[Town Council Special Meeting on August 2, 2021.]
[00:00:03]
SO I GUESS JUST TO CLARIFY, SO THIS IS THE VERSION THAT THE ONE THAT WE JUST RECEIVED AS THE ONE THAT WE, UM, SO AS I, AS I SAID THIS MORNING, YOUR PRINTS OUT ON THE TOWN.I WASN'T SURE HOW THIS IS BEING CIRCULATED.
UM, I THINK THAT, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE ON PRINCIPLE TO THE IDEA THAT WE WOULD LIKE BUSINESSES IN TOWN.
THERE WAS A RESOLUTION, THERE IS A RESOLUTION, UH, THAT WE WANTED TO, UM, PASS ALONG THOSE LINES, UM, SUPPORTED.
AND ACTUALLY, IF I HAD MORE TIME BEFORE LAST MONDAY, THE MEETING, I WOULD HAVE PROPOSED AS A BACKUP, BUT, UM, IN THE FORM THAT THIS IS WRITTEN, IT'S ASKING ME TO, TO THE OPPOSITE LEGAL POSITION, THE ONE THAT I ARTICULATED MONDAY.
SO ACTUALLY, I MEAN, IN ORDER TO GET THERE, IT MISSTATES THE LAW, WHICH IS, I MEAN, MAYBE, MAYBE THIS IS ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO, TO EXPRESS WHAT I'M, WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO SAY FOR A LONG TIME.
AND MAYBE I'M JUST NOT SAYING IT PROPERLY, BUT, UM, I'M ASKING A SPECIFIC LEGAL QUESTION.
DOES THIS TOWN HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, TO PASS THIS ORDINANCE? AND I'M CITING PROVISIONS FROM THE TOWN CHARTER, WHICH I THINK, UM, STRONGLY IMPLIED THAT I COULD GO BACK TO LEGAL ANALYSIS THERE.
AND THEN WHEN WE PUT IT TO TWO OR ILLEGAL ANALYSIS, THE RESPONSE WE GET IS THIS STATE, WE'RE AN EMPLOYER IS EMPOWERED TO MANDATE A VACCINE, WHICH IS NOT THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION THAT I'M ASKING.
AND IT DOESN'T REFUTE WHAT, UM, THE LEGAL POSITION SAYING, BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.
IF YOU'RE HAVING A DISCUSSION, THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION WOULD BE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
AND SO, SO EXAMPLE, FOR EXAMPLE, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION GUIDANCE DOES NOT SAY IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THE TOWN OF FRONT ROYAL OR ANY TOWN ANYWHERE IN AMERICA CAN NOT PASS AN ORDINANCE, ALLOWING A VACCINE MANDATE.
HERE'S THE, HERE'S THE EEO GUIDANCE RIGHT HERE, THE FEDERAL E O Y.
AND BY THE WAY, THAT THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT OR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, THEY HAVE JURISDICTION OVER, OVER LIKE A HANDFUL OF LAWS.
THEY DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER EMPLOYMENT.
GENERALLY THEY HAVE JURISDICTION A QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE'S RACE DISCRIMINATION, SEX DISCRIMINATION, DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION, REHABILITATION DISCRIMINATION.
SO IF YOU'RE A FORMER DRUG OR ALCOHOL, SO IT'S LIKE FIVE OR SIX LAWS THAT THEY, THAT THEY HAVE, YOU KNOW, ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, BUT THEIR GUIDANCE SAYS FEDERAL EEO LAWS, WHICH WOULD BE THAT, THAT SUITE THAT I JUST DESCRIBED DO NOT PREVENT AN EMPLOYER FROM REQUIRING ALL EMPLOYEES, PHYSICALLY ENTERING THE WORKPLACE TO BE VACCINATED FOR COVID 19, WHICH IS WHICH ANSWERS A DIFFERENT QUESTION FROM THE QUESTION OF WHETHER WE HAVE LEGAL AUTHORITY IN OUR CHARTER TO PASS AN ORDINANCE, JUST ALLOWING IF BUSINESSES IN OUR, IN OUR TOWN, UH, FROM MANDATING IN THE MORNINGS.
AND SO VIRGINIA STATUTORY AUTHORITY, THERE IS IN OUR DISCUSSION THAT I'VE SEEN, THERE'S BEEN NOTHING DIRECTLY ON POINT ON THAT.
VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL IS LEGAL, JU GENERAL OPINIONS, NOTHING DIRECTLY ON THAT POINT, CASE LAW FROM JAY VIRGINIA AND ELSEWHERE, NOTHING TO THAT POINT.
AND ACTUALLY I HAVE, UM, CASE LAW TO MY POINT, UM, INCLUDING THE U S SUPREME COURT, NOTHING ON THAT POINT, WHEN HAS THE SUPREME COURT SAID ANYWHERE THAT A TOWN CANNOT PREVENT AN EMPLOYER FROM MANDATING A VACCINE, IT'S NEVER SAID THAT THIS SUPREME COURT DECISION IN JACOBSON, JUST TALKING ABOUT WHETHER A LOCAL ORDINANCE CAN MANDATE A VACCINE, WHICH BY THE WAY, I'VE MADE THE POINT.
IF WE HAVE THE POWER TO TELL EVERYBODY IN TOWN THAT THEY HAVE TO GET
[00:05:01]
A VACCINE, HOW COULD WE NOT HAVE THE POWER TO SAY THAT A BUSINESS CAN'T OKAY.BACK TO THE CASE I'VE BEEN MAKING FOR THE IDEA THAT WE HAVE OUR TOWN CHARTER, THIS IS WHAT THE STATE GRANTED US AUTHORITY TO DO.
I'LL JUST READ IT AGAIN FOR EVERYBODY.
AND IS THIS PRETTY, OR YOUR ORDINANCE PROPELS, RIGHT? YEAH, BECAUSE THE WARDEN, IT SAYS, WHAT ORDINANCES ARE THE RESOLUTION? YEAH.
THE RESOLUTION SAYS THAT UPON THE ADVICE OF THE TASK TOWN OR FRONT ROYAL HAS EXPERIENCED LEGAL COUNSEL, INCLUDING LEGAL COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION, CASE LAW IN VIRGINIA AND ELSEWHERE, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES, VERY RECENT FEDERAL COURT CASES.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TEXAS AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, INDIANA.
BOTH OF THOSE ARE THE QUESTION IN TEXAS IS THE QUESTION, CAN A HOSPITAL MANDATE, UH, THEIR EMPLOYEES TO GET THE VACCINE IN INDIANA IT'S CAN, UH, CAN A SCHOOL.
I BELIEVE IT'S A PRIVATE INSTITUTION OF HIGHER LEARNING.
CAN THEY MANDATE THE VACCINE AGAIN? THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION AT HAND.
AND SO THE KEY TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS RESOLUTION, I WOULD SAY IF WE TOOK THIS PARAGRAPH OUT, IF WE TOOK THIS SECOND PARAGRAPH OUT HERE, THAT MARK, AND THEN THIS THIRD ONE, IF THE TOWN COUNCIL HAD THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ENACT THE, IN AN ORDINANCE PROPOSED BY COUNCILMAN LOYD AND COUNCILMAN PAT, AND BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, WE WOULD HAVE PASSED IT.
I MEAN, I CAN'T VOTE FOR THAT BECAUSE IT'S, YOU'RE, YOU'RE PUTTING, YOU'RE PUTTING AN ISSUE, THE VERY THINGS THAT WE WERE ARGUING ON MONDAY NIGHT AND JUST RESTATING BASICALLY THE, THE, TO YOUR SIDE OF THE, OF THE LEGAL DISPUTE THAT WE HAD ON MONDAY NIGHT.
AND SO WE WANT TO HAVE A RESOLUTION THAT JUST SAYS, YOU KNOW, LET'S HOLD HANDS AND SAY THAT EMPLOYERS SHOULD NOT BE MANDATING VACCINES.
I WOULD SAY, LET'S DO IT BY, UH, MODIFYING WHAT WE'VE GOT HERE AND JUST KEEPING IT TO THE ISSUE, YOU KNOW, TO THE QUESTION SHOULD, DO WE THINK MORALLY THAT, UH, EMPLOYERS SHOULD BE MANDATING THEIR PEOPLE TO GET THE VACCINE.
IF WE WANT TO KEEP IT TO THE POLICY OR THE MORAL QUESTION, OR HOWEVER YOU WANT TO CHARACTERIZE IT, LET'S GO.
WE CAN HAVE A UNANIMOUS, WE CAN HAVE A UNANIMOUS VOTE TONIGHT, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE MY VOTE.
IF YOU INSIST ON PUTTING THE LEGAL ISSUE IN PLAY, WHICH IS STILL IN DISPUTE.
WELL, SCOTT, WHAT WE WANT TO DO TONIGHT.
ANYWAY, WE'RE GOING TO ASK, UH, FOR A SECOND LEGAL OPINION AND WE'RE ALSO GOING TO TAKE, AND I ASKED FOR AN EIGHTIES OPINION, ALL OF THAT.
SO, UH, ABOUT YOUR PROPOSAL ORDINANCE, IF IT WAS, UH, LEGAL, IF WE COULD ENFORCE IT OR NOT, BUT TO BE ABLE TO, AS THIS RESOLUTION, AS THIS RESOLUTION IS RIGHT NOW, I MEAN, I LIKE THE WAY IT IS AND YOU DON'T WANT TO CHANGE IT.
SO YOU SAID HAD RESOLUTION BEEN OFFERED, UH, PREVIOUSLY YOU WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED IT ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.
WHEN YOU SAID ORDINANCE, WE SAID, HEY, SCOTT, WE CAN DO A RESOLUTION OR WE CAN'T DO AN ORDINANCE.
AND YOU ADAMANTLY, NO, YOU REFUSED AND SAID THAT YOU WANTED AN ORDINANCE.
YOU WANT IT VOTED UPON, REGARDLESS OF WHAT DOUG SAID, THAT'S HOW YOU WERE THE ONLY ONE VOTING FOR IT.
YOU SAID YOU WANTED IT TO GO AS AN ORDINANCE.
THAT'S THAT? WE TALK ABOUT OUR OFFICERS AND BACKING THE BLUE AND ALL OF THAT STUFF, WHICH I DO BY THE WAY.
UM, THEY COULDN'T, IF YOU, IF THAT ORDINANCE WENT THROUGH, THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO RIGHT AWAY TO GO ISSUE WARRANT.
CAUSE IF THEY'RE NOT IN LINE WITH, WHAT'S ACTUALLY LEGAL AND ASKING AGAINST THE LEGAL COUNCIL, THOSE OFFICERS ARE PERSONALLY HELD ACCOUNTABLE AND RESPONSIBLE IF THEY DO THAT OUTSIDE OF THAT.
SO IT WASN'T JUST PUTTING PEOPLE AT RISK OF THINKING THE WRONG THING.
YOU'RE ALSO PUTTING THESE OFFICERS' LIVELIHOODS AT RISK.
IF THEY GO OUT AND PUSH, THEN YOU GOT FROM WHEN YOU WERE COUNSELING, WHERE'D YOU GET THAT? THAT IS A LEGAL ISSUE.
WELL, I MEAN, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU WERE REPRESENTING ERC WALL TO ME, I ASKED YOU TO PLEASE CITE WHAT YOU WERE SAYING.
I TOLD YOU THAT IF THEIR WEBSITE, LIKE YOU LOOK AND I'M THINKING, IF YOU COME TO ARGUE SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT EMPLOYERS ARE DOING, YOU
[00:10:01]
GO TO THE EOC WEBSITE.LIKE, ISN'T THAT JUST KIND OF LIKE WHERE YOU GO, BUT, UM, AND I READ DIRECTLY FROM THEIR QUOTING AND TOLD YOU WHERE IT WAS, BUT IT'S OKAY.
UM, I AM LIKELY VOTING NO ON THIS AFTER READING IT SEVERAL TIMES.
AND I KNEW THAT DISAPPOINTMENT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER THAT'S FINE, BUT I AM, I HAD TO REREAD IT FOR CONSISTENCY WITH MYSELF.
I AM WHAT I SAY AT THE END OF THE DAY.
I THINK WE SHOULD JUST STAY OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESSES.
IF THIS HAD COME THROUGH FIRST, IT WOULD'VE BEEN AN EASY THING, BUT NOW WE'VE ALREADY PUT OUT AN ORDINANCE.
WE'VE REJECTED THAT WE'RE COMING BACK AND WE'RE DOING THIS.
AND AGAIN, THERE'S STILL ROOM HERE.
EVEN WITH THIS BEING A RESOLUTION, THAT'S REPEATEDLY SAYING RESOLUTION, NOT ORDINANCE, THERE'S STILL A CHANCE OF PEOPLE GETTING CONFUSED AND THINKING THEY HAVE SOME PROTECTION THAT THEY DON'T HAVE FROM ANY EMPLOYER, WHETHER IT'S NURSING OR WHATEVER.
CAUSE THERE'S OTHER BUSINESSES.
AND I'VE, I'VE PUBLICLY EXPRESSED MY OPINION OF IT.
LIKE, I DON'T THINK THAT BUSINESSES SHOULD BE MANDATED.
I'VE PERSONALLY STAYED AT THAT.
I THINK WE ALL STATED THAT AT THE MEETING.
UM, IF WE HAD NOT ALL STAYED AT THAT AT THE MEETING, MAYBE A RESOLUTION WITH THE NECESSARY CAUSE IN OUR OPINION NEEDS TO BE OUT THERE, BUT WE ALL STATED IT.
UM, LIKE I SAID, I HAD TO GO THROUGH THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES, A COUPLE OF HOURS TODAY, BUT, UM, THAT'S WHERE I'M STANDING ON THIS.
WE STAY OUT OF IT AT THIS POINT.
IT'S, IT'S ALMOST A MOOT POINT, RIGHT? LIKE WE, WE WENT THROUGH THE ORIGIN THAT DIDN'T GO.
UM, AND LIKE I SAID, I WOULDN'T BE COMFORTABLE EVEN WITH THIS AND THINKING THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT, EXCUSE ME, RUN WITH THIS AND EMPLOYER LIKE, WELL, THE TOWN SAYS WE'RE FINE AND THEY'RE NOT FINE.
UM, SO IT IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE? CAN WE HAVE A ROLL-TO-ROLL? SHOULD I JUST GO ON IMMERSION? UM, I'VE ALREADY ASKED FOR A ROLL CALL.
I WOULD JUST ASK SOMEBODY TO GO TO YES.
COUNCILMAN GILLESPIE TELLS MY LAWYER CALIFORNIAN.
NEXT A CLOSE MEETING INTERVIEWS.
MR. MAYOR, I MOVE THE COUNTDOWN.
THE SECTION 2.2 DASH 37, 11 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES.
THE PURPOSE OF ASSIGNMENT, APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, PERFORMANCE, DEMOTION SALARIES, DISCIPLINING, AND RESIGNATION OF SPECIFIC PUBLIC OFFICER'S APPOINTEES ARE EMPLOYEES OF A PUBLIC BODY UNDER SUBSECTION EIGHT POINT, SORRY, CATHERINE GILLESPIE.
HOUSEMEN LLOYD FANDOMS COUNCILMAN THOMPSON, WHERE I MOVED THAT COUNCIL CERTIFIED THAT'S THE BEST KNOWLEDGE THAT'S RECOGNIZED BY EACH COUNCIL MEMBERS AFFIRMING THE VOGUE THAT ONLY SAYS PUBLIC BUSINESS MATTERS.
LAWFULLY EXEMPTED FROM OPEN MEETING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE VIRGINIA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AS WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE MOTION BY WHICH THE CLOSED MEETING WAS CONVENED WERE HEARD, DISCUSSED, OR CONSIDERED IN THE CLOSED LEANING BACK COUNCIL AND LET THE VOTE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF COUNCIL BE TAKEN BY ROLL CALL AND RECORDED AND INCLUDED IN THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COUNTY COUNCIL COCKRELL.