Laserfiche WebLink
the offenses involving the public health section and in particular creating a section related to <br /> discrimination for personal health decisions during a pandemic. There is a findings section which <br /> was necessary to include. He reviewed the staff report including the wording of the ordinance, as <br /> well as the findings and enforcement sections. He stated this imposes a legal restriction on the <br /> City and employees and agents, violation of which would be a misdemeanor. He stated that this <br /> is more than a policy, it is a law. He stated for the record,the question of the mask mandate came <br /> up. He explained it was excluded in the event that a resident who needs a mask for medical reasons <br /> and requests service of a City employee, if that employee doesn't want to wear a mask or refuses <br /> service, they can face criminal charges under this ordinance. <br /> Councilmember Riley asked for clarity, that the resolution already lays out a policy that the City <br /> can't do everything that is in this ordinance but this ordinance takes it another step further creating <br /> a criminal penalty. He asked for elaboration. <br /> City Attorney Knaak explained that the Council has already adopted a strong statement of policy <br /> regarding vaccinations and what the policy of the City is and an employee that violates it could be <br /> subject to discipline and consequences. With the ordinance, the City is imposing on City <br /> employees and agents, a criminal consequence for that conduct. It is a higher level. He stated that <br /> prosecution of a City employee may have to be done by someone other than the City prosecutor. <br /> He stated on the other hand, if the Council wants to state emphatically the City's position that this <br /> is considered discrimination and that it is a right,this does that. He noted whether that needs to be <br /> done is up to the Council. <br /> Councilmember Riley asked City Attorney Knaak, speaking as the legal representative for the City <br /> Council, if this is a smart idea in his opinion or if they would be inviting extra risk. <br /> City Attorney Knaak replied that will be up to the Council to decide and he didn't want to make a <br /> decision that is for the Council to make. He stated that when this was first brought to his attention, <br /> he thought the Council would do a resolution or an ordinance and was surprised that both are <br /> before the Council tonight because he thought it would be one or the other but that is allowed, <br /> especially if they are trying to emphasize things. He felt enforcing it would be interesting but that <br /> common sense would be used. <br /> Mayor Kuzma asked what happens from a legal standpoint to an employee that is charged. <br /> City Attorney Knaak replied it would be like any other crime. <br /> Mayor Kuzma stated that he didn't feel it was necessary because there is nothing that is pushing <br /> the Council to do this and they are grandstanding. He didn't want to see this ordinance come into <br /> play and feels it is a waste of time and effort. He will not be supporting it. <br /> Councilmember Howell stated she will be supporting this. She stated that the ordinance is stronger <br /> and broader, which is important to her. She felt that this covers other issues and things in the <br /> future. She stated there has been so much discrimination in the State. She cited St. Paul and <br /> Minneapolis and how the employees have been treated. She stated that discrimination is never <br /> acceptable even if the majority is pushing it. She feels the Council's job in representing the <br /> City Council/February 8, 2022 <br /> Page 19 of 23 <br />