Minutes - Council - 12/14/2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

than vote and not hear the full Council’s thoughts. There was consensus to continue discussion. Councilmember Howell referenced Minnesota State Statute 12.39 which prevents the state from mandating a medical treatment and asked how that relates to this resolution, the contents of the resolution, and OSHA mandating something which violates something coming from OSHA or the state government. She asked how does that work out in relation to a City. City Attorney Knaak replied that is a complicated question on a variety of levels. He advised State Statute 12.39 that was referenced has to do with emergency powers. When an emergency is declared, it involves what you can do and not do and does enunciate, in Minnesota, the right to choose not to be vaccinated and references the right of the Commissioner in a separate section of the law that if you refuse to get vaccinated, isolation or quarantine is allowed. That provision of the law then gives you provisional due process. He explained that is not the same in other states but varies and there is an open question whether the federal government can mandate something under the Tenth Amendment on states and their subdivisions or whether the states have to do that independently. This is not clear yet. City Attorney Knaak explained that in terms of this resolution, it would be problematic if this were trying to enforce a mandate but this resolution doesn’t do that, it’s more a statement or position and would not cause any liability to the City. Councilmember Howell agreed with Councilmember Woestehoff that more time and careful consideration should be given to this resolution. She commented that this resolution is specific to one vaccination and asked if there was any thought given to broadening the scope to include language regarding respecting the individual. Councilmember Specht agreed. Councilmember Musgrove commented that may make the point even more, that this is an issue regarding healthcare that should be left to the individual and their doctor. She stated naming the COVID vaccine is the only one currently that is being required, where people may lose a job because of pressure to get this vaccine. She is open to having discussion on broadening the language but the focus now is the mandate for the COVID vaccine. Councilmember Woestehoff referenced the title “Mandating Medical Procedures” and suggested narrowing that language if the focus is on a pro-choice statement on the vaccine. Councilmember Woestehoff had other concerns with the term “whereas” and if it were removed, he would be okay with that. He commented on references to the Constitution, noting the Fourth Amendment doesn’t give the right to privacy but addresses search and seizure. Article six of the Constitution says that no lower decision of a government can override the decision of the federal government, which potentially could cause conflict if a mandate passes. Councilmember Woestehoff cited a Supreme Court case that indicated a person has liberty under a due process clause but quotes from the case include “neither the right to refuse treatment, nor the right to privacy are absolute, each must be balanced with the State’s interests to the contrary.” The Supreme Court held that there is no absolute right to deny medical treatment and there is no absolute right to privacy based on that case. Councilmember Woestehoff had questions about the phrasing of the sixth “Whereas.” He asked for clarification if the purpose was to provide an opinion that the vaccine, instead of being a benefit to residents, was actually only a benefit to the pharmacy companies. Councilmember Musgrove replied the pharmacy companies that are making the vaccine don’t have any liability against harm, they have immunity. The potential harms have to be weighted with the person’s decision to get the vaccine. She explained the concern about potential harm and there being no liability with the company or employer has to be weighed whether they will get the vaccine. There is no legal protection for the individual if they go against the employer or the company. Councilmember Woestehoff replied that the residents of Ramsey have commented that roads are a problem and residents may make choices not to drive because there is a pothole and the City is not going to be liable for a fender on a car. Choices are made City Council / December 14, 2021 Page 17 of 19