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