PACIFIC COUNTY — The clock is ticking down for healthcare workers to either get fully vaccinated against covid-19 or seek medical or religious exemptions by Oct. 18 to comply with Gov. Jay Inslee’s state mandate.

After two weeks of uncertainty, two Pacific County commissioners have partially set aside their personal opinions in order to establish a county exemption resolution.

Round one: Yay or nay

Commissioners Lisa Olsen, Michael Runyon and Frank Wolfe met Sept. 20 to re-discuss the topic after a 2-1 split during a meeting on Sept. 2, when Olsen and Runyon voted nay at the resolution’s first attempt.

Both cited personal objections to the vaccine mandate, while Wolfe said he was in favor of protecting county workers and the public from virus spread by unvaccinated individuals.

The resolution’s failure left county health department workers who are declining to get a vaccine in limbo without a process for them to apply for a medical or religious exemption.

Under the governor’s mandate, workers need to have at least one shot of the Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine by Oct. 4 or a single dose of Johnson and Johnson.

Olsen and Runyon cited an order by the Cowlitz County Commissioners that established their county would not mandate a vaccine as a condition of employment. They asked Prosecutor Ben Haslam to work with Cowlitz officials to draft a similar order, but he noted his legal stance was unlikely to change.

Instead, he urged the county to adopt the resolution he provided. The revised one he submitted last week for reconsideration was nearly identical. Only minor changes were made, for example removing the county as the decider and instead specifying department directors or direct supervisors will make exemption decisions.

Exemptions

The resubmitted resolution would allow employees with medical or strongly held religious beliefs to request an exemption from the governor’s order. Each employee would have to fill out a request form and provide additional documents supporting their claim. The county also would have the authority to request additional supporting documents.

Also within the resolution, the county would have the option to request, in combination with approval of an exemption, for the employee to be subjected to covid-19 testing or be moved to a position not having direct contact with the public.

The decision process for claims is three parts: written request, approval, or denial. If denied, the employee has the option to seek reconsideration directly by the commissioners.

All requests are anticipated to be processed and decided within three days of submission.

Round two

Already tossed out by two of the three commissioners on Sept. 2, the trio sat at their respective chairs on Sept. 20 and re-debated the hot topic with County Health Director Katie Lindstrom, Risk Manager Kathy Spoor, Haslam and Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Amy McCulloch all in attendance either in-person or via Zoom.

“I think we all understand this is a bit of a moving target in particular, with some announcements that are coming out from the federal level. We have not seen how that impacts us directly or not,” Spoor said.

Olsen noted the new policy doesn’t necessarily apply to county employees outside the commissioners’ direct chain of command — a factor that led to some of her opposition during the previous meeting.

“I am a little more comfortable that it is not necessary a county-wide policy at this point because the commissioners as a body don’t have the ability to provide recourse to any other elected officials’ employees,” she said.

“So, I was a little confused about the language in regards to whether or not it was under the purview of the departments we oversee or whether it was under the whole county. This particularly will basically be for the purview of the commissioner’s office and the departments we oversee,” Olsen added.

Olsen further noted that if the “target” continues to move, the commissioners will meet with other elected officials and determine the next course of action, including establishing additional policies.

Wolfe motioned to approve the resolution as written and was seconded by Runyon and was followed by Olsen, who wanted to offer an additional comment.

“I was never against putting something together to protect the employees,” Olsen said. “I wanted to do that all along. But I have to say from a personal perspective, I still adamantly disagree with this mandate.”

Runyon added to her comment stating, “I also disagree with it, but I think what we put together here will help for now. I do not agree with the mandate whatsoever.”

Wolfe did not offer comments before the commissioners passed the resolution as written 3-0.

Federal deadline looming

President Joe Biden took executive action on Sept. 9, ordering all companies and government agencies that have 100 or more employees to require employees to be vaccinated or require weekly covid-19 testing for those who decline the vaccine.

“Our patience has worn thin, and your refusal has cost all of us,” Biden stated in a televised address regarding the vaccine refusers. “We’re going to protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated co-workers. We’re going to reduce the spread of covid-19 by increasing the share of the workforce that is vaccinated in businesses all across America.”

The deadline has not yet been made clear, but some government agencies have informed workers they will have until Nov. 22 to be in compliance or risk termination.

According to Spoor, the county has yet to receive any clarification from either the state or federal governments on compliance.