(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries and letters to the Editor of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff, or publishers)

By Emma Lebwohl

Somerville is facing a $5.4 million budget deficit. Even so, the City Council is about to pass an ordinance that its own City Solicitor says would likely not survive a legal challenge. Defending it could cost the city millions, and it would slow down nearly everything the city buys. Residents still have time to stop the ordinance, but only until  Thursday’s hearing.

It started out as something smaller. Last November, voters approved a non-binding ballot measure, sold as a symbol and a gesture of conscience. The City Council then passed a resolution to turn it into a binding procurement ordinance, the one now in front of us. Voters approved a statement of values. They did not vote to take on a costly lawsuit the city’s own lawyer expects to lose. The same measure is showing up in city halls across the country, and the results are already in. Medford passed one, was sued, and agreed not to enforce it rather than spend half a million dollars defending it. Cambridge approved a divestment order last week, but did not approve a similar procurement ordinance. When Somerville’s ordinance was first introduced, an organizer told the crowd, “This isn’t everything we want … this is not the end.” We should take them at their word.

When the council passed its resolution to draft a binding ordinance, Councilor Ben Ewen-Campen promised he would not support an “ordinance that violates constitutional rights … or that is illegal in some other way.” The City Solicitor has since told the council that this is exactly that kind of ordinance. Under federal preemption and the Commerce Clause, foreign policy and international commerce belong to Washington, not City Hall, and in her words “an ordinance like this would likely not be upheld.” She also warned that it may be discriminatory and could tilt the level playing field that public procurement exists to protect.

Here’s how it would work. The ordinance ties city purchasing to a list developed and routinely updated by an international religious organization. That religious organization says its own list should not be used for boycotts, and the list changes constantly. How is a city supposed to enforce a list, constantly shifting and developed by an international religious organization, under state and federal law? Nobody on the council has answered that question.

The city’s Chief Procurement Officer has. She warned that the ordinance “adds another layer of complexity that I’m concerned, from a practicable standpoint, could cause confusion and delay that would not be in the best interest of the city.” Vendors using Caterpillar, Motorola Solutions, Axon or Oshkosh are on notice, and so is every department that relies on police radios, body cameras, fire trucks and construction equipment. The argument to “just find different vendors” is simply unrealistic. The switching costs for all of these companies are prohibitively high, particularly when considering that, in the case of Caterpillar, competitors like Komatsu, Doosan, Volvo, and more are also complicit.

Councilor Ewen-Campen doesn’t claim this will be free. “I’m not saying there will be no cost to the city in any way, shape, or form,” he said. “I’m saying I personally believe it’s worth it.” Worth it to whom? Residential taxpayers carry about 67% of Somerville’s property tax levy. The bill will land on families already squeezed by rent, groceries and inflation.

Cambridge shows what comes next. Its police unions warned that slower procurement leaves officers without the tools they need. They also raised concerns about the “financial security of Cambridge police officers, firefighters, and other municipal employees who depend upon responsibly managed retirement investments.” Purchasing decisions made for political reasons have real consequences. After Cambridge dropped ShotSpotter over surveillance concerns, Xavier Bautista, a Cambridge City Employee and member of the Black and Latino community, lay dying on the ground for an hour after being shot before help arrived. Equipment like that might have saved his life.

It’s also fair to ask why one country, out of every nation on earth, gets its own procurement ordinance in Somerville. In June, Lord Austin told Britain’s House of Lords that Parliament had discussed Israel more than the economy, crime or the National Health Service, and that the public looks on and thinks “this is utterly mad.” Somerville’s council has spent a similarly outsized share of its time on this one issue, while its own lawyer tells it the result will most likely be struck down.

The pattern is clear. Cambridge tried to satisfy the movement with a ceasefire resolution, then with divestment, and each time the movement came back with new demands. Somerville’s first step was a non-binding ballot question; the ordinance is the second. The next demand is already in sight: city retirement funds and city vendors. Ward 2 Special Election DSA Candidate Daniel Wong stated “I will work to hold the mayor accountable to effectively implement the ordinance and will file amendments as we learn how it can be improved.”

So to our councilors, our dedicated city employees, the contractors who serve us, and our neighbors in surrounding cities: pay attention. Several councilors championing this ordinance are headed to the State House or leaving office by year’s end. The city will keep the legal bills, the delays, and the precedent.

Contact your ward and at-large councilors before the hearing on Thursday, November 12. Ask them to listen to our own solicitor and VOTE NO. Stand with the neighbors who will pay for it before it gets any bigger.