Laserfiche WebLink
19, because it is either relevant to protect people’s right to medical freedom or it isn’t. She didn’t <br />see the point to narrowing it so much but wanted to see it more general and offer a counter point <br />to cities like Minneapolis and St. Paul. She continued if it is hard to recruit employees, maybe <br />some of them would want to come to Ramsey. She saw a lot of value in pursuing this, reframing <br />it as an ordinance, and seeing what it would look like to be more welcoming to everyone and be <br />different. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove agreed with Councilmember Howell in having it be more general and <br />understanding that other vaccinations can be mandated where before it was optional. Policies have <br />been instituted in hospital settings, for example, in regard to the flu shot where there have been <br />monetary incentives, which she opposes. She noted some of the statements in the resolution that <br />are similar and recommended going through it as a Council to come up with a consensus. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht commented that he thought it would be good to have a resolution out there <br />as a statement to make it known that the City of Ramsey supports medical freedom. He felt it was <br />important to have their voice heard as a majority of the Council being in support of this on behalf <br />of the residents. He also felt that what happens with the Supreme Court would then decide if an <br />ordinance would be necessary and what could be done. <br /> <br />Councilmember Heineman commented his opinion was that the vaccine mandate, according to the <br />City Attorney, is going to be decided soon. What he is concerned about is this new era of executive <br />orders that could be seen as overbearing and unconstitutional. He was not as concerned with some <br />of the specifics of COVID-19 and would like to see something more general. He suggested <br />wording along the lines that the City is not complying with anything that infringes on individual <br />liberties as outlined in the Constitution. As far as the current resolution, he felt they could wait a <br />week but didn’t think it was going to stop with the COVID vaccine because it seemed to snowball <br />after mask mandates. He felt there would be more based on an overbearing government and <br />suggested keeping the wording more simple to not state the City will not comply with anything <br />that is not constitutional. <br /> <br />Mayor Kuzma repeated that it is not an issue now and waiting a week would be better than trying <br />to prepare for something that is unknown. <br /> <br />Councilmember Heineman commented he thinks that regardless of what the Supreme Court <br />decides, strong language should be put forth on this issue and the next issue that comes up. <br /> <br />Mayor Kuzma commented that the other side of this is that if this comes down as mandatory, no <br />matter the source, the law is the law. His personal opinion is that he is not ready to go against a <br />law alone as a City and get into a court case which would be expensive. <br /> <br />Councilmember Heineman replied if the Supreme Court decides that OSHA has the authority to <br />do that, unfortunately it would be a constitutional order at that point. He felt there would still be <br />a need for something for the future. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell questioned if this would be broad enough and not focus on the most <br />contemporary issue or does it seem too narrow. <br />City Council Work Session / January 11, 2022 <br />Page 10 of 15 <br /> <br />