After listening to more than two hours of public comment, the Clark County Council voted 4-1 to reject a mini-initiative calling for an ordinance to ban discriminatory mandates — specifically mask and vaccine mandates — during its meeting Tuesday evening.
Councilor Eileen Quiring O’Brien was the sole vote in favor of the ordinance.
The mini-initiative was the first successful voter-led petition allowed under the county charter to be brought to the council. Organizers from the Clark County Group, led by Rob Anderson, gathered over 11,500 signatures, more than the 8,300 required by the county.
Anderson said the 11,500 signatures gathered over two months represented 10 percent of the total voters in the last election and should not be ignored. He said the existing vaccine and mask mandates discriminate against indivi-duals who haven’t received the COVID-19 vaccine.
“Up until recently, parents had to watch their unvaccinated students in school do invasive testing multiple times a week to play sports while the vaccinated students didn’t,” Anderson said. “The unvaccinated were forced out of jobs because companies unfairly refused medical and religious objections, and now dozens upon dozens, hundreds of businesses are requiring vaccine passports.”
Several callers claimed the COVID-19 vaccines are still “experimental” and should not be required. However, the FDA gave full authorization to the Pfizer vaccine in August and authorization to the Moderna vaccine this week.
While most of those commenting called to support the proposed ordinance, some opposed the measure.
“Clark County does not have the authority to override state and federal mandates,” said resident Jackie Lane. “It flies in the face of private property rights to punitively deny building or land-use permits. It counters public health practices and professional recommendations and puts the public at risk during an all-time high number of COVID cases in the state and Clark County.”
Ousters threatened
Quite a few callers took a more aggressive tone to make their point and threatened to oust the sitting councilors if they didn’t vote for the measure.
Some took it a step further.
“You have three choices: You can vote yes on this initiative and stand with the people to take our freedoms and our power back, you can resign if you’re too scared to stand up against the state and federal government … or you can vote no and cement your treason in public record for when the tribunals come for all the elected officials and school board members who have abused our children, have killed our family members,” Brent Simpson said.
Simpson suggested the council “get on the right side of history” or join other elected officials who will face a “historical form of punishment for treason.”
Counter to state law
Before taking a vote, the council waived attorney-client privilege to allow legal counsel to share advice given to the council during executive session on the ordinance. Leslie Lopez from the prosecuting attorney’s office said the ordinance would be counter to state law. She noted that the county can only enact ordinances that do not conflict with state law.
The petition’s claim that vaccine mandates cannot be enforced without violating the privacy rule of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, commonly known as HIPAA, was incorrect because HIPAA laws do not apply and do not prohibit employers from asking about vaccination status, Lopez added.
Had the county passed the ordinance, Lopez said, it would risk losing about $47 million in funding from state and federal programs and another $97 million in American Rescue Plan Act funds already allocated.
‘I can’t vote for that’
Councilor Karen Bowerman said the ordinance would essentially discriminate against people who are immunocompromised, and “I can’t vote for that.” She also said that while she doesn’t support the mandates proposed or enacted by the state and federal government for private businesses, she also didn’t support taking away their ability to protect their customers or patients.
“We can’t do what this mini-initiative wants us to do. It would be a violation of law, plain and simple,” Councilor Gary Medvigy said.
He also said he didn’t appreciate the threatening tone of some commenters.
“I always thought of George Washington as our first and premier patriot. He was probably the first in our country — in a time of dire need — to save it, to create it. He ordered his troops … struggling in Valley Forge to get vaccinated because they needed to save our country’s force,” Medvigy said. “Are we now changing history? He wouldn’t be a patriot today?”
