The Tensions Flaring in Medford: Mayor and City Council Trade Jabs Over Crippling Legal Fees

On a Tuesday night, you can sense the atmosphere in Medford City Hall before anyone says anything. The council chamber smells like an old carpet, burnt coffee, and an overheated radiator. Meeting agendas are used by people to fan themselves. Council President Zac Bears, up at the dais, has the expression of a man who has been suppressing something for a long time as he leans toward his microphone. He says, “This one’s a barn burner,” and he’s right.

What’s happening in Medford at the moment is more of a slow-motion civic divorce than a policy dispute. On the one hand, Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, who has been in office for six years, claims she is being used as a scapegoat and that the administration has been transparent. Conversely, on February 24, a council unanimously approved a resolution calling for a comprehensive litigation report that dates back to 2019. On paper, the request seems dry, but in reality, it’s anything but.

Field	Detail
City	Medford, Massachusetts
Population	Approx. 59,000
Mayor	Breanna Lungo-Koehn (in office since 2020)
City Council President	Zac Bears
Council Vice President	Emily Lazzaro
Key Councilors Involved	Justin Tseng, George Scarpelli
Resolution Filed	February 24, 2025
Unfair Labor Charges 2011–2019	22
Unfair Labor Charges 2020–2024	74 (a 573% increase)
Pending Settlements Approved	8 (ranging $3,000 to $235,000)
Central Lawsuit	Federal suit over the Values-Aligned Local Investments Ordinance
Plaintiffs in Ordinance Suit	Gevura Fund, National Jewish Advocacy Center, Libby Hoopes Brooks & Mulvey, P.C.
Requested Legal Defense Funding	$75,000
Outside Firm Advising City	KP Law
Next Expected Milestone	Comprehensive litigation report (requested by end of April)

The part that sticks with you is the numbers. The city was charged with 22 unfair labor practices between 2011 and 2019. That number increased to 74 between 2020 and 2024, a 573% increase. In addition, civil service actions have increased by 33%. Appeals for housing, which were previously nonexistent, have begun to surface. It’s not necessary to have a degree in finance to sense that something has changed, but no one can agree on what exactly has changed or why.

Lungo-Koehn knows the solution. She accuses Steve South of Teamsters Local 25 and Councilor George Scarpelli of filing more than fifty grievances in just her first term. Additionally, she gives credit—or blame, depending on your point of view—to the city’s first actual HR director in many years. She contends that grievances are a necessary adjustment because unions aren’t accustomed to professional pushback. It makes sense as an explanation. The council is aware that this is not the complete picture.

A different, messier story is told by bears. He says the mayor asked him to assist in firing the city solicitor on election night last November. He refused. The lawyer vanished a few days later. This is a “complete misrepresentation,” according to the mayor, who claims she has never asked for assistance and occasionally provides councilors with a polite heads-up on personnel issues.

The truth lies somewhere between those two narratives, and hearing the two of them recount the same exchange is similar to witnessing two people remember a car accident—the same intersection, drastically different collisions.

In the meantime, the city’s legal advice has been handled by the private firm KP Law in lieu of the solicitor. That arrangement seems to genuinely unnerve councilors. Vice President Emily Lazzaro has been cautious but direct, pointing out that open communication between branches simply doesn’t occur as it should in the absence of an internal solicitor. As she speaks, it seems as though the council is trapped inside its own city.

The federal lawsuit is another issue. The National Jewish Advocacy Center, Libby Hoopes Brooks & Mulvey, P.C., and the Gevura Fund have filed a lawsuit against the Values-Aligned Local Investments Ordinance, which was passed in August, vetoed in October, and quickly overturned. The complaint claims that by replacing fiduciary judgment with ideology, the ordinance violates Massachusetts investment law. Douglas Brooks, managing partner, has referred to it as “antisemitic discrimination.”

In order to protect the city it oversees, the council is now requesting $75,000 from the mayor after voting 6–1 against Scarpelli.

For her part, Lungo-Koehn doesn’t think it qualifies as good-faith governance. She believes that Bears and Scarpelli are constructing a political and literal case for a mayoral campaign in 2027. Bears refers to it as a vendetta and claims he has no such plans. Both of those statements could be partially accurate. Seldom does politics divide neatly.

But it’s not the accusations that remain. It’s the spreadsheet that needs to be written; the mayor hasn’t yet produced the one that the council requested. Eight settlements totaling between $3,000 and $235,000 were already approved in April. Millions have been awarded in similar federal lawsuits in nearby towns. It’s difficult not to feel as though Medford is on the verge of something it hasn’t fully priced out while watching this develop. The meeting concludes. The radiator continues to hiss. And the bill keeps quietly mounting, no matter what it ends up being.