Table of Contents
By Crystal Yormick
After a lengthy and at times contentious public hearing, the Medford City Council approved a resolution 6-1 and signed a declaration in support of resident or attorney general intervention in a lawsuit against the city. The move is the latest in an ongoing court case surrounding the Values-Aligned Local Investments Ordinance the City Council passed in 2025.
The ordinance has been an ongoing public battle among the mayor, who opposes it, the City Council, which established it, and residents on both sides of the matter.
The ordinance calls for the city to divest public funds from certain categories, including weapons manufacturers, fossil fuel companies, and companies found to violate human rights. City Council President Issac “Zac” Bears, who sponsored the resolution, said the policy is based on a Wall Street investment methodology done by Morgan Stanley.
“It's saying that if companies are breaking the law, international law, they get a ranking by Wall Street that says, ‘Hey, these people are breaking international law, and maybe you shouldn't put your money in that,’” Bears explained. “And we in Medford, the City Council, passed an ordinance last August that says we want to invest our money ethically. The mayor vetoed that ordinance. The City Council overrode that veto, and it was the law. It is the law.”
Is it the law?
Two residents filed the case in February against the city of Medford, the City Council, and Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. However, councilors say Lungo-Koehn is not adequately enforcing the law or defending the ordinance because of her own personal disagreements with it, which they’ve argued exceeds her executive authority.
“That two people and the mayor should be able to say there isn’t a law, even if 7,000 people and six city councilors say there should be one, that’s what this is about,” said Bears.
The plaintiffs sued on the premise that the ordinance exceeds municipal authority, conflicts with fiduciary responsibilities, interferes with foreign policy, and exposes taxpayer money to “unlawful management."
The city filed a stipulation to settle the case in the plaintiff’s favor on Aug. 27, stating that it will “not enforce, implement or attempt to enforce or implement” the ordinance to reduce city spending on the case. The plaintiff’s, Zachary R. Chertok and Eliot Jokelson, responded Aug. 28 that they would accept the stipulation for a permanent injunction on the condition that the city declares the ordinance exceeds legal authority and is “unenforceable,” according to court records.
If approved by the court, this would essentially nullify the law, which has drawn concerns from not only councilors and residents but also state Senator Pat Jehlen.
Jehlen, noting it was her first time ever speaking at a Medford City Council meeting, said if the court allows the city to default in the current lawsuit, the result is that even if the council overrides the mayor’s veto on this or any ordinance or appropriation, the mayor can still prevent implementation.
Jehlen called it a dangerous precedent that could change the balance of power and would mean absolute executive authority with no recourse for the City Council or the public.
City Councilor Justin Tseng agreed.
“If we allow one person to nullify a law that the city passed then this opens the door to nullifying a whole litany of laws that we passed,” he said.
More interventions
Another group of Medford residents filed a motion to intervene in the case on Aug. 28 in opposition to the city’s stipulation, arguing that the city’s monetary and institutional interests were not in line with theirs.
City councilors and some residents said supporting the resolution for intervention protects democracy and the balance of power and should be a decision that is separate from the ordinance itself.
In a press release published Sept. 16, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, which is representing the group of Medford residents seeking to intervene in the lawsuit, requested that the Court dismiss the lawsuit due to lack of plaintiff standing. If the dismissal is refused, the ADC has called for intervention by the Medford residents being allowed, rejection of the city’s attempted resolution of the case through its stipulation, and for the ordinance to receive a “defense on the merits.”
Frustration builds
Bears said the City Council has largely not been consulted or updated about the case, despite being a named defendant, and he said the lawyers Lungo-Koehn is using are an “increasing liability to this city.” The mayor wrote in an emailed statement to Gotta Know Medford that councilors knew about the legal risks of the ordinance before the council passed it.
“The City of Medford does not have endless resources to defend an ordinance that was poorly drafted and adopted despite clear warnings regarding its legal vulnerabilities,” Lungo-Koehn wrote.
The city has spent over $35,000 on KP Law’s defense of the case so far, according to KP Law’s billing report. The City Council has previously called for a minimum of $75,000 to be used for the case’s litigation.
What the people say
About 25 residents took the stand during the public comment period at Tuesday’s City Council meeting to speak in both support and opposition to the resolution.
One resident read a document pledging support for the resolution, which she said had been signed by more than 50 residents.
Resident Josh Eckert-Lee, an organizer with Medford for Palestine, called the ordinance a way to divest money from “destructive industries and futures” and envision a better world for Medford and Palestine. Having followed the lawsuits in court, Eckert-Lee said it is very clear that the City Council’s will is not being defended, and he said the mayor's not upholding her sworn duty to implement the law “is incredibly concerning and deeply disappointing.”
Several community members directed comments towards Councilor George Scarpelli, the lone opposer of the ordinance when it originally passed last August, and urged him to support the resolution, but he stood firm. Scarpelli said he would remain in line with his previous stance and continue to vote no for consistency’s sake.
“The fact that I continue voting no on anything dealing with this issue is because the funding mechanism that’s in place without a city solicitor and getting guidance and support is costing our taxpayers funding through legal finances,” Scarpelli said in an interview with Gotta Know Medford.
There has also been some online debate on Facebook around whether or not residents truly “voted” for this law.
Resident Robert Carney said during Tuesday’s public comment period he would support the ordinance if the council addressed the mayor’s legal concerns and concerns of the residents who filed the lawsuit. He said the concerns raised in the mayor’s veto were not mentioned in Bears’ comments Tuesday and recommended that the council pause the ordinance to spare further legal costs and figure out how to make it stronger.
“I’m simply not convinced that this council has done appropriate due diligence,” Carney said, and later he added, “If our city councilors truly want values-based investing, the right path is to perhaps go a different way.”
Resident Nick Giurleo also spoke in opposition to the resolution and cited the legal concerns voiced to the council before it passed it.
“You should be making decisions here based on sound legal advice and not political passions,” he said.
