Grambling imposes employee vaccine mandate

GRAMBLING — After much debate, the Grambling City Council approved a vaccine mandate for city employees at its Thursday meeting.

The mandate requires all city employees to be vaccinated by Nov. 15. The move comes after reports surfaced that several employees refused to be vaccinated or wear a mask around the workplace.

The measure passed unanimously, but it was not a clear-cut decision. Mayor Ed Jones, the council, and Grambling Police Chief Tommy Clark, Jr., each had their input about the decision before the vote was final.

When the agenda item was introduced the city’s legal counsel, Pamela Breedlove, explained the proposed mandate after Jones introduced it to the council. Breedlove gave the specifics of the mandate and described the measure as “protecting not only the city’s other employees but the citizens of Grambling as well.”

The mandate does make allowances for those who have a pre-existing medical condition and those with verifiable religious objections that deter them from receiving the vaccine.

The two accommodations must be documented through a form that the city will dispense to those who want an exemption from the workplace mandate. If a medical exemption is being claimed by an employee, they must have the form and all related paperwork signed and verified from their primary care physician or attending doctor.

Should an employee receive an exemption, the city has stated that extra measures will be taken, such as requiring the unvaccinated worker to consistently wear a mask and socially distance, extra cleaning supplies given to keep their space sanitized or more cleanings of office spaces.

“Mandating vaccinations is clearly legal,” said Breedlove. “We have employees that have regular contact with the public. It is then a health issue as well as a financial issue, so we need to make sure all of our employees are safe and not infecting members of the community.”

The decision was made to introduce the mandate after Breedlove and Jones noticed that there were quite a few neighboring cities and towns that had to close offices because an employee had gotten infected.

The originally proposed date for employees to be vaccinated was Oct. 1, but council member Yanise Dayes questioned the date, saying that it was too soon with it already being September. Her concern centered on the vaccine efficacy time between doses when it came to choosing a deadline.

“Considering if they (employees) are unable to get the one-shot vaccine, being that today is Sept. 2, it is not going to be feasible for all of them to be fully vaccinated by October 1,” Dayes said.

The suggestion was made to extend the date to mid-October to give more time for employees to get the shot or their medical paperwork for an exemption prepared for submission. The exemption documentation verifying period in reference to the mandate made some like Mayor Pro Tempore Toby B. Bryan uncomfortable, and he made sure it was known during the meeting.

When the debate came about, he expressed concerns about imposing a mandate and employees being able to get in to their doctors to have the proper documentation in the finite time limit.

Breedlove replied that responsibility would play a factor if an employee really needed a medical exemption from the vaccine.

“I haven’t had a problem getting to a doctor in 45 days (about one and a half months),” said Breedlove. “If this becomes a condition of your employment then as an adult then you need to call and get an appointment with your doctor. If you have a pre-existing condition, then you already know you have it. 45 days is the longest I’ve seen and the longer you put it off, the more risk you bring to other employees.”

Another potential problem posed by Bryan dealt with sick time if an employee became ill after receiving the vaccine. He posed the following question to press for an answer about employees using their sick leave.

“Say an employee does get the shot, and two days later they get sick,” Bryan asked. “Are we also not allowing them to use their sick time because we are forcing them to get the shot?”

Councilwoman Cathy Holmes said that other businesses are requiring employees that became briefly ill while the vaccine took effect to use their own sick days, but they would be paid. Bryan echoed and agreed with her opinion. Breedlove also agreed and stated that would be the case for the city’s employees in this situation.

Clark gave examples of why a vaccine would be needed for his officers. Though almost all of his department is vaccinated, he expressed an urgency for vaccinations to protect not only them but the public and make responding to calls safer.

He said that Grambling citizens, which includes a large number of elderly residents, expressed real concerns about public servants being vaccinated when they come into contact with them. He also gave two anecdotes about he and his officers going out on call and coming into contact with citizens who were unvaccinated and later found to have COVID-19.

“Three citizens, I know of, when they call for services, they tell the dispatcher, ‘Don’t send them out here if they haven’t been vaccinated,’” said Clark. “So, citizens are aware, and they are concerned about it.”

Toward the end of the discussion, Bryan gave his final comments on the mandate, saying that the city should strongly encourage and not mandate that employees be vaccinated.

He pointed out that several other entities, such as some hospitals, hadn’t mandated the shot yet.

Jones implored the council on this matter as he expressed the seriousness of enacting the measure. He talked about a few employees who refused to be vaccinated or wear a mask around the office and coming into close contact with other employees.

“Personally, I want to live,” Jones said. “People come into the office that hadn’t been vaccinated and did not have their masks on. That is not fair to me, and then I have to go home to my two grandkids who cannot be vaccinated because they are not old enough. That is not fair.”