Laserfiche WebLink
<br />wished to get the vaccines. She noted it wasn’t about mandating or forcing people to get them but <br />about having enough for anyone who wanted to have the vaccine. If using other words like the <br />“Center for Disease Control” or “government officials” or “the plan” was to have enough vaccines <br />for anyone who wanted them. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht replied that the idea for the “actors” are those who are acting. In this <br />instance, the federal government chose to use OSHA as the actor to attempt to implement it. The <br />City is opposed to that as well as if Congress passes something or tries to mandate it. “Actors” <br />would refer to whoever the state or federal government is trying to implement, this resolution states <br />the City would be opposed to it. Instead of listing every possibility, it was thought that the term <br />“actors” would be more encompassing but another word choice could be considered. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell referenced the language in the resolution where it says “with the exception <br />of the Pfizer vaccine for adults,” asked if there was a reason why it was added to that “whereas.” <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove replied it was because there was a question about whether Pfizer was <br />considered emergency use. She thought they were the only one that was approved for 16 and older <br />along with Comirnaty. She stated the other ones were for emergency use and Pfizer was the only <br />one that fits the category of being approved. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell suggested striking that because Comirnaty is only available in Europe and <br />Pfizer is the same formulation but under emergency use authorization, which makes them less <br />liable than if Comirnaty was here. She suggested striking that because technically, it is <br />complicated. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell asked, as the resolution is written, does it address regulatory agencies <br />such as OSHA or not. <br /> <br />City Attorney Knaak replied it depends on how the term “actors” is defined. If the language was <br />changed to say “the state or federal governments or their agencies and agents” it might clarify that <br />point. He advised it has to be answered with that provision. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff replied that this item was added to the agenda late in the week. He <br />asked that more time be spent on this, not that he disagrees with it, but he has some serious concerns <br />with how the resolution is written. Councilmember Woestehoff commented he imagined that there <br />may be agreement on some items that need to be clearly identified. He added that he has a long <br />list of questions. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Woestehoff, seconded by Councilmember Riley, to table this <br />consideration of Resolution #21-358 until a future Work Session. <br /> <br />Further discussion: <br />Councilmember Musgrove requested a friendly amendment to state a date for the Work Session. <br />Councilmember Woestehoff replied the first Work Session in January. City Administrator Ulrich <br />stated the date would be January 11, 2022. Councilmember Howell proposed that questions be <br />continued so that as a group with the City Attorney, they could have time to think about it rather <br />City Council / December 14, 2021 <br />Page 16 of 19 <br /> <br />