Minutes - Council - 02/22/2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Attorney Knaak replied no, it wouldn’t change anything but that isn’t to say it wouldn’t be problematic if they are trying to do something for someone that doesn’t want them to do it. He advised that is outside the scope of this ordinance. Councilmember Woestehoff commented this is written very clearly that it is unlawful for any illegal discrimination specifically to those who have not been vaccinated or those who have not undergone any medical procedure and asked if it could be read as the reverse is true too. City Attorney Knaak replied that is exactly what this does and using that status to deny service would be a violation of this ordinance. Councilmember Howell thanked City Attorney Knaak for taking the Council’s ideas and putting them together. Motion by Councilmember Howell, seconded by Councilmember Heineman, to adopt Ordinance #22-14 An Amendment to Section 34 Of the Ramsey City Code to Enforcement of Public Health, Adding Two New Provisions Thereto Regarding to the Protection of Individual Choices of Medical Treatments. Further discussion: Councilmember Riley commented that although he didn’t disagree with the sentiments of the ordinance, a resolution was passed that made this duplicative for no reason. He stated he will not be supporting this. Mayor Kuzma stated this is not necessary because there are no mandates at this time making them do this. He felt it was a waste of time and money spent on the attorney’s time and he will not be supporting this. Councilmember Heineman commented he thought the statement “a waste of time” is a matter of opinion, which he didn’t believe is true. He stated executives at a State level have made decisions for residents with the notion that it may be unconstitutional but at some point, it could get reversed and until then, stick with the mandate. He felt this provides a proactive approach, didn’t feel this would go away because there may be another health crisis and more executive orders will come, and being proactive about is not a waste of time or resources. He stated he fully supports this. Councilmember Musgrove stated she will support this because government should not be looked to for medical guidance but to medical providers as individuals. Councilmember Woestehoff commented that he won’t be supporting this because of concern regarding to the wording “to employees or its agents to force disclosure” he felt at some point the insurance company, which may be an agent of the City, could ask questions that would be in contradiction to this. He continued that other situations could come up and he didn’t want any employee to not help someone because of it, but he understood the intent of this is to show support for those who chose not to be vaccinated or to do medical procedures. He thought there was a time and place to look at the collective, such as seat belt requirements for public safety. He stated there are other items in government at all levels that have some implication for public safety. He also commented that the Council felt comfortable when it came to crime free multi-housing, making sure there is awareness of someone who made bad choices at one point in their life may not be afforded a housing opportunity. He stated he couldn’t support this. Councilmember Howell objected to the statement that the Council supports crime-free multi- housing and discrimination because that discussion hasn’t been finished. She stated comparing this to seatbelt laws is different from someone else being required to inject something into their City Council / February 22, 2022 Page 20 of 34