I strongly support the legal complaint challenging the city of Northampton’s recent divestment resolution, which targets companies “complicit in human rights violations in Israel and Palestine.” This isn’t just about policy; it’s about the City Council’s blatant disregard for due process and the rule of law.
As the complaint details, the city’s actions conflict with state and federal statutes and fiduciary responsibilities. This isn’t just an opinion — it aligns with 2025 legal findings from Somerville’s Deputy City Solicitor and Massachusetts KP Law firm regarding similar municipal overreach. (KP Law is a public sector firm.)
More troubling, however, is the lack of public process leading up to this resolution. Reports suggest that three city councilors who co-sponsored the divestment resolution met privately with divestment campaign activists for up to nine months prior to the Sept. 18, 2025, City Council vote. This perception of behind-the-scenes pre-orchestration undercuts confidence in the City Council’s ability to govern with openness, honesty, and transparency.
In contrast to the process that reportedly happened behind closed doors, the city’s public records tell a story of sudden action. After reviewing the meeting minutes of every City Council and Finance Committee meeting from January to August 2025, I found no mention of a proposed divestment resolution discussed among city councilors at City Council public meetings or Finance Committee meetings. Interestingly, two of the resolution’s co-sponsors were the chair and vice chair of the Finance Committee during 2025.
For Northampton City Council members who publicly decry authoritarianism at the national level, this avoidance of open deliberation of a resolution is a jarring contradiction. When local government moves significant policy from silence to a vote without public lead-up, it compromises the very transparency that sustains a healthy democracy. By appearing to disregard transparency, the City Council mirrors the very “ends-justify-the-means” behavior they claim to oppose.
This legal challenge is a necessary step to reaffirm how local government is supposed to function. It sends a clear message that elected officials are accountable not only for what they decide, but how they decide it. Residents of Northampton deserve transparent representation on the City Council, and not one that appears to wade in Trump-like tactics.
I offer these reflections as a private citizen invested in the well-being of our local governance and community.
Andrea Newman
Northampton