham city councilor standing before you. I am here to stand in solidarity with the city council with the good people of Medford and the good people of conscience. in a time where human rights are systemically violated, not just here, domestically, but abroad. What you guys are doing is cutting edge and pushing forward and answering the moral crisis of our time by simply asking your investments to not go to fossil fuels, for-profit prisons, detention centers, weapon manufacturers, and companies complicit in human rights, in violations of human rights. you're actually setting the standard for what it means to actually have ethical law and order. So, as a former city councilor, I can tell you, I know what it's like to have scare tactics come from deep pockets, right? From corporations, from these law firms, and also from the administration. In Waltham, we have a mayor who seems to think that they're both legislator and administrator, right? And there's a clear separation of powers for a reason. And what I'm asking all of you is to hold the line and not let a corporation regulate government where it should be government regulating these corporations. So I stand here in solidarity with you all and I just want to make one thing clear. Human rights, international human rights, are not subjective criteria. It is the insanity of our time that saying that we want to respect and stand the line with international law is somehow subjective and discretionary. So what I'm saying to you all is, in the name of love and solidarity, hold the line. Do not make it easier for ICE to take advantage of our neighbors, to kidnap and abduct people, to torture them. And do not allow our tax dollars to go to these endless wars because the people of Medford, the people of Massachusetts deserve better than a Lockheed liberal defending the interests of these for-profit institutions that are clearly okay with violating human rights at every level. And you guys will be the standard bearers of what it means to actually do the good job, the good work of local government that is consistent with our constitution and that is consistent with representative democracy. And Lord knows we need respect, we need to respect international law. So hold firm, show your mayor who's really who, and we will look to your leadership in these moments ahead. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes. Oh, actually, we got someone on Zoom. Sorry, Nick. Thank you. No problem. We'll go to Stephanie on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.

[SPEAKER_22]: Hi, my name is Stephanie and my address is 305 Riverside Ave in Medford. So as a Medford resident, I'm in continued support of the values aligned ordinance. And I'm here to just share that the ordinance was passed in good faith, and I believe that the mayor must defend it and ensure the city of Medford follows through and puts it into effect. The lawsuit against the ordinance is baseless and it makes far-fetched interpretations of the true intention of the ordinance, which is to divest from fossil fuels, for-profit prisons, detention centers, weapons manufacturers, and any company in violation of human rights. I think it's important to note that, meanwhile, Medford currently has a $12 million in an investment account that includes Lockheed Martin, which is the world's largest weapons company and is the subject of an ongoing allegations from human rights organizations and the United Nations experts in regards to its role in the genocide of Palestinians. This is not something that is rooted in, you know, abstract thought. This is factual information. And I think this ordinance is kind of just something that is an action we can take to make sure we are adhering to international law and we are making sure that Medford's funds are not being put towards the violation of human rights, which our tax dollars do have an effect on. people's lives abroad. And that is something that is connected to us as Medford residents and as a city. So therefore, I believe the mayor and our city has a legal responsibility to divest from and uphold this ordinance to adhere to international law. And therefore, it is essential and required that we defend this ordinance. And I just want to make sure that the council and the mayor understands this and is prepared to defend against a baseless lawsuit and any others that come forth. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much for your comment. We will go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.

[Nick Giurleo]: Good evening again, Nick Giurleo, 40 Robinson Road. I speak tonight in strong opposition to this resolution. The city of Medford should not be spending a dime defending this lawsuit. You were all warned in a legal opinion before you passed this ordinance that it had serious legal concerns. You ignored that opinion and the city was sued. Medford should be entering settlement discussions with the plaintiffs. It should not be wasting taxpayer dollars litigating a lawsuit it is very, very likely going to lose. At your last meeting, you approved over $300,000 in payments to settle eight cases. Now, while this lawsuit is not seeking money damages, it is going to accumulate a huge amount of legal fees because it was filed in federal court and involves fairly complex questions of constitutional law and state investment law. It seems like at least the sponsor of this resolution acknowledges that because the request is for a very large sum of money, $75,000. Granted, given what you said about, what the sponsor did say about the administration requesting that that resolution be put on the agenda, I'll acknowledge that. But in any event, it's still $75,000. Now, with some of these recently settled lawsuits, these were brought as far back ago as 2022, and they only settled for a few thousand bucks. I'm willing to make a bet that that is far more than a few thousand bucks in legal fees that had accumulated in the course of filing to settlement. And I think these cases, and the reason I highlight them, that they're good examples of why unnecessarily delaying settlement of meritorious cases makes sense, makes very little sense financially. It doesn't make sense. You all should also know that residents in our city are struggling to make ends meet due to a very bad cost of living crisis. Allowing large sums of money to be allocated defending this lawsuit will provide yet another example of this council's poor fiscal management and disregard for those who are suffering. As I've said to all of you before, you could probably resolve this case by amending the ordinance. That's what I would recommend doing. If you choose to fight to the end, however, and it's struck down by the court, you'll lose the entire statute and you'll be back at square one. Our charter creates a system of checks and balances. The council is not entitled to spend as it wishes from our treasury. The mayor has every right to refuse an unreasonable appropriations request. She's wrong about many things, and I haven't hesitated to point them out, but on this, she's correct. I'll say it one more time, this appropriations request should be totally rejected. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no hands on Zoom, we'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.

[SPEAKER_13]: Good evening. My name is Chady Salamun, 59 Andrew Street in Medford. I'm here in full support of the city defending the value-based ordinance. This ordinance was overwhelmingly passed by this body and overwhelmingly defeated a veto. The democratic process played itself out as it's meant to. That's a good thing. At the federal level, our democracy is under heavy attack. If the city fails to defend this ordinance, it will be under attack here in Medford. The billionaire class already has an outsized influence on our politics. The resolution came from the public and went through the democratic process, and now deep-pocketed law firms swooped in to challenge it. A failure to defend this ordinance effectively gives these wealthy interests a veto over our local democratic process. This ordinance enjoys the support of both this body and residents across the city of Medford. It's for good reason. They understand appeasement is not an option. Impunity from war crimes begs more war crimes. The war crimes that we saw play out and are seeing play out in Gaza over the last two and a half years are now playing out in other arenas, including in my country, Lebanon, where the state of Israel in just 10 minutes dropped over 100 bombs, killing over 300 of my people and wounding more than 1,000. Defending this ordinance isn't just defending our values, it's also defending our democratic process from an attack that will be replicated in government bodies across our country, not just on genocide, but on LGBTQ issues, on education, on women's rights, and elsewhere. I implore you to do the right thing and defend our democratic process here in Medford. Thank you so much.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We will stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.

[Barry Ingber]: Good evening. My name is Barry Ingber, and I live at 9 Draper Street, and I want to speak in total unequivocal support of going to court to defend this ordinance, which encompasses most of the concerns I've devoted my life to since the Vietnam War. I do not want my city to profit from for-profit prisons and ICE detention centers. from the war crimes and crimes against humanity, including genocide that the US and Israel have been carrying out in Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, and Venezuela, from the fossil fuel industry that is both destroying the only planet we have and creating the primary impetus for our wars. But mainly, I want to speak about process. And I'm going to sound like I'm echoing Councilor Scarpelli from about an hour ago. The mayor, by employing for the past six years a law firm that works for her, rather than hiring a city solicitor who works for the city, has turned the city's law department into a personal political tool in the same way that Donald Trump has done with the Department of Justice. It is appalling that this discussion about whether to defend a legally enacted ordinance in court even has to happen. And this would be, I could be saying this even if I opposed the ordinance. There's no question that the city should be defending it. It's illegal, it's the city's law. This is just one more display of moral malfeasance by our mayor, and it is shameful.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We will stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.

[Nayla Savage Romanos]: My name is Naila Germanis, 3 Summit Road. I've lived in Medford for more than 40 years and I love our vibrant city. I'm here to speak in support of defending our hard-won values aligned ordinance. I'm saddened to see that our values-aligned ordinance and our local democracy is now being attacked in poor faith by deep-pocketed interests who have no connection with the community. Boston passed a fossil fuels divestment ordinance in 2021. And if this challenge is legitimately about the authority of city council to decide how our tax dollars are invested, Why didn't they challenge them? What is to prevent an oil company from finding some Boston residents to front a billion-dollar lawsuit against that ordinance next? We have seen our president undermine our democracy and constitution to enrich himself and his family. We see the writing on the wall. It is time for Medford to protect our democracy from the billionaires who think our towns are for sale. Thank you to the councillors for their bravery and leadership in the face of these attacks. Sometimes it's scary to do the right thing, especially when facing powerful, rich opponents, but have no doubt that it is the right thing to do. Thank you so much.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll keep it at the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.

[Clare Sheridan]: My name is Claire Sheridan, 190 High Street, Medford. I sent this electronically, but I'm not sure it went through. The divestment ordinance was duly and legally passed by the city council. It objects to corporations who make their billions at our expense and ignore decency and morality. Now there are forces trying to stop its enforcement and negate the will of Medford citizens and our elected officials. Why is our mayor not protecting our rights against this absurd lawsuit? Wake up, Mayor. Morality is now a national issue, as we watch our so-called president condone the destruction of an ancient civilization, the killing of civilians, depicts himself as Jesus Christ, and attacks the Pope of all people. What happened to decency and morality as political issues? They are political issues. Or is the almighty buck the measure of all. Thank you.

[Anna Meyer]: My name is Anna Meyer, and I live at 6 Douglas Road in Medford. And I'm here to support the continued support of the city council in our values aligned ordinance. And I'd urge you to pass this resolution to make sure the mayor continues to uphold this ordinance. I'm really proud of the work that this city did to work with the plurality of community members and to collectively take the input of our community to pass this ordinance that deeply reflects the values that we want to see enacted in this city. I think this is truly one of the most comprehensive divestment ordinances in the country, and I'm really proud of the work that we did and the bravery that it took City Council to pass this. And I think that we need to continue to defend it in order to make sure that we set the precedent that those with money don't get to step in and sue cities and scare them out of passing similar ordinances. I teach US history, and I just think about all the time the way that the economy of this country is built on warfare and the military-industrial complex. And it's so rare that I think we have a voice in saying how our tax dollars will be used and saying that we don't support our tax dollars being used to manufacture weapons that are killing children, that are bombing schools, that are killing infants at their fathers' funerals. And we don't support the kidnapping of our neighbors and detaining them in detention centers. I know Medford resoundingly voted to pass this resolution. And we worked hard to make sure that it would be implementable and defendable, and I encourage City Council to continue on that path. Thank you so much.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no hands on Zoom, we'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.

[SPEAKER_09]: Hello everyone my name is Matty and I live at 59 Thomas Street. I just wanted to foremost extend my appreciation to the city council for their unwavering support of their constituents and supporting the values aligns ordinance as it moves through this process. I also want to express my. disdain and perpetual disappointment in the mayor for failing to respect her constituency, failing to defend the city in what could very much be a landmark case across the country on the precedents that could be set if you don't abide by the will of the people. Regardless, we put y'all into this position and we appreciate you guys respecting our will. I think it's just another slap in the face that this process is dragged out to this point and then we're risking going even further into a legal battle with malintended law firms that are going to try to make it so that Our little ordinance being unraveled is the stage that's set for countless other municipalities across the country. Again, I appreciate your support. I think that we just need to keep putting pressure on the mayor and seeing where it goes from there. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.

[Ralph Klein]: Ralph Klein, 172 Park Street, Medford. I'm against voting for this money to be appropriated. simply for the fact that the council was advised that there was possibility of these lawsuits coming before they voted for it. Why not sit here before you approve this money? Why not approach the complainant and find out what language they would like to see changed? If not, it may not be in whole, it may be a few things that could be changed to stop this lawsuit from happening. And then this ordinance can go forward if you find it appropriate. Why go for the money first? Why not see if you can't find some common ground, as this council has seemed to have done? You know, that's what you need to do. Instead of saying, oh, we need the money to fight this, why not see what you can do first? Talk. Say something. See what they can figure out. Instead of just saying, oh, we want the money before we do this. Why not talk first? Say, table this for tonight. Approach them and see what you can find out, what language you can change. to make this feasible for both parties to come out winners. And that's what can happen. You have to first sit down and talk. Figure it out. Don't ask for the money first. Ask to talk first. Find out what you can change. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. We will go next to Zoom. We'll go to Eileen Lerner on Zoom. Eileen, name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.

[Ilene Lerner]: My name is Eileen Lerner, I live at 3920 Mystic Valley Parkway. I'm here to speak in strong support of the values aligned resolution. And I would urge the mayor to get behind this. We're engaged with a battle to save the world, I believe. And there are things that are morally right, they may cost some money, they may cost us something, but it's worth it. The morality is just unquestioning. And we need to support it. And I appreciate the city council for their work on this values aligned ordinance. And yeah, the people that are against it, I think simply don't understand what's at stake. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go back to the podium, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.

[Munir Jirmanus]: I live at 3 Summit Road. I am a longtime resident and homeowner in Medford. And I'm here to speak in support of defending our values, our values aligned local investment ordinance. This ordinance is being challenged by some oligarch funded organizations who want to stop the implementation based on some vague and sometimes irrelevant legal arguments. I am not sure whether they are objecting to the fact that we do not want our tax dollars invested in companies that extract and supply fossil fuels that are destroying our environment. They also seem not to like us not investing in the operation and servicing of detention centers, such as the one that's operated by ICE in our neighboring city in Burlington, among other places. They're also objecting to us not investing in manufacturers of weapons of mass destruction, such as what our president, And here I'm not referring to the president of the city council. Our president is using in his illegal wars, destroying a civilization and countries in the Middle East, using our tax dollars to enrich the weapons manufacturers. And finally, they do not want us to support to stop supporting apartheid regimes, as we did, say, in South Africa, plus other regimes who are intent on eliminating total populations under their control. So I say we reject these destructive attacks on our values. seeking to present the implementation of this amazing ordinance. I urge you to fully support defending this ordinance. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to Zoom, then we'll come back to the podium. Go to Dina on Zoom. Dina, name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.

[Dina Alami]: Hi, I'm Dina Alami at 320 Middlesex Avenue in Medford. I am strongly in favor of defending this ordinance and I'm truly baffled that the mayor is even questioning defending our city against such a groundless lawsuit. Aren't we the ones that are violating law by not implementing the ordinance that our council voted to enforce? Our city and our councillors have spoken and I'm incredibly proud of Medford and our city councillors for continuing this fight. And I also want to say that our Councilors have made continuous good faith efforts to communicate with those opposing the ordinance and amending it. It's passed. We have to continue to defend it. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.

[Patrick Clerkin]: Patrick Clerkin, 14 Bennett Place. I actually came here for the public engagement committee, but I guess I'll comment on this. So setting aside the initial intent of the ordinance and setting aside the wording of the lawsuit, one of the things that is also a matter here is an issue that I've thought about at the national level before, which is the packaging of these bills, basically. So for those of you who aren't aware, there are these omnibus bills in Washington, where a lot of different things get packaged together, and it can get very difficult to determine who's against what and for what reasons, and the various motivations, if someone opposes it or is for it. I think possibly something that could help this bill is to break it up into smaller bills. You're kind of going after four different things here. And I understand that there's a common theme. It's sort of like, this is our perceived axis of evil. We have to take on all of these at once. But there are legitimate arguments to be made, not just for the devil in the details of you know, how this affects the finances and the decisions on the back end. I'm sure there was a bunch of wording. It's been a while since I've read the proposition, but, you know, the devil's in the details of the wording. But also, the fossil fuels industry is a lot of industries wrapped together. It's not just fossil fuels. It's plastics. It's chemicals. I've talked about this before. Everything, the medical industry uses plastics. The automotive industry uses plastics. We're wearing plastics, artificial fibers in our clothes. The equipment that we use all around this room is made of plastics. It's a lot of industries at once. And then when it comes to weapons manufacturing, differentiating between offensive weapons and defensive weapons. Where you draw all these lines gets murky the closer you look at it, basically. And I'm sure that a lot of thought was put into it. It's worth considering, I think, breaking this up into separate bills and presenting it differently. And I think the timing of this is bad too. We were just talking earlier about lawsuits and now here we are with a lawsuit. That was basically ignored. And so, and also the city's finances are at, you know, not doing super well right now. are putting their values against practical things at the same time. Sometimes it can be very difficult to, you know, if you're being hit hard by economic matters, to also weigh these broad philosophical world-level things at the same time. So, thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We will stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and you have three minutes.

[SPEAKER_00]: Hello, my name is Turk Saman, 12 Window Street, Cambridge. I came here today to listen to the people of Medford and stand in solidarity with you city council members. And I just want to remind you that a government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. And the people of Medford have spoken, as we all saw, and I urge you to represent them And I think that what you're doing is very courageous, and I look up to you guys. And I hope to one day to represent my own constituent the same way that you do. Thank you so much.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments? Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.

[SPEAKER_21]: Hello, my name is Amani. I live on 10 Bowen Ave in Medford. I am here today in strong support for the values-based ordinance because it ensures Medford's financial decisions align with our community values. Divesting from harmful industries and companies connected to human rights abuses, including those implicated in the genocide of Palestinians, is 100% the right path forward. This ordinance was adopted in good faith with immense support from community residents, and it's deeply concerning that the mayor would allow it to be challenged without a proper defense. As a concerned Medford resident, I would urge this council to continue supporting this ordinance and imploring the mayor to appropriate the necessary funds to defend this community's will. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment? Seeing, no, you got your, you had your extra minute, Mike. I'm sorry. You go over on the first one. If you'd gone 30 seconds, I would have given you 30 seconds, but you went 58 seconds. No, you went 55 seconds. Sorry. I, you know. Any discussion, further discussion by members of the council? Councilor Tseng.

[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Just briefly, I'm going to be voting yes to defend the ordinance and I want to explain why very briefly. This council didn't act alone. We passed the values aligned local investments ordinance because more residents contacted us in support of it than almost any other measure we've taken up in recent memory. Neighbors, community organizations, stakeholders across Medford were all brought together. through a deliberative and inclusive process. And that is how representative government is supposed to work. We listen and we act. The people of Medford made a choice about how their money is invested, ethically, with clear guidelines, in alignment with their values. That's not a technicality. It's not a policy preference. That's democracy. Now, a few individuals backed by outside interest groups are asking a court to undo that. I can't vote to let that stand. If we decline to defend this ordinance, we're not being cautious, we're surrendering. And we're telling residents who showed up, who called, who wrote to us, that their voice only matters when someone with resources decides to challenge it. Medford's residents chose to be in charge of their community's money, They asked us to make that choice real. My job today and what I see as our job today is to stand behind them. So that's why I support it. I respect, you know, my colleague who will probably vote another way tonight, but that is my view on the issue.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. You know, I think the raising of the mayor's legal messes and the fiscal situation of the city are largely red herrings to the fundamental question here, which is, do you give the mayor a second veto when her first veto is overridden? And do you give a couple of opponents a litigation veto because they don't like the way the vote went? Now, whether that's this ordinance or any other ordinance, it went through the democratic process. I don't believe it's wasteful to protect the democratic process from being undermined by any litigant on any subject who wants to change an outcome to satisfy their personal opinion over a decision made by a democratically elected government through all of the necessary procedural requirements of the law. I think we have a strong legal argument against the litigation. And, you know, the issues are just really not zero sum in my eyes, right? Like, yeah, there's a bunch of lawsuits that the mayor has been fighting tooth and nail for years that we lose at the end of the day. What are the legal fees on that? We want to know the answer to that. There are three or four developments in the city that could be have been built, finished being built two years ago that would have brought a new revenue that would adjust the fiscal picture that the city is facing. Those are just fundamentally different issues to we, went through an ordinance process, we approved it, the mayor vetoed, we overrode that veto, and it's the law. We did what we thought was right, we're defending doing something that we thought was right, and just because the mayor lost, and just because two people who've decided to sue lost, they don't get a second veto unless the mayor wants to give it to them. And I think there's a real question, going back to the argument about legal counsel here, I don't believe this council felt we were being effectively represented when this ordinance was drafted. And I think this council continues to have concerns about whether we're being effectively represented in the defense. Not just of this, but we heard it on the ordinance we discussed for an hour and a half before this. We've been hearing it on the legal arguments and the legal settlements. We've been hearing it on case after case after case, where the mayor is fighting tooth and nail against claims that we eventually lose. And then the taxpayers pay not only the claimants, but they pay the legal fees. It's a completely different, completely different thing for us to say, we believe we have a strong legal footing. There are a number of folks who I've spoken to who'd be willing to represent this city for little to no cost. And then the mayor came back and said, you have to ask me for $75,000. So okay, we'll ask. We think you should defend this. We do not think the city should default on this litigation. We do not think that the city should not defend the law of the city of Medford. I think that's a pretty basic position that anyone would take. And if there was another law that I didn't agree with, I wouldn't support the mayor not defending it. I just wouldn't support that, because I think it weakens the city. I would certainly advocate for the legislature to change that law, or I would have worked to try to get the law to be different. Maybe if I were the mayor, I would have vetoed the law. But if I lost, I would defend the law of the city of Medford against a litigant who doesn't have a strong case and is trying to undermine the democratic process. So that's what we're asking for. And in addition to all of that, I do support this. I think it's a good thing. I think a lot of people think it's a good thing and really stands very strongly on legal grounds in my opinion. So we are certainly open to council talking to the other party to see what kind of arrangement they'd like to come to. I know that was mentioned, whether or not we'd accept that. We have to discuss that, but no, we're not saying don't talk to them, defend a tooth and nail. That's actually what the mayor's saying on every single time a union files a grievance. We want all the information that we can get. We want all the information that we can get, and we also want the mayor to at least test the case of our opponents. At least, don't just give up. Don't surrender before the first shot has been fired. Their case is weak. Why would we give up without at least testing that? If it ends up moving towards the settlement approach, That's a discussion for us to have down the road. But the mayor is saying for any of those things to happen, we have to put this ordinance, this resolution forward. So I'm happy to do that. Councilor Callahan.

[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. For many years, for a couple of decades, I was completely uninvolved in politics. I never voted in a city election. I never voted in a state election. I never voted in a primary. It didn't seem to really have anything to do with my life. And then in 2016, I got really intrigued by a candidate who talked about something that I felt deeply in my bones, which is that we are in a battle. between moneyed interests and everybody else about who controlled our government. It happened to be Bernie Sanders. I don't think you have to like him or even know who he is to have that kind of understanding. And I think many people who didn't even think that in 2016 have now come to think that. And I just wanna say, this here that we are talking about right now, This is the battle. This is the battle between us having a democracy that represents people, the people who actually live here, and us having a group of people who are controlled by moneyed interests, whether they are corporations or billionaires or what have you. This is what we are talking about. And that is why I am going to vote in favor of the city defending the ordinance that was clearly voted by a large majority of the duly elected city council and very much supported by the residents. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there a motion? Motion to approve. A motion to approve the resolution by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Millan? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? No. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Pierce?

[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. Any further discussion? Seeing none, the motion to adjourn this meeting, the special meeting by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. There is a resident services and public engagement committee meeting following this. I will turn over the chair to Councilor Mullane. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Kelly.

[Unidentified]: I'm sorry.

[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Levin? Councilor Millan? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?

[Matt Leming]: Yes.

[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? President Bears?

[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative, none of the negative. The motion passes. The meeting is adjourned. If you're on Zoom, stick around for the resident services and public engagement meeting.