Minutes - Council - 03/09/2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

in different cases but have not been proven or upheld in any court. He noted that the mask law was litigated in Federal court and was dismissed. He was not aware of any basis under any of those statutes that would invalidate the Order. Councilmember Woestehoff noted that there are reasonable exemptions for medical conditions for people who are unable to wear masks. City Attorney Langel confirmed that those exemptions are in place and may be included in the Executive Order. Councilmember Howell referenced Chapter 12, Section 12.39, Subdivision 2, and stated that it is not her understanding that the Governor can place the entire state under medical treatment. She stated that if you reference the healthcare bill of rights, it mentions experimental treatment. She commented that in the course of history an entire country or state has never been required to wear masks which restrict their breathing, therefore there is no precedent and asked how that is not considered experimental research. She asked how it is fair for the Governor to place the entire population under medical treatment. City Attorney Langel commented that wearing a mask is not considered medical treatment and stated that as just discussed there are exceptions for those with medical conditions or personal objection. He did not see experimental research coming into play with this Executive Order. He stated that 12.39 indicates that if there is an Executive Order, healthcare providers have to provide notice of the right to refuse examination or treatment. He stated that nothing in the Executive Order advocates or impacts that requirement for notice. Mayor Kuzma commented that there are a number of residents that have indicated they would like to speak. Dan Kane, 16219 Iodine Street NW, stated that he would like to speak against the resolution. He recognized that this has been a long course that has been frustrating. He stated that no one likes the preventative measures that they are forced to take, but it is so close to the end of this and did not want to see people let up on those precautions prematurely. He commented that the Supreme Court has already ruled that such mandates are constitutional and provided the related link https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19A1044. He stated that even if someone has the opinion that the interpretation is wrong and the mandate is unconstitutional, this would not be the place to challenge whether the mandate is constitutional. He stated that the proper arena for that discussion would be in court or through petition to the legislature or Governor. He stated that while people have opinions, the Council does not have the authority to overrule this. He stated that individuals have the ability whether or not to follow a mandate but then leave themselves up to the consequences that may come with that, using the example of speed limits in construction zones which are also temporary. Carolyn Hemmer, 16010 Potassium Street NW, commented that she supports the resolution with the reasoning that no parameter has been given for when the mask mandate will end. She stated that she and several of her children have medical exemptions and those are not honored at many City Council / March 9, 2021 Page 11 of 21