Hello Medford Friends and Families, I am sending this message because my City Council Colleagues and our City Administration have left me no choice but to file with the Attorney General’s Office and The State Auditor’s Office. It has been very difficult to get answers that our citizens have been asking.

I have tried to ask for more Transparency in the Cities Financial Budgetary process and have been ignored, bullied and illegally dismissed. Due to the absence of a City Solicitor, my only option was to craft a letter asking our State Offices for assistance. In full transparency I have attached the letter to share with our citizens. Please share this information with you friends and neighbors!Sorry It’s a long Letter

June 28,2024
@
Re: Improprieties with Financial Resolutions by the Medford City Council
Dear Attorney, General Campbell and Auditor DiZoglio,
For the past 16 years Ihave had the honor of being elected ot the City Council of the City of Medford. I began my current term this
past January.
Like any elected official, my ability to appropriately participate at City Council meetings depends on the fair and equal application of Council Rules by whomever serves as President of the Council.
Over my many years of service earlier Council Presidents consist- ently applied applicable Massachusetts statutes and local Council rules to facilitate dialogue and ensure the integrity and proper
functioning of municipal governance.
This is no longer the case. During the present Council term, Council President Issac “Zac” Bears and other members of the
Council have utilized Council Rule 21 in an unfair and self-serving
Diana DiZoglio
State Auditor Massachusetts State House Room 230
Boston, MA 02133

fashion to eliminate public discussion on multiple resolutions that wil result in the expenditure of millions upon millions of dollars.
Recently, their tactics have escalated into a callous and indifferent violation of my rights and prerogatives as a Councillor under
M.G.L. c 43 section 22.
Text of Medford City Council Rule 21
Medford City Council Rule 21states:
“Any finance paper appearing on the Council agenda for the first time shall be automatically laid on the table for one week when such action is requested by any member.”
Text of M.G.L. c 43 section 22
M.G.L. c 43 section 22 states:
“Any ordinance, order or resolution may be passed through al its stages of legislation at one session, provided that no
member of the council objects thereto; but fi any member of
be postponed for that
hte councli oficts,hte measure shal
The Purpose and Effect of Rule 2 1 and M.G.L. c 43 section 22
Local Rule 21 patently allows the Council proper time to consider financial papers that wil have a fiscal impact on the City.
The state statute, G.L. c 43 section 22, has a similar purpose but ti extends the right to any one member of the Council to prevent an ordinance, order or resolution from being “hustled” or “rail- roaded” through to passage at one meeting of the council.

Iwil now set forth what transpired during three recent City Coun- cil meetings.
Mya 0 4 – 5 5 Coul poled Ruel 12ot Prohibit
At this City Council Meeting I submitted a paper for the agenda. The paper was:
24-371 Resolution to Review Al Options in Supporting the School Committee Budget and Review the Mayor’s
Budget
Needs
Be it Resolved that the City Council review all options in supporting the School Committee Budget. Be it further Resolved that the City Council review the Mayor’s presentation of her budget needs.
My recommendation was to have the City Council move to use $5 to 7 million dollars from the “free cash account” to balance the
FY 25 School Budget. This would be an alternative to the pro- posal of other councillors to utilize a Proposition 2 1/2 override.
Before Iwas able to present my resolution City Council President Bears asked me something Ifound very odd. He asked me “for an amendment to make this more significantly specific” or he would
rule ti out of order. While I found his request to be bothersome, I began a cursory description of the options would propose. It ni- cluded:
1. Asking the Mayor to appropriate five to seven million dollars from “free cash” to level the school budget.

My point in suggesting this is to avoid the gamble fi the proposed Proposition 2 1/2 should fail before the voters. That would result in massive school department layoffs and render a fatal budgetary blow to our schools.
When Ifinished my comments President Bears became visibly upset and made various comments from the chair and he then
called for a recess.
When the Council returned from recess Councillor Matthew Le- ming said that since my resolution was a financial paper that he
was invoking City Council Rule 21. This ended any discussion on my resolution without debate and the matter was tabled.
While Ido not consider Councillor Lemming’s invocation of Rule 21 to be improper, ti marked the beginning of the Council using Rule 21 for its own convenience because, as you will see, when its suits the council it wil use Rule 21. However, fi the Council does not want to see Rule 21 invoked it will suspend the rules to prohibit its use.
June 11, 2024- The City Council “Prohibits” the Use of Rule 21 Paving the Way for Passage of Resolutions that Could Result in the Expenditure of Millions of Dollars.
On June 11,2024 at the regular meeting of the City Council Iex- pressed my disappointment that just a few days prior to the meet- ing Mayor Lungo-Koehn had submitted to the Council a two reso- lution [24-414 and 24-415] to place $7.5 million in proposition 2 1/2 overrides for the November ballot. The Resolutions were enti- tled
24-414- Proposition 21/2 Override Order and Ballot Question for Schools and DPW;

24-415- Proposition 2 1/2 Override Order and Ballot Question to Invest in the future of Medford Public
Schools.
My concern was that it is irresponsible to consider such significant financial proposals which will have a consequential impact on all property owners without there being proper discussion and con-
sideration. Due diligence requires that information be presented, discussed and public input received.
Also at that meeting there were three additional resolutions that also involved the expenditure of money. They were:
24-413- Proposition 2 1/2 Debt Exclusion Order and Ballot Question for Fire Headquarters [$30 million dollars];
24-045- Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Submission.
24-410- Use of ARPA funds for the FY 25 School budget.
In order to insure that the residents of Medford would have the
ability to participate during the discussions of these proposals and so that their participation and Council deliberation would not be “rushed” or “stampeded”,
“, I intended to invoke Council Rule 21.
However, prior to these significant money papers being pre- sented, Council Vice President Kit Collins motioned to “suspend the rules” and motioned to “suspend Rule 21” insuring that ti could not be invoked! The Council passed these motions by a vote of 6- .1 Iwas the sole dissenting vote.
The result of the Council’s prohibition on the use of Rule 21? Appropriate time for public input/dialogue squelched, the free

exchange of ideas was blocked, and a “strongarmed” passage of these significant financial papers was made certain. Government neither by the people nor for the people. Government by agenda. Government at its worst.
June 25, 2024- City Council President Issac “Zac” Bears Summarily Disregarded My Invoking M.G.L. c 43 section 22.
At the June 25,2024 meeting of the City Council Iexpressed my displeasure over Mayor Lungo-Koehn informing the council that Medford has $9 million dollars in certified in free cash. This ni- creased my concern and my confusion about having received res- olutions proposing the expenditure of millions upon millions of dol- lars and, at the same time, not being given the simple courtesy of having enough time to properly digest the impact of the resolution or to discuss possible alternatives.
Also at this meeting the Council again presented financial resolu-
tions [they were papers 24-427,24-428,24-432,24-437 and 24- 434- each one a “money paper”].
Once again Council Vice President Collins motioned to suspend
the rules and, consistent with her actions at the June 7th meeting, motioned that City Council Rule 21 not be allowed to be invoked. That vote was successful 6-1. Iwas the lone Councillor voting against her motions.
Then City Council President Bears brought forward resolution 24- 429 which calls for $3 million dollars to be expended for a feasibil- ity study to MSBA.

At that time, Iasked to be recognized and stated that the five res- olutions dealing with money that were presented to the coun-
cil that evening did not allow enough time for the Council to com- plete its due diligence prior to making a its vote.
Since the action of the Council Vice President Collins had already
eliminated my being able to utilize Council Rule 21, I invoked my rights under M.G.L. c 43 section 22 which, as stated, allows me, as one Councillor to object to the measures and postpone their consideration for one week.
I had received a copy of the text of M.G.L. c 43 section 22 from State Representative Paul Donato, whom Ihad reached out ot for some guidance.
Representative Donato personally informed me that he had con- sulted with legal counsel at the State Legislature [“House Coun- sel”] who said that even though the City Council had prohibited my use of City Council Rule 21, that there would not be any prohi- bition on my invoking M.G.L. c 43 section 22.
The reason I had contacted State Representative Donato was that Iam without the ability to consult with a City Solicitor since the City of Medford has not had a City Solicitor for many years.
Council President Bears ruled my request to invoke M.G.L. c 43 section 2 as being “out of order”.
Ichallenged his ruling and my challenge failed 6-1. My Requestto YourOffices
As I have described, it is my opinion that the members of the Medford City Council have acted in a joint and inappropriate effort

to eliminate discussion, quell dialogue and eradicate needed dis- cernment regarding significant monetary issues.
Also, the actions and decision of Council President Bears have intentionally and arbitrarily violated my rights as an elected mem- ber of the City Council by stamping out my prerogative to invoke M.G.L. c 43 section 22.
These actions and violations are clearly demonstrable and ex- tremely troubling. The Council uses words such as transparency
detriment of public input and good government.
This has improperly hindered my ability to meet the responsibili- ties of my oath of office.
These matters cannot be simply dismissed as matters of discre- tion or political maneuvering.
Just as the Attorney General’s office is required to review town bylaws for their consistency with state law and the Office of the State Auditor conducts audits and investigations to make govern- ment work better, Irespectfully request that both of your offices investigate, audit and ultimately guide the City Council on the ap- plicability of M.G.L. c 43 section 2 and ni the responsibility that ti has regarding financial resolutions.
I am available to provide any additional information or documenta- tion that may be required for your investigation. Please feel free to contact me at 781-858-0240 or scarpg@comcast.net should you re-
quire and further details.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that your offices will take the necessary steps to address these concerns and up-date me as soon as possible.
Sincerely
George Scarpelli
Medford City Council